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.
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 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.
Here 'tis, and it was in the Ottawa Xpress, a weekly alternative paper that has a reputation for touching stories that "go unnoticed" by the mainstream media, (not having to worry about upsetting major advertizers).
I did the cut-and-paste thing, as I suspect the link won't last all that long.
*****
Vetting the health-care system
Pet hospitals a telling tale about the future of medical free enterprise
Alan Martin
Biko's trip to the vet could teach
Roy Romanow a thing or two
about health care
If Roy Romanow wants to save the Canadian health-care system he should buy himself a pet.
A rare Bolivian iguana would be best, but a dog will suffice.
Mr. Romanow, of course, is Prime Minister Jean Chrøen's health czar, entrusted to rescue our public health care system from the brink of collapse. This is no small task as various governments tighten health budgets like a prodded sphincter and our medical professionals flee like rats from a sinking ship.
Later this month the former Saskatchewan premier will deliver an interim report based on consultations he's had with citizens and medical professionals here and in Europe. A final report will follow in November.
Romanow has said that though he is intent on preserving a universally accessible system, he is not averse to considering a new role for private health care providers.
For many Canadians, the United States embodies much that is wrong with free enterprise medicine. The socio-economic divide, critics decry, is nowhere more evident than between those who have private medical plans and those that are left with the pedestrian, public system.
It's a system we are only beginning to consider seriously as Alberta and Ontario threaten Health Minister Allan Rock with private hospitals.
But if Romanow really wants insight into the future of our health-care system he need look no further than his nearest pet hospital.
Why?
Because while fact-finding missions to such hip locales as London, Paris and Stockholm, are de rigeur for any commissioner worth his salt, the realities of a private health-care system are already too familiar to millions of Canadian pet owners.
Consider this: a routine, non-emergency visit to a vet sets you back nearly $100. If you have medical insurance for when accident strikes you're on safe ground, if not, prepare for your kids to pay their own tuition.
If there is any advantage to such a system, it is that unnecessary medical intervention may be limited. In our health care system, unnecessary procedures are an everyday occurrence, a folly we don't fully appreciate because we never see the bill. With vets there is no escaping it. You know what you get, and pay for what you get.
With veterinarian practice being a happy mix of business and medicine, however, you might well appreciate how the lines of medical judgement can be blurred. Take for example the vet in Montreal who tried to convince a friend to give his cancer-riddled dog, weekly blood transfusions, at $200 a pop - this, just after he had given the dog less than a month to live.
The practice isn't limited to major procedures. My dog Biko uses a non-medicinal, over the counter ear cleaner to stave off ear infections. Twice, when purchasing refill containers, I've been confronted by vets who insist (unsuccessfully) on giving her a $46 "assessment."
I had another glimpse into the future when I took the old girl to the vet recently. At the end of the visit I was given a mystery goodie bag to take home. An autopsy of the contents revealed a 2.5-kilogram bag of dog food and brochures peddling the various wares of pharmaceutical giants Bayer and Pfizer. For $65.95 a month, I also learned, I could sign up for PetPlan's all-inclusive insurance plan - root canals and "final arrangements for your dog" all on the house.
Imagine a future health-care system where visits to the doctor are rewarded with goodie bags sponsored by Big Pharma, insurance conglomerates or some breakfast cereal company out to change your brand loyalty? Or where the medical care your loved ones receive is dependent on an insurance plan or the generosity of your chequebook?
Most pet owners gamble with their pet's health by not getting insurance, including yours truly. I know of countless owners who wished they hadn't - the couple who dropped several grand on inconclusive diagnostic tests for their pooch's mysterious indigestion; another who spent nearly a month's mortgage payment on labour-inducing drugs to save their pregnant cat.
Of course, they balk at the bill but they don't hesitate. They love their pets, and pony up accordingly. For those who can't, we get besieged by emotional appeals for help.
Next time you read such a story - the Ottawa Petfinder prints them at least once a month - substitute Fifi for a person. That's the future of medical free enterprise.
Canadian pet owners are already on familiar terms with that future.
Mr. Romanow, visit your nearest pound.
*****
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?
You should take a look at the Canadian system.