Slashdot Mirror
Movie Review: John Q
The plot is pretty simple. Denzel Washington plays John Quincy Archibald, a beleaguered working class guy in Chicago whose hours at the factory have been reduced and whose car has just been repo'd. He is catching guff about money from his wife (Denise Archibald), and the couple has a cute and loving kid Mike (Daniel Smith) who collapses during a baseball game.
It turns out that Mike needs a heart transplant, which the nasty hospital administrator (Anne Heche) informs John will cost $250,000, an operation his insurance policy doesn't come close to covering. The Archibald's sell of nearly everything they own to try and raise the money to pay the hospital and the greedy, uncaring surgeon (James Woods) and as Mike slips closer to dying, John snaps and takes over the hospital emergency room.
Robert Duvall plays Lt. Frank Grimes, an aging hostage negotiator undermined by his idiot boss (Ray Liotta). Almost everybody in this movie is a cliche -- the uncaring administrator, the political and bumbling police chief, the saintly, too-good-to-be true John Archibald, whose solution to his very valid complaints about the American health care system -- a solution much endorsed by the movie -- is to get a gun and take over the emergency room while patients bleed and give birth. Even while holding hostages at gunpoint, Washington's character is noble, even saintly. Washington is a great actor and he is a likeable hero here, but the plot just takes too many loopy twists and turns. Everyone in the film is either a cartoon villain or a noble lifesaver really to preach about the evils of HMOs at the drop of a gun.
The best parts of the movie, not surprisingly, occur when Duvall and Washington are sparking off one another. But unaccountably, there are so many silly plot contortions that the power of that great pairing is lost. Director Nick Cassavetes and writer James Kearns twist their movie into a pretzel trying to deal with all of the potential racial, class and political sensibilities. To balance all the evil doctors, there are some wonderful ones.
To avoid the appearance of hitting racial issues too hard, Archibald's friends are all white. In addition to the stupid police chief (is any authority figure in America ever competent in a Hollywood movie?), there's a woman-beater and an airhead, vain TV reporter.
I won't give away the ending, but it's fun watching the moviemakers wrestle with a dilemma of their own making. The movie seems to be saying that the best way to deal with your insurer is to get a weapon and take some hostages. Unlike the heroes of Dog Day Afternoon, perhaps the classic modern hostage movie, John Archibald is saintly and noble enough to run for President. So what becomes of our Dad/kidnapper? You'll have to see the movie to find out. It's entertaining, and it's almost sure to be a big hit. But even a superstar can't mask a silly story.
Perhaps its indicative of the current violent atmosphere that the filmakers removed the movies teeth.
Plainly speaking, will a movie with a high moral stance fly at the box office atm. I am guessing but i think they will have made some reedits to change the story focus post 9-11.
Stop telling us about the latest crappy movie you've seen. It wore thin a long time ago.
Start telling us about some of the good movies you've seen. Show that you know how to do something more than bitch about how none of the movies these days live up to your l33t intellectual needs, and maybe you'll start seeing posters do more than bitch about what a moron you are.
Just a thought.
Complaining about the US healthcare system? You should take a look at the Canadian system. Around here patients die not because they don't have enough money but because they have to wait a year for a surgery. Some nurses are even refusing to work, others are getting sick. It's a freakin disaster.
Click here - its funny, and its not another www.microsoft.com/whatever@malicioushost.com
"The bad news is that the movie is so hypocritical, heavy-handed and gummed up with silly, sentimental and cliche-stuffed sub-plots that it undermines its own good intentions."
Wasn't that obvious from the TV commercial??
And your own reviews are as welcome as mine.
If my review was as welcome as JonKatz's I'd probably kill myself..
We live in a world (and country) where people can open your chest and give you a new heart if the original one isn't working. This isn't worth $250K? And if you can't afford it, it should be done for "free" (it's not ACTUALLY free, of course.)
Free hearts for everyone!
I'm tired of the friggin' preaching. I don't care how good the actors are.
Evil is the money of root.
Ok, so the kid needs a heart transplant. It's not as if there are tons of matched hearts laying around and one only needs 1/4 mill to get them.
IIRC, hospitals must treat patients regardless of whether they have insurance or not in a life-or-death situation. If the kid was going to die, he would have to receive the heart transplant.
Now, medications and stuff are a whole different story. And, again IIRC, I do not believe heart transplants have a very long life-extension rate. I am rather sure that folks don't live forever with them.
One would think the sheer fact that it is a child would complicate the situation more since a child obviously could not get an adult's heart. So the hospital would need a child of a similar age's heart that was also compatible with the kid's blood type.
It's hard to speak out on an issue using an unrealistic circumstance. Considering that we live in a free market, the fact that so many people who can't afford the level of care they receive are actually getting it.
This is sort of like the senior prescription drug stuff. Elderly individuals that did not live their lives planning to live so long, can be kept artifically alive via medication. What happens in society if we figure out a way to add 20 more years to a persons live (but of the quality that most seniors suffer^H^H^H^H^Henjoy now). Is that a good thing and more importantly, whose going to pay for it?
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
Damn...why isn't this k5
pooptruck
Oh yeah, and everything any person wants they should get! There is such a thing as a free lunch!
Who wouldn't want a heart if they needed a replacement? But *should*? Just because you want something doesn't mean you should get it. Maybe you should think about where the things you get come from; I assure you, it's not a magical cornucopia of abundance. As soon as there is an unlimited supply of everything it'll be free. Until then, STFU.
I don't think this movie "bashes" the HMOs.
First off the father in the movie had insurance (or so he thought). The insurance that he thought he had was supposed to cover this type of surgery. Come to find out that since his working hours at the factory had been cut from Full time to part time his insurance policy had changed as well (although he was not notified of this).
He was also not notified that his company decided to change insurance carriers.
So, it looks to me like his company is partly to blame for not informing about his insurance coverage.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Just recieved my DVD of Mamoru Oshii AVALON by Mamoru Oshii (Ghost in the shell, Patlabor) in the mail the other day, I have watched it twice in two days and will probably see it a few more times this week... it is that good.
The plot centers around a group of people that play an illegal virtual reality game in Poland called Avalon (similer to Unreal Tournament and other 3d shooters). A player can either form parties or go solo, people make a living playing this game. It seems there is a "glitch" in the program that once a player enters the "forbidden plains" they cannot reset (or get out of the game) and are stuck there till the mission is complete.
I cant get to much further into it without giving away plot devices but suffice it to say it is an intense movie.
The movie itself can be described as "live action" anime, with some outstanding computer effects. The language is Japanese AND Polish with English & Chinese subtitles, but there is very little talking.
This movie will leaving you scratching your head till your scalp bleeds!
NOTE: It's a little tricky to find how to activate the subtitles, as all the menus are in Japanese (its the upper right hand menu, select the selected option and then select option 2 on the next screen).
Go ahead mark this offtopic, but at least this movie was worth reviewing...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
The problem with the American health care system is simple:
The American Legal System
The legal system has made it so that doctors can never afford to be wrong and even if they are right, they better have excessive evidence that they are right. I'm a little surprise I didn't see any mention of lawyers in Katz's review, but in real life, more doctors and HMOs are held hostage by lawyers than by guns.
No matter how well (or poorly) it turned out, did no one see the episode of "The Pretender" that was a very similar situation? Two sons take a hospital with shotguns because their father is not getting the replacement heart he needs. Jared is the negotiator...turns out to be crooked HMOs and doctors that cover symptoms for kick-backs. I haven't seen the movie, but much of it sounds the same (except it is streched from a 1 hour series show to a full length movie).
OK... so left wingers and spineless Republicans don't want me and the NRA as a private group can't run ads supporting our cause 60 before the election but Hollywood Liberals can make crap like this supporting their BS cause (where has a universal health care system resulted in better quality care then that in the US?)
A poor guy's kid needs a heart transplant.
The heart transplant costs a QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS.
The guy can't afford it.
The guy takes a gun and steals the procedure.
This makes him a hero?
...
I don't get it.
You know, in some countries, kids die because they can't afford food and clean water.
Oh, wait - this is an *American* kid - that makes this sort of thing OK - I see now...
Sort of makes me wish that they took the money that they used to make the movie and used it to buy food and heart transplants for people that need them rather than for mildly amusing a bunch of well-off people for 90 minutes.
(Yes, I believe that if you have the means to see this movie somehow, you are comparatively well-off, in the grand scheme of things.)
How about this - if you haven't seen the movie yet, *don't*.
Send $15 to UNICEF (or whoever) instead.
This movie strikes me as just another case of *talking* about doing good, rather than actually *doing* something good.
JMHO...
-- My Weblog.
The reimbursment rate of the insurance system is based on the idea "the more life-threatening (and hence expensive), the more you are covered". For a flu, a pair of glasses or straightening your teeth, you are only partially refunded, and because of that people always subscribe to a complementary insurance. For a transplant or a cancer treatment, however expensive, you don't lay down a cent.
First, for those who want a real review, try this page.
I will give Jon credit where credit is due: His overall description of the movie, though poorly written, isn't too far off the mark. But as usual, there's some important information left out. For example, one of the reasons that the director became involved in the movie is because his own child was on a donated organ recipient list. An important tidbit when trying to understand why the movie may be the way it is. Background research never hurt anyone, Jon. If you're gonna use Slashdot's bandwidth to review a movie, at least try to make it somewhat insightful.
Speaking of which, why is this review even included on Slashdot? What is the "geekiness" factor of this movie?
John Q is contemporary Hollywood's idea of an issue movie: preachiness hiding behind a superstar.
*sigh*
Better read as "Jon Katz is Slashdot's idea of a columnist: preachiness hiding behind a Net celebrity."
The bad news is that the movie is so hypocritical, heavy-handed and gummed up with silly, sentimental and cliche-stuffed sub-plots that it undermines its own good intentions.
Umm, Katz?
You did realize that it was an ACTION movie, didn't you?
well said.
--
So John Q snaps and takes the hospital hostage. Not because he is poor or because his son is sick, but because he believes that he should be entitled to free healthcare when it possible to save his son.
How far have we fallen? If a 'national emergency' was declared and the government needed people to setup a computer system to save soldiers lives (yes it wouldn't happen, but just go with me here), would you do it? Some might volunteer, and that'd be noble, but nobody should be required to work for a fraction of what their services are worth.
IANADoctor, but heart transplants seem hard to do, and those who get them don't often survive for long (see that guy in Texas who just died of an artificial one). Knowledge of this area is filled with holes, and I see no reason why a heart transplant wouldn't legitimately cost $250,000.
Yes the kid is sick, and it's a cute kid, who we'd all want to help if we saw him on the street. But charity, while noble, should always be optional. Our health care system seems to have forgotten that long ago if John Q is the kind of guy they expect sympathy for.
Is it a surprise to anyone that this movie is coming out in an election year, and that people are making a fuss about health coverage again? That was the first thought I had when I saw the preview months ago.
Also, in real life, a TV news station would broadcast the situation and there'd be money streaming in from all across the US to help the little boy. Americans have proven that they don't want things like this to happen. Oh well--it's just so hard to suspend disbelief when the movie is trying so hard to hand it back to you...
The irrational among us expect too much advancement in commercial medicine too soon. For example, demanding bargain-basement prices on perscription drugs through law will either kill the suppliers of the drug or prevent research into advancing drug science.... If such laws went into effect in earlier times, most of us wouldn't be here thanks to diseases such as small pox, the flu, and so on. Cancer would be completely untreatable....
Maybe most people expect to much from the commercial medicine community. Maybe I expect to much rational thought from most people.
I believe that was the scenario in the real event upon which this movie was based. For whatever reason, I had more sympathy for the guy who robbed the bank.
Evil is the money of root.
Several years back the wife's friend fell into a coma for no reason at all. The doctors were at a loss to explain why.... About a year later, (when the maximum insurance was about to pass), the hospital said that the our friend had died, but would not say how. The paperwork was somehow "missing"... We all demanded an autopsy, but then the hospital managed to lose his BODY!!! We still don't know what happened, but think its "funny" how all this happened when his lifetime maximum was about to pass. Needless to say, they are battling the hospital in court. The very least, we at least want the body so we can give him a proper burial, but we can't even have that.
Now getting back to the movie...
*** Possible Spoiler ***
When the police/hospital said, "Why don't we just tell him that his son is on the list, how will he ever know"... And then the women said that the hospital will take care of everything.... Coulnd't that in a way be interpreted as a binding oral contract? Just curious...
to send you $15 for your excellent analysis and recommendation. Do you take paypal?
>Complaining about the US healthcare system? You should take a look at the Canadian system. Around here patients die not because they don't have enough money but because they have to wait a year for a surgery.
:) ).
I'll write this anonymously..
Couldn't have said it better myself, especially after tasting it in quebec... at first I thought people were complaining for nothing, and since here in quebec, the people bitching the loudest about the system generally are the people abusing it the most (I did say abusing, not using), I disregarded it. When I was hearing stuff like people go the emergencies when they are caughing a bit in winter, clugging the system, and some are going almost on a daily basis because they have nothing else to do (usually on wealthfare), and when there are good TV shows usually it's quieter at the emergency of any hospitals (that tells a lot), I was all for those moderation thing they wanted to implement (again, those same abusing people seriously opposed to this, they want everything for free and not put any money back in the system, which is really a pathetic issue here that I won't go and discuss because it could start a flamewar
Anyways, when I got seriously sick, I had a taste of the system. Incompetent doctors that thought I was probably faking something to get painkillers (I hated it), they let me rot a while in the bed leaving my condition deteriorating, it took them almost a month and my friend threating to report this to the medias to make them start doing proper testing and finally found out that "oh, he wasn't faking, in fact, he should have screamed and yelled a lot more than he did with that problem". I won't go into detail with the problem I had because I am still considering suing them (and giving the money to another hospital after, that's about the biggest insult their administration could get, losing, and another hospital getting a bonus). but I can conclude saying I spent many weeks that could have been avoided with simple diagnostic, this costed a LOT to the system, and this bed that I had was a bed another person couldn't have for that period of time. Worse, I still have problems today, problems that I wouldn't have gotten if they would have treated me in time. So yes there could be a money problem, but there's also a fundamental attitude problem in the hospital that makes good people that never use the system pay for those who abuse it. But it doesn't stop there, if the doctors (and it's not all of them that are bad, fortunately) would be true doctors, they wouldn't judge someone, they would go and investigate whatever he's saying, BEFORE the patient threaten to sue his ass.
In some hospitals in Quebec, If you're the nice patient that doesn't insult the staff or bitch and whine every 2 minutes because something isn't to your satisfaction, you don't get care, you don't get support, they won't check on you, they'll leave you deteriorating; they let you rot for those complaining idiots until you become one of them, this is really bad, and having friends that are nurses, I heard a lot of terrible stories that heck, an american lawyer would have so many easy cases (like mine) and fun he could bankrupt our Gov.
Oh and about writing to our deputies (what you guys call congressmen) gives you a reply so full of blablabla nonsense that it's adding gas on the fire, it's really (and I mean REALLY) insulting the amount of dirt they can try to shove at you.
I don't want to give a bad image of Quebec, there ARE some good hospitals and excellent doctors, a friend of mine had cancer and got really well treated, and today he's still alive (he wasn't treated at the same hospital I went to, fortunately, there he would probably have been diagnosed too late to be able to be fully treated, like in my case). I still wouldn't move to United Stated without a overshielded protection policy, it's always AFTER you get something bad that you realize stuff. You can get 20 years prison for killing someone that tries to rape or kill your kids or in self protection, but these irresponsible people are killing people by dozens every year and they get away with it.
Perfection isn't possible, but without money or tools or decent personnel, it's not about how close to perfection you can get, right now it's more like "how far from critical are we?"
Yes free healthcare for all is nice idea, but in practice there are some issues. Like many Canadian doctors "defecting" to the US because of the money. If you are a doctor, it simply does not pay well to work in a country with a Socialist healthcare system.
On the other hand, in the US if you do happen to get GOOD PPO insurance, you can end up getting better than average healthcare.
Its just a balancing act overall.
Besides, who wants to pay taxes for drug addicts to come out of comas anyway? Or for people that have more hormones than brains to have children?
I'm sorry, but thats my opinion.
As near as I can tell, the message of the movie is that it is immoral to charge black people for medical services.
Robert Duvall plays Lt. Frank Grimes...
Ok, who's first thought was the simpsons?
It's OK! I'm a limo driver!
it may be just me, but I really think it's funny that a guy that was once in B-movie softcore like
:)
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0108142
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0108143
could direct a serious, thought provoking film
"That's the beauty of America! I love it! And I love you!" Samuel L. Jackson in Great White Hype
How?
How does Jon Katz POSSIBLY consider himself to be a capable reviewer?
And your own reviews are as welcome as mine.
Sorry, but that's not saying much.
He is catching guff about money from his wife (Denise Archibald), and the couple has a cute and loving kid Mike (Daniel Smith) who collapses during a baseball game.
Hey. Names in parenthesis are supposed to be used for the actor's real name. Katz switches off, using them for both real manes and character names. Sheesh, talk about uneven.
The Archibald's sell of nearly everything they own to try and raise the money to pay the hospital and the greedy, uncaring surgeon (James Woods) and as Mike slips closer to dying, John snaps and takes over the hospital emergency room.
Now let us talk about run-on sentences and basic grammar. I think I recall learning the proper uses of the apostrophe in second grade. Plus, conjunctions (if that's too big a word, I'm referring to the 'ands') are supposed to connect words, thoughts, or phrases. They're not supposed to be substitutes for periods!
is any authority figure in America ever competent in a Hollywood movie?
You don't watch many movies. That point doesn't need to be driven any further.
You'll have to see the movie to find out. It's entertaining, and it's almost sure to be a big hit. But even a superstar can't mask a silly story.
Yes. "This is a great movie, but it sucks. Go see it! Then realize you weren't supposed to." Pick an opinion, for Christ's sake.
Oh, and can we see how many more times we can work the word "saintly" into this review?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
It is fairly plain to me that this movie was likely inspired by a true story (that got a fair amount of press, IIRC). The difference is that, in RL, the child had a terminal illness, had permanently lost consciousness, yet was being kept "alive" on machines. The father went to the area where his child was, pulled out a gun, and told the nurses and doctors that either he (the father) or the child was going to die that day. What I recall is that the father never threatened anyone else. The child was unplugged and allowed to die, at which time the father gave himself up to the police. I believe the father was tried, but not convicted of any crime.
So long as I understand that this is the story which John Q is based upon, I will never see this movie. It twists an internal struggle that many people face and a crucial question in medical ethics--whether a person is alive when they have lost essentially all cognitive functions--into a "man against the world" "lets go home and feel good" movie. The studios had a wonderful opportunity here to facilitate a discussion that needs to be had, and not only ruined it but actually used it to encourage ignorance over intelligence.
Jon Katz reviews? Welcome? I think this qualifies as proof that Jon Katz doesn't ever read any of the comments on his own stories
David
Then again, it seems flames and attacks by /.'ers drive you to continue to post aggravating reviews of crap movies that most of us weren't going to see anyway.
Nonetheless, I wish you luck on your future, non-movie-reviewing endeavors.
What the hell does this even remotely have to do with anything /. related???? Besides which, the trailer for this film makes it pretty obvious this film is a piece of crap, so it's not even worth discussing as entertainment.
So, you want to give poor people crappy healthcare? That is what your statements mean.
However, you are *describing* socialism bordering on facism. If socialism is what you are advocating just say so and stop callin it a "healthcare system".
What you say is the equivelant of saying "the computing and network systems of the USA are the worst on the world" and follow it with some sort of Apple and Lucent giveaway program, administered by the state, paid for at gunpoint by everybody with a job, in a disproportional manner. Point being, there was nothing "wrong" with the computers, you disagreed with who posessed the computers and had access to the networks to start with.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
So this guy effectively punishes the hospital, its employees, and its patients, because his son can't receive a heart transplant.
So who's to blame?
The insurance company? Maybe, if the policy was actually supposed to cover such operations. Take 'em to court.
The government? Feh. If the government had to pay for heart transplants for everyone, we'd be living in a socialist state, and everyone would be lucky to have a roof over their heads, much less healthcare.
Can't be the hospital; if they gave out free heart transplants, they'd be out of business and have to close.
As a drama about a desparate man, maybe it has value. As a political statement, it's thoroughly evil.
Somebody PLEASE moderdate that post DOWN to -1, Irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the Canadian health care system works, and works well. Like the American health care system, it has problems, and like the American health care system its critics jump out of the woodword to push their own privatization/socialization agenda whenever the subject comes up.
You know, I find this somewhat funny - that they would portray THIS as what's wrong with the American health system. This isn't what's wrong at all - mainly because, well, this would never happen. Doctors aren't heartless, and in life-or-death situations, amazing things happen.
What's wrong with the American health system is what's never heard about - ordinary people. People who don't have health insurance who have real chronic health problems that limit the life they can live. I'm not saying that this is even an American problem - in many ways it's a world problem, but many other countries have worked around it.
Emergency medicine isn't the real issue - it's chronic medicine. That is, prescriptions - THAT'S what eat the real cost. In emergency medicine, amazing things happen and a lot of what goes on there isn't limited by HMOs. Yah. You'll find individual examples, yes, but it's not the problem that chronic medicine is.
Seniors really have it worst, but there are other people who get screwed over as well, because the cost of the prescription is utterly insane. Students, for example - most students are uninsured for a year or two in college simply because most health care plans don't cover students past 21 (I was lucky - mine covered me through 24, and I have a pathetically bad one through the University now).
Now here comes the question - people will say "oh, so sorry, americans have it so bad, paying for drugs while we scrounge for food" - like hell. The issue is that there's no damned reason these drugs have to cost as much as they do. It's not like they cost that much to make. Keep in mind that the majority of research done by drug making companies is to preserve their patent on drugs! This is insane! I mean, REALLY REALLY insane! The problem dogging the US health care system is the same problem which hurts health care world wide, and solving it would solve a lot of problems world wide, not just in the US. Many people in the US can't afford prescriptions. They sure as hell can't afford them OUTSIDE the US. Yes, if they lowered their prices we could afford them easily, but then tons of aid agencies would be able to help other countries get them as well. THIS fight, if it's fought right, wins out for everyone.
So, generic drugs don't get out to the WORLD (not the US, the WORLD) because drug companies are wasting the talents of good researchers to muck around with old drugs to make them repatentable.
Honestly, there's a simple, easy way to fix a lot of the health care problems in the US. Kill the damned ability of drug manufacturers to not develop anything new and still make money. Make them revert to what they are SUPPOSED to be doing if they're doing research: DOING RESEARCH. Suddenly, all the costs of drugs drops ridiculously, and the HMOs have money to burn on emergency medicine.
Hey. It's another thing which geeks like - yelling at the patent system. Someone needs to kill that dinosaur ridiculously fast. The idea that you can sit on your ass and make money of off one good idea the rest of your life is a total crock. If you're an inventor, invent. If you're a scientist, do research. If you're an engineer, engineer. God. Think of all the money these corporations would save if they just abandoned all of their infrastructure in protecting patents and actually concentrated on doing research.
Yes, if we had USSR/French/Brit style gun control then this disgruntled customer could not have taken over a hospital.
If we had campaign finance reform then the commoners would not expect heart transplants anyway and the hospital would not have been take over (why hasn't anybody mentioned Enron yet?).
I get it now, okay lefties, I am with you! baaaaahahahaha
i actually saw this movie being filmed outside my workplace in downtown toronto.
what a piece of shit.
i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
Troll?
sounds perty insightful to me, Hollywood (mostly democrats) can work up a bit of fiction, just before an election, to scare voters away from the GOP, but the NRA can use its 1st amendment right to advertise?
I think you're missing part of the point.
In this movie, Denzel is playing the Everyman, confronted by a horrible situation that gives him no alternatives. His perfect willingness to exterminate the staff of a hospital to make sure his son lives is both saintly and selfish, and his hesitation in doing so is human.
It's interesting to note that this is one of the first movies I can think of where the real villain is not a person, but a social institution, and where the movie didn't suck. While the doctors and insurance agents and police are attempting to either extort money, avoid the issue, or kill a father trying to save his dying son, their behavior is still pretty normal (if a little campy and occasionally bordering on cartoonish). But as they're not the ones facing this horrible fate, pretty much anything they do as part of their jobs can seem easily evil, which is probably what Katz sees.
But a lot of the movie needs to be reexamined and left out for more details about the health care industry. Giving this movie subtexts about race were an awful, awful mistake. This is a movie that should be colorblind, as John Q's problem is a greedy insurance provider and an absurdly expensive operation extorting money for his son's life.
All in all, its one of the best movies I've seen lately, and a far better movie then most of the other ones now playing.
> the movie is so hypocritical, heavy-handed and gummed up with silly, sentimental and cliche-stuffed sub-plots that it undermines its own good intentions.
Duh.
What did Junis think of the film?
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
Actually you know that the US is the only nation in 'the West' that doesn't have a 'socialised' health system, & guess what? The US just so happens to have arguably the worst health system in the West too - its the most expensive health system in the world, both per capita, & as a percentage of GDP, plus in total too, even though 40 million Americans have no coverage what-so-ever.
That's the trouble with basing policy on ideaology, one loses flexibility.
Hence on balance, the most successful economies are the mixed economies, where they don't let themselves be restricted by ideaology & take policies from both the left & the right, depending on which is right for the job.
BTW, in other ways the US is a mixed economy - for example the US has a socialised highway system.
You see, compared with other sectors, demand for healthcare services are relative static in reaction to price - people do not get less sick just because prices go up. Consequently in a market based healthcare system like the US, relative speaking healthcare providers can charge what they want & mostly get away with it.
However in the rest of the OECD its different. Take the example of Canada. A couple of Years ago some doctors decided to opt out of the system & charge what they want, well the govt just said we won't pay them, & if patients wanted to see them they'd have to pay them themselves. Well what do you know, those doctors lost most of their business overnight & eventually they all gave in.
Here in Oz its similar, if doctors charge more than the schedule 'bulk billing' fee, its up to patients themselves to cover the balance. One can take out 'gap insurance', but insurers know if they covered the whole potential 'gap' doctors would be free to charge what they want, so even the insurers will only cover a proportion of the gap (a percentage of it, up to a certain maximum threshold). But because its much easier for doctors just to bulk bill the govt, rather than mail bills out & chase them up - where in the end they get a cheque from medicare (the govt agency that covers payements to healthcare providers) for the schedule fee bit & another cheque from an insurer that covers the insured part of the gap & then the balance in cash from the patient. Which means months of waiting because the patient has to 1st mail the bill to the govt healthcare agency to get the schedule fee cheque, then when they get it back they then mail it off to the insurer to get the 'part of the gap' cheque from them. So basically the govt makes it so inconvenient for either doctors or patients to go private, that the vast majority of both chose to go public, ie the doctor just bulk bills the govt & patients ddon't have to worry about bills at all.
Consequently in the rest of 'the West' healthcare costs are only about 8% of GDP, or something, while in the US its nearly about 15% & rising. As a percentage of GDP the discrepancy is even higher. Plus in the rest of 'the West' there's 100% coverage, while in the US, 40 million Americans have no coverage.
One standard for comparing health systems is life expectancies. M'nn "it appears all those countries with 'socialist health systems' have better life expectancy rates than the US". Ecen Cuba's almost matches the US's.
BTW, how often do you lobby the US govt to privatise its socialist highway system? Afterall the fall of the Soviet Union shows that socialism doesn't work, which means US highways are bound to be more efficient if they were all privacised & there were tollbooths on every entry ramp.
& imagine the efficencies that could come with increased competition, you could have a dozen different companies all operating different tollways between San Diego & LA. That would be real efficient. Afterall increasing choice always makes things better - look at the 60 TV channels, that's much better than just having BBC 1, 2 & 3 & a couple of token private channels like they have in the UK. Mind you how does that Pink Floyd song go? '40 channels of shit on the TV' or something?
Why should dole bludging criminals be able to use the same roads as us?
The world would be that much better if there were toll booths at the entry rampS of every highway & the highways were owned by Rupert Murdoch, Ross Perot & that Walmart bloke, etc.
They could charge what they deem is a fair price, if you don't like it you can always use the other tollway owned by UPS. Yes imagine how cheap & efficient it would be with 10 different competing tollways between SanDiego & LA.
...ahh, I've just blown away mozilla's cookies, hence I can't automatically log in to slashdot. That's why I'm seeing stories from this idiot.
# init 5
Connection closed.
Oh...
Regardless of this posts' validity, what you are describing falls under the off topic category. Redundancy refers to unnecessarily repeated commentary. Kindly stow your hateful tone as it does irrepairable damage to the community.
Katz, you basically just said that we should never post our reviews. You putz.
end comment
"John Q" is Hollywood's free commecial for the Democrat Party. This movie is a payback gift for the socialists of the Democrat party from the leftists in Hollywood. Campaign Finance Reform is nonsense while Hollywood can give free publicity, during an election year, to the Democrat Party. These movies are not worth our time. Especially, when there are more conservative actors like Mel Gibson, Schwarzenegger etc. The surgence of "independent films" in local video stores demonstates a rejection of the Hollywood left and their Marxist viewpoints! Liberty is awesome!
Finally, about the politics of socialism vs liberty. Government solutions bring scarcity and misery. Liberty delivers abundance and wealth. People just argue the details. It is that simple!
th4t th1z j0nk4tz 1z ph47 |337...
...m3 w4ntz l33t w4r3z!!!
ph33r th1z w00t d00dz r3v13w1n sk1||z!
b0g! b0g! b0g!
i'm suprised no one realizes this in the trailer:
denzel gets all mad and stands up, "I WANT MY SON ON THE DONOR LIST!"
don't you mean, receipient list, jackass?
I hate to be the IANAL, but I am a MBA student...his company is who is at fault. They changed his insurance coverage and did not inform him of the change. They are the ones who should be liable for the $230,000 ($250,000 - $20,000 covered by insurance). If someone was going to get sued over this, the factory is who!
------ This has been provided as a public service! ------
"I am perfectly happy to pay a larger share of taxes."
There is the "Tax Me More Fund" for people like you. Some Congressman set one up. So put your money where your mouth is.
I prefer liberty! Thou shalt not covet. Even when they are rich.
Liberty brings abundance and wealth. Goverment solutions bring scarcity and misery.
Don Mazankowski is a Director of Great West Lifeco, a holding company for Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company, an American HMO. A company for which he is a director has a direct financial interest in the advice that he provides to the Alberta Government.
He has a duty to the shareholders of GWL to present a one-sided report, supporting an Americanization of the health-care system. He has a conflicting duty to Albertans to produce the fair report that we paid for.
Mazankowski should have refused to chair the committee to produce that report. That he didn't is an inexcusable breach of ethics.
The US just so happens to have arguably the worst health system in the West too - its the most expensive health system in the world,
The US has the best health care system in the world. What planet are you on?
The most expensive health care is in socialist Europe. When someone has cancer, he has a chance in the US. In Europe, he often just dies cuz there is a scarcity of quality Doctors. How expensive is your life!
Gov't solutions bring scarcity and misery. Liberty brings abundance!
Economic 101 - There is no free lunch. There is always a price to pay.
If you had any pride you would have given up a long time ago. Your perseverance in this mistaken way just encourages people to give you the stick.
Are you the unemployed dad of one of the kids on the Slashdot staff ?
Just crawl under a rock and leave us alone.
And your own reviews are as welcome as mine.
Actually, jKatz, they're probably a lot _more_ welcome.
-- Nerds on toast in the new millenium
What is it with this incessant desire, where people want the government to steal $100 dollars from a fellow citizen, keep $95 dollars in overhead, then give them the remaining $5 for a pack of smokes? To damn lazy to be your own thief? Get a damn job and pay for it yourself or die like a man.
For a more eloquent review of the trailer read 'Unseen Move Reviews'.
www.bannination.com Two things float to the top he
I had two thoughts after seeing this movie 1. Thank god I'm an organ donor 2. I hope someone doesnt see this movie and think this is an appropriate course of action in such a situation. Not that I wouldn't do the same if that was my child.... but we know how socitety 'tends' to imitate art in this country--hope this movie doesn't give anyone any big ideas.
When you are in over your head, it doesn't matter how deep the water is...
John Q is an election year infommercial to the Democrat Party by Hollywood's glorified but nonsense view of socialism.
How would background research help when reviewing a bad movie?
"This movie was meant as an editorial on the effect of the drug trade on the South American legal system and its ramifications upon the viability of third-world nations for industrial aid and development? Suddenly, Collateral Damage doesn't suck. Yay!"
This is without question the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Politicians should have to pay for the comercials, you shouldn't pay $7 to go watch them.
If you have cancer in Europe (I am from Ireland) and you can't afford to pay for their own top-notch insurance (unlike me), the Gov.' pays for treatment.
If you have cancer in America and you can't afford to pay for your own health insurance you DIE.
Seems like a good system to me...after all those poor people are just getting in the way
And to really get all you Yanks going, Cuba (you know the evil evil socialist country just below you) has one of the best health care systems in the world, which makes the US system look like a sick joke. There is a doctor for every 200 persons (twice that in America). The government wants to keep its people health so it puts it money where it's mouth is (despite INCREDIBLY harsh medicine import restrictions from American. They still managed to invent a life saving vaccine for Meningitis and give it away for free...why would anyone do such a crazy thing, they could have made millions!).
The current American government (i.e the person most people didn't vote for...didn't quite follow that one) couldn't care less if people are dieing in the streets as long as the insurance companies that put them in power are happy.
3rd World doctors train in your inner cities because conditions are WORSE than what they will face at home for crying out loud.. open your eyes!
Any reference here to the events of September 11th, 2001 are connected by way of it being an American movie. While you may care little for the political situation which shapes the movie, it is still worth mentioning for the rest of the world who finding themselves less jaded about the whole affair actually see fit to mention why a decent movie gets its fangs blunted.
...hasn't tried it in a country where the government runs it even more completely than the American one does.
Yes, getting the government out of health care in the US would be an improvement.
World leaders, the wealthy, anyone who can already comes to America for the "messy" health care. It's amazing what the profit motive can do in providing all those wonderful bits of technology that make up modern health care.
But don't worry, with ever greater involvement by bureaucrats preventing people from being able to choose what procedures/processes they want, or are allowed to offer, the American status will predictably fail.
So if you're all fired-up about how bad American health care is, try going somewhere else for a while, and I don't mean third-world contries. Try Japan, Britain, Canada.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Don't fund it through government.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Anyone who thinks the American system isn't socialized hasn't looked. Licensing, regulation by locality, state and federal agencies, restrictions of what may or may not be "provided", insurance regulation, etc etc etc.
Just because it's *less* regulated than many other places, that it's still possible to choose who to see and when, that does not make it non-socialist.
Prices are driven up because of government interference. Remove that interference, and prices will (again) drop. The problem is with trying to compete with government, who has already taken your money in taxes in order to offer "free" services.
Like any organization, government acts to crush competition. Government does so with guns and prisons.
Want a direct comparison? The British recently did a study comparing their health system with Kaiser Perminente, an American "Health Management Organization". The Kaiser costs were consistantly lower than the British system, because Kaiser has incentive to reduce peoples use of the system.
In a government run system, the incentive is to increase customer use, in order to justify bigger staffs, bigger budgets, and more importance of their department over other departments.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Apparently, societies where the females are roughly equal in status and power with the males, including groups such as the Inuit Eskimos, have a population that stabilises in about *1* generation, whereas those where women are treated as chattels, such as some high-tech, high-affluence Middle Eastern countries, have incredibly high birth rates.
FWIW, he did acknowledge that technology and class have some effect, but they're not strongest driving factor. Fascinating guy, fascinating topic, and I wish I'd had a chance to listen more instead of going off to work...
BTW, how often do you lobby the US govt to privatise its socialist highway system? Afterall the fall of the Soviet Union shows that socialism doesn't work, which means US highways are bound to be more efficient if they were all privacised & there were tollbooths on every entry ramp.
Just a little point, which may have been missed by people who aren't students of human nature. Which we all should be, because the people who make it their job to take money from you are... :
You don't put toll booths on on-ramps, you put them on off-ramps
Ever wonder why that should be so? Think about it...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
check out salon's review
Frank Grimes? I thought he electrocuted himself.
"I fail to see how, in a system that has been pared to the bone and running probably about as efficiently as it's going to, how in the world introducing a profit motive, therefore slicing the pie ever further, is going to save money! "
Well, then I'll tell you. When a system is run by a government instead of the free market, it becomes extrodinarily inefficient. That's why the USSR couldn't keep consumers in goods. Under a free market system, there would be more pie, and competing pies....and costs, overall, would go down. It's actually quite simple.
For an example closer to home, look at how well government manages primary education in the US, particularly in large cities.
It's not completely an either/or deal, by the way. It's possible to put safety nets in place (though, to the extent that this is done, efficiency suffers).
Ah....but who will Moderate the Meta Moderators?
This makes him a hero?
...
I don't get it.
What I don't get is why you and Katz are reading way too much into a movie. Its a work of fiction. Hollywood isn't pushing some message, some screenwriters who need to write something to sell aren't even pushing a message, they're making a story. If you watched it and thought that the supposed hero wasn't a hero at all, that's great. Assuming that you can't go against cliched characters and supposed messages from hollywood are The Truth is just plain stupid.
The real problem with the health system is the legal system of the united states. Right now anytime something bad happens to you (you are injured, you don't fully recover from an injury, etc) you can sue someone. Almost always, these legal costs and settlements and fines come from insurance companies in the end. People sue doctors because they don't produce perfect results... but they are human, and can make mistakes without it being malpractice, and yes there are limits to modern science.
But when someone is hurt, and they go to court, juries are mostly inclined to rule in favor of the one who was hurt, penalizing the big corporation which has so much money they won't even feel the pinch, so no one loses in the end. But real life doesn't work that way. When an insurance company loses money in a cash award or settlement, the rates of their customers MUST go up. This hurts everyone.
Now lets look at an extreme (BUT NOT UNCOMMON) example. This summer there was an outbreak of some food poisoning on long island. Only a few people actually got sick, and no more than a few dozen were even exposed to the contaminated food. Most of those exposed didn't know, never showed signs of it, and went about their business. On the other hand, HUNDREDS of people tried to show that they were sick because of that food, in order to collect money from it. THIS IS WRONG! This shows that there is enough incentive for people to fake thier own injury (food poisoning in this case) in order to get a possible payoff from a fast food chain.
What do we need to do about this? Simple. Dont adopt the UK's health system. Instead adopt a part of their legal system: the loser of a legal dispute should have to pay the legal fees of the winner. That alone would deter most fake claims, and would reduce the cost of health care coverage, which cause more people to be covered.
Free as in *BUUURP!*
A transcript of the story can be found here:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/GMA
IMHO, it's a great read, but to summorize,
Mr. Stossel argues that high drug prices are A good thing (tm). Why would this be good? Profit. Profit drives innovation. In the world of software we see this all the time.
Oracle=innovative & very profitable.
SGI = innovative & profitable (not sure if they still make $)
Sun Microsystems = same thing.
Microsoft = VERY profitable and ummmm... well at least they have innovative joystick designs ;-)
Anyway, John argues that it's the profit that drives the drug companies to invest in the research that creates these great drugs. Mentioned on TV, but not in the article, Mr. Stossel makes the point that in the old days, people with polio were treated by entering an Iron lung. Not pleasant, and certainly not cheap. These "expensive" drugs actually save people money if they consider the alternative.
As a college student coughing up almost $200.00 for a little bottle of Paxil, I used to feel ripped off, but after seeing the other side of the story, and considering the alternative, I no longer complain. After all, nobody is actually Forcing me to purchase medicine.
As a side note,
I heard it mentioned earlier that as Americans, we spend much more money on health care. Well duh!!
Look at how we eat! It is not often mentioned, but we have the most cost efficient food distribution system on earth, which may not be such a good thing. Look how fat we are! Do we walk to McDonalds for our daily fix of Grease and 40+ ounce drinks? Of course not! We climb into our cars! In a way, we're too snobbish to exercise, because that's only something that "blue collars" and migrant workers do. Don't blame our high health care costs on our lifestyle choices!
We are not so unhealty because of the quality of our healthcare system, we're unhealthy (mostly) because of our unhealthy decisions!
That has more to do with the government's unwillingness to properly fund it, than whether or
not it works.
Ahem, do you mean it is working fine with inadiquate funding or do you mean that this government program, directed by the government and receiving whatever the government wishes it to receive IS NOT WORKING?
Make up your mind, either this socialism IS working or it is NOT working, but might work if someone besides the government ran it!
Noooo, saying that this wounderful socialism would work great, if only the socialists were serious about it is not an acceptable answer.
On the Dulles Toll Road (Northern VA) they are on both the on and off ramps.
has em both ways! You can ride for free though if you ride back from dulles airport to 495.
then again it was/is a privat road
Bring back the old version of slashdot.