I've just been informed that Sicko includes moving footage where Michael Moore takes 9/11 rescue workers to Cuba for treatment the United States has denied its heroes.
Which is weird, because everyone who worked at Ground Zero has multiple medical programmes itching to cover any and every possibly site-related illness. Frankly, it's a little like being stalked--I find myself worrying that they're driving past my house at three am, craning out the window to see if I'm home. They somehow got my new work number when I moved to DC to call me to set up an appointment. Creepy.
Not that I exactly expected better from Michael Moore, but why did the workers go along with it?
Posted by Jane Galt at June 24, 2007 11:26 PM | TrackBack | $raw=rawurlencode($_SERVER['PHP_SELF']); $technolink="http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/links.html?rank=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.janegalt.net$raw"; echo ("Technorati inbound links"); ?>Not only does the young Michael Moore is adroit at focusing the media noodles on those things he wants covered, but also in the way they are covered.
If the movie does, indeed, show what you say, Jane, then this situation can only be used to show that there are those in any situation who are willing to subvert reality to a political gain or statement. It is a little disheartening to realize your heroes have clay feet.
Posted by: Falkoyn on June 24, 2007 11:38 PMPerhaps they just feel hard done by... I know many people who live by the idea of retroactive punishment. Even if you say you're sorry, they still want blood [or gold] later. Like you mentioned in your other post about workers, and their eventual syptoms... in this case they want to punish the guvmint for not telling them straight out it was bad for them. Maybe they even should. But being a part of Moore's circus won't help them, only legal action will.
So they are trying to punish retroactively, but are doing by trying to make somebody feel bad. Not hit 'em where it hurts, in the pocketbook. I'll betcha all the congressional hearing on the breathign problems will do that too. Establish that it was bad... and then not actually pay the victims.
could be I'm cynical...
D
perhaps that bafflement would be addressed by watching the movie.
Posted by: alex on June 25, 2007 12:15 AMI was wondering if the folks who went along with Moore actually had the diseases they were talking about. They might not be getting treatment in the US because the doctors in the US found they didn't have what they said they have.
Hypochondria strikes a lot of folks, doncha know...
"Not that I exactly expected better from Michael Moore, but why did the workers go along with it?"
(1) Free trip to Cuba.
(2) They felt like they were being stalked by ambulance chasers in the USA, and wanted to get away for a while.
(3) Hey hey hey! We're famous!
Apparently people who helped at ground zero on their own are not covered. At least, that is what the movie claimed.
Posted by: Jeffrey Boser on June 25, 2007 5:56 AMJust watch the damn movie, already. That way you won't have to keep prefixing every Sicko-related post with variations of "Reliable sources inform me that..."
Posted by: Immoralist on June 25, 2007 9:08 AMProbably Tides trying to find canditates to send to Cuba to make for press releases and documentaries.
Posted by: aaron on June 25, 2007 9:57 AMThis 9/11 workers thing reminds me a bit of the WWII shipbuilders who sue over asbestosis, and my reaction is the same:
There were those who did more dangerous duty.
Cancer is, after all, usually a disease of advanced age.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on June 25, 2007 11:06 AMYou really have your head up your ass on this one. My father is a city worker (EMS) who spent much time at ground zero during the clean-up.
He almost died (In april on my birthday no less) due to the complications from the sarcodosis he developed likely as a result of his work there. Currently I am supporting my parents because my dad can no longer work, and he is not getting paid by the city. The city will take months and months to decide if he can get a LODI pension. He could file for disability, but it somehow affects his eligibility and the union says he shouldn't. He only has health insurance for another month, and it costs 1200 a month to insure them through cobra, which I will likely pay.
They are currently applying for help from some charitble organizations, and will probably get help. Also the pension will probably go through before the end of the summer, the recent acknowledgement by the city of a women's sarcodosis being caused by 911 will help my dad's case. However nothing is for sure, and in a month my dad may have no health care coverage. His recent stay in intensive care for 1 month and his inability to work, means he will never be able to get insurance again, he is 61 that is 4 years till medicare kicks in. Cobra last 3 months. So I say viva Fidel!!!!
Posted by: matt on June 25, 2007 12:17 PM"He could file for disability, but it somehow affects his eligibility and the union says he shouldn't."
Reason number 345,367,874 that unions are bad.
Posted by: Anthony on June 25, 2007 2:01 PMJane:
Did you talk to "everyone" who worked at Ground Zero? Go see the movie.
Posted by: Mike on June 25, 2007 2:03 PMI don't have to talk to them, Mike; I'm on the mailing/phone list for all the groups offering us medical services.
Posted by: Jane Galt on June 25, 2007 2:11 PMMatt's comment suggests a story consistent with Ms. Galt's: there are a number of groups offering various things, but despite this, some workers are finding that *actually getting treatment* is much more complicated. I have no idea whether this is true, but it's certainly plausible; does the commentariat here really have trouble believing that a government health program might not deliver on its promises?
Posted by: X. Trapnel on June 25, 2007 6:31 PM(It could be that -most- workers are fully satisfied, but you only need to find a few who have gotten screwed over by the system--and there will always be some--to have a moving scene.)
Posted by: X. Trapnel on June 25, 2007 6:33 PMSadly, my wife had seen Michael Moore's interviews with the workers on Oprah and my wife was convinced that there was truth to what they were telling him. I was biased and not even wanting to watch, but my wife wanted me to see it, so I did, up to a point. I am sure that plenty of women were convinced, simply because it was Oprah, and she has so much credibility to those who are not latte sipping elitists (like us).
Posted by: Jim Bender on June 25, 2007 8:08 PM"...does the commentariat here really have trouble believing that a government health program might not deliver on its promises?"
Recently, the VA boasted that it eliminated all backlogs of untreated veterans when what it had really done was eliminated the backlog of enrollments of untreated veterans. The guys are still not being treated.
It would not surprise me if all those people hounding our hostess were just headhunters out to enroll people in programs. Getting someone's name on a list is a very profitable venture - low overhead, high return. Providing actual medical care is really a poor business practice by comparisson.
Posted by: Njorl on June 26, 2007 11:11 AMFor what it's worth I've met and talked to some members of the vet team that was caring for the search dogs that worked the WTC site, and they said that the dogs have had no more than the expected problems of advancing doggie years since their work on the WTC site. The dogs were exposed to more crud than any of the other workers, but underwent none of the emotional trauma that might lead to illness in humans.
I'm not offering this as anything other than unverified second hand info; perhaps someone might find it of interest.