Denzel Washington: John Q...

[amicus]

I put off watching this for years...a 2002 film, synopsis: 'desperate man, hospital, hostages, dying son...', because I thought it would be what it was, a political statement by Hollywood, about socialized medicine.

But I didn't factor in Denzel Washington, a truly gifted actor, see, "Man on Fire", ah, damn, memory, the one with Julia Roberts, ah, the Pelican Brief, also a liberal theme, and, 'Deja Vu', all memorable films and worth watching more than once.

Once again, in "John Q", it is the corporate world of HMO"s, that takes the brunt of the criticism and the outrage.

One should not have to emphasize that there are inequalities in life, that the rich fare better than the poor, and that justice favors the wealthy; when has it ever been different?

But the underlying theme of this film and oh, so many Hellywood productions and the entire liberal/progressive mantra, is that every person is entitled, in some way, to all the benefits that modern society offers without earning them.

John Q is a well written, well directed and well casted film that demands emotional connection to the characters, the theme, (author's message), and the plot, all writer's territory, (which is why I Post this), that provides an emotional insight to a specific aspect of human existence.

Nothing is for free; there are no free lunches, there is no heavenly arbiter of justice or fairness, our societies are constructed to give man the freedom and the liberty to provide for his needs without the use of force to supply them.

The quality of life is determined by the individual and personal preparations one makes to protect and sustain the individual and those he cares for.

Without that individual caring and responsibility, society degenerates into the cost/effective formula of collectivism that serves no one but the State.

This is such a fundamental truth and premise that I wonder how anyone could believe that they have the right to steal from those who have earned and give to those who have not.

Amicus

 

[xssve]

But the underlying theme of this film and oh, so many Hellywood productions and the entire liberal/progressive mantra, is that every person is entitled, in some way, to all the benefits that modern society offers without earning them.

Fleeb.

In this case, Washington's character's dispute is with the insurance company that refuses to pay for a life saving procedure for his son, although he has kept up with his insurance premiums - i.e., it's the insurance company trying to get the free ride.

 

[AngeloMichael]

Haven't seen the movie yet.

:Shrugs:

I figure if you're making over a million a year or inherited or whatever you've most likely screwed over at least a few people in your life or you didn't work for it but had it handed to you.

I'd rather risk the chance of the governement handing out a nice chunk of these peoples' money spread out over many who direly need it for basic human needs and mayhaps some here and there take advantage of the system getting a little bit and getting a free lunch.

Rather than one person getting to keep all that money and whipe their asses with silk toilet paper.

I believe in individual responsibility but I also believe in free lunches. I've paid for more than a few on my own and through the governement. I feel much better knowing that someone starving may have received it than feel worried I got taken advantage of.

Also, Amicus, your beliefs either fail to take into account or just outright ignore those who are physically or mentally unable to sustain themselves in a society set up how you'd like it. It's same fault I find with Ayn Rand's philosophy.

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes."

It doesn't have to be either this or that. A government that takes the best points of socialism and capitalism, and democratic so we can keep tweaking it in either direction when we feel one side is going to far is what's for me.

It's just that you feel we've gone too far left at this point and I feel we haven't gone enough.

:shrugs again:
It's just part of the struggle between people with my point of view and people with your point of view and people with those all in between. Whoever casts the most votes gets their way.

I'm cool with that in theory even if I do get a sinking feeling in my stomach in practice when it doesn't go my way.

 

[sr71plt]

Yep, Amicus just didn't understand the film. It was one of not getting what you paid for. So, it's really a conservative values film.

This is much in accord with Ami's recent wrangle with the tea partiers. He can't begin to understand liberal/progressive values because he doesn't have a clue about what conservative values are. He thinks they equate with selfishness (his values in toto). They don't all do that by any means. Fighting to get what you contracted and paid for is a fine old conservative value.

 

[Pure]

comments on john q

ami Nothing is for free; there are no free lunches, there is no heavenly arbiter of justice or fairness, our societies are constructed to give man the freedom and the liberty to provide for his needs without the use of force to supply them.

the protagonist, John Q Archibald (Washington) IS conscientious, a hard worker, and supporter of his family. he is, as a couple posters noted, a possible conservative exemplar. he purchased health insurance. he was not looking for a free ride, there or elsewhere.

it's odd that ami has this problem with seeing private (corporate) insurance as 'collectivist' and depleting of individualism. at the same time he calls on the individual to be 'responsible.' i suppose, by stashing money under the bed, since federally regulated banks can't be trusted.


The quality of life is determined by the individual and personal preparations one makes to protect and sustain the individual and those he cares for.
-----

pure: this bromide is "you get what you deserve." "if you lack something, you probably didn't work for it, hence don't deserve it." patently false.

--

i agree the movie is rather fanciful, in its 'lone man against corporate abuse of power.' that's close to a theme of Atlas Shrugged, after all. the difference is that John Q (Washington) resorts to force and violence. both are fanciful, essentially romantic tales, it's just that one is well written. they have a mythic dimension. the reality is that the battle of individual against the corporation or government, whether 'collectivist' or not, usually results in the individual losing and being labeled crazy or undeserving.

i'm reminded of that another well known movie about the lawsuit against a company that polluted water, and harmed numerous members of a local community. also, The Rainmaker, is another example, regarding cancer treatment of a child.

when is that resort justified? well, defence of family would seem like a valid reason.

if a third party was about to kill Washington's kid, ami would have no trouble with the resort to violence: second amendment and so on. the nice point of the film is that the de facto murder/killing comes about the USUAL way in our present society--impersonal market forces, on the surface. in fact it's corporate greed and breach of contract. and the film sets up the fact of 'no other recourse.' which is probably true, unless you're rich and can afford a legal team (Conrad Black).

it's odd that breaches of contract bother ami very little, if it's a corporate entity like an insurance company.

 

[xssve]

It's entirely consistent for right wing corpo-whores, shilling the populist, superman-of-the-people mythos, which pretty much describes Rands whole shtick.

 

[xssve]

Or rather, shrilling, in ami's case.

Washington is fine actor, he really sells his characters, and he oozes integrity. This was I think one of his lesser films - Devil in a Blue Dress is one of my all time faves.

 

[amicus]

Haven't seen the movie yet.

:Shrugs:

I figure if you're making over a million a year or inherited or whatever you've most likely screwed over at least a few people in your life or you didn't work for it but had it handed to you.

I'd rather risk the chance of the governement handing out a nice chunk of these peoples' money spread out over many who direly need it for basic human needs and mayhaps some here and there take advantage of the system getting a little bit and getting a free lunch.

Rather than one person getting to keep all that money and whipe their asses with silk toilet paper.

I believe in individual responsibility but I also believe in free lunches. I've paid for more than a few on my own and through the governement. I feel much better knowing that someone starving may have received it than feel worried I got taken advantage of.

Also, Amicus, your beliefs either fail to take into account or just outright ignore those who are physically or mentally unable to sustain themselves in a society set up how you'd like it. It's same fault I find with Ayn Rand's philosophy.

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes."

It doesn't have to be either this or that. A government that takes the best points of socialism and capitalism, and democratic so we can keep tweaking it in either direction when we feel one side is going to far is what's for me.

It's just that you feel we've gone too far left at this point and I feel we haven't gone enough.

:shrugs again:
It's just part of the struggle between people with my point of view and people with your point of view and people with those all in between. Whoever casts the most votes gets their way.

I'm cool with that in theory even if I do get a sinking feeling in my stomach in practice when it doesn't go my way.

~~~

I figure if you're making over a million a year or inherited or whatever you've most likely screwed over at least a few people in your life or you didn't work for it but had it handed to you.

Most independent businessmen, who own their business and actively manage it, put in over a hundred hours a week to insure the viability of their enterprise. They may work for a life-time to accumulate the degree of wealth you consider obscene. Most of the really wealthy, are the elite intellectuals who perceive a business scene and invest in it, taking a chance with their hard earned capital.

Employees, waged or salaried, do their 8 hours a day and pursue their other interests. They have little or no interest in the firm that signs their checks and are not personally vested in the success or the failure of the company, aside from their own jobs.

Why is it you think successful people can only be successful and wealthy by preying on the weak? You do know, that, that is Marxist rhetoric, do you not, and not even close to being truth or fact.

I'd rather risk the chance of the governement handing out a nice chunk of these peoples' money spread out over many who direly need it for basic human needs and mayhaps some here and there take advantage of the system getting a little bit and getting a free lunch.

Rather than one person getting to keep all that money and whipe their asses with silk toilet paper.

By what right do you empower government to redistribute wealth? Do you see no sanctity in what a man earns being his own? Who are you to judge who gives and who receives? Some people are more talented and productive than others, what gives you the right to steal from the wealthy and who do you trust to redistribute what you have confiscated?

When does, 'need', determine what one receives?

Two of my children are in Medical school at the moment. They will invest the next ten years of theirs lives earning the right to 'practice' medicine, and will take another ten years before they pay off their debts that funded their education. By what right do you confiscate their professional skills and distribute it where you choose? By what right?

Your fucking lower class. and lower middle class, give nothing to the betterment of mankind, save their physical labor in mundane tasks that a monkey or a machine could do as well, and you want me to finance them?

Fuck You, AngeloMichael, you are nothing but a spokesman for the Parasites that feed off those who use their minds and produce wealth and innovations the will make your remote controlled gadgets work better.

There can be no compromise between freedon and slavery, Capitalism and Socialism; there can be no taking of the best of each because any adoption of slave labor is a diminishment of human freedom.

You should know that instinctively. That you do not, speaks to your lack of understanding the nature of human freedom and choice.

Amicus

 

[Pure]

reply to ami

amiTwo of my children are in Medical school at the moment. They will invest the next ten years of theirs lives earning the right to 'practice' medicine, and will take another ten years before they pay off their debts that funded their education. By what right do you confiscate their professional skills and distribute it where you choose? By what right?

it's quite simple, ami, despite the fanciful rhetoric. your kids' medical education is heavily subsidized at both the state and federal level. the tuition fees received by a medical school represent a small proportion of their income. the students' paying off debts does not alter this picture. in short, they owe the gov'ts at both levels--the taxpayers, in fact--, and a certain amount of public service--to those taxpayers-- would not be unfair, let's say 5 years.

===
http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/MedicareMedicaid/TrainDocs.html

The following excerpt is from The Medical Monopoly: Protecting Consumers or Limiting Competition?

Subsidies and the Medical Monopoly
In addition to using government to restrict competition, the medical monopoly also turns to government for subsidies. For example, most physician training is subsidized by the federal government.


In 1927 student fees accounted for 34 percent of medical school revenues.(124) Today less than 5 percent of medical school revenues comes from tuition and fees. Instead, medical schools rely heavily on federal and state support.(125) In 1992 total medical school revenues amounted to $23 billion.(126) State and local governments provided $2.7 billion.(127) The federal government paid at least $10.3 billion to medical schools and hospitals for medical education and training (Table 3). Additional revenues were obtained from charges for services, endowments, and private grants.
________________________________________
Table 3
Taxpayer Support for Physician Education and Training, 1991-92
Billions of Source Dollars

Medicare $5.2
Federal research, training, and teaching $5.1
State and local governments $2.7
Total $13.0

Sources: Fitzhugh Mullan et al., "Doctors, Dollars, and Determination: Making Physician Work-Force Policy," Health Affairs Supplement (1993), p. 142; and Janice Ganem et al., "Review of U.S. Medical School Finances 1992-93," Journal of the American Medical Association 274 (1995): 724.
________________________________________

Medicare payments to hospitals represent the largest source of federal funding for medical education and training.(128) Medicare pays for physician education and training in two ways: First, hospitals receive direct payments from Medicare based on the number of full-time-equivalent residents employed at each hospital. Second, Medicare increases a hospital's diagnostic-related group payments according to an "indirect" medical education factor, based on the ratio of residents to hospital beds.(129)

The average Medicare payment to hospitals was more than $70,000 per resident for both direct and indirect education subsidies in 1992. An estimated 69,900 full-time-equivalent interns, residents, and fellows were eligible for Medicare reimbursement in 1991.(130)
Medicare paid hospitals $1.6 billion for direct medical education expenses and dispensed $3.6 billion for indirect medical education adjustments in 1992.(131) Of the total $5.2 billion that Medicare paid to hospitals for training, approximately $0.3 billion was appropriated for training nurses and allied health professionals.(132)

Medical schools and teaching hospitals receive additional federal funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and the Health Resources and Services Administration (Title VII) program. Federal funding for research, training, and teaching amounted to at least $5.1 billion in 1992.(133) That money was awarded to medical schools and affiliated hospitals in the form of grants and contracts.
Supporting biomedical research in medical schools is one way the federal government supports medical education without appearing to do so directly.(134)

As Feldstein has pointed out, "There is no reason why medical students should be subsidized to a greater extent than students in other graduate or professional schools."(135)

That point has also been suggested by Uwe Reinhardt, a professor of political economy at Princeton University, who recently noted, In the context of academic medicine, this inquiry should begin with the question of why the education of physicians is now so heavily supported with public funds, when similar support has never been extended to other important professions, for example, students in law schools or graduate programs in business. . . . In truth, the case for the traditional heavy public subsidies to medical education and training has simply been taken for granted . . . it never has been adequately justi- fied.(136)
===

(124) Medical school revenues totaled $11,983,863 in 1932. Sources of income were as follows: student fees, $4,057,304; endowment income, $2,784,527; state and city, $2,574,973; and other, $2,567,059. Lowell et al., Table 104 and p. 283.

(125) Uwe Reinhardt, "Planning the Nation's Health Workforce: Let the Market In," Inquiry 31 (Fall 1994): 250-63; Janice L. Ganem et al., "Review of US Medical School Finances, 1993-1994," Journal of the American Medical Association 274 (September 6, 1995): 724, Table 1.

(126) Janice L. Ganem et al., "Review of U.S. Medical School Finances," Journal of the American Medical Association 274 (1995): 723-30.

(127) Mullan et al., p. 142.

(128) Congressional Budget Office, Medicare and Graduate Medical Education (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1995), p. 10.

(129) Ibid.

(130) Mullan et al., p. 143.

(131) Ibid.

(132) Ibid., pp. 142-43.

(133) Ganem, p. 724, Table 1.

(134) Kovner, p. 73.

(135) Feldstein, Health Policy Issues, p. 189.

(136) Reinhardt, pp. 253-54.

(137) "Prized by Hospitals, Accreditation Hides Perils Patients Face," Wall Street Journal, October 12, 1988.

(138) Sherman Follard, Allen Goodman, and Miran Stano, The Economics of Health and Health Care (New York, Macmillan, 1993), p. 583.

 

[AngeloMichael]

Amicus,

I had a long reply written out to your post but it got lost.

But what it basically comes down to is

 

[cloudy]

I don't know why anyone bothers to reply to amicus anymore. I swear he's got a file full of canned answers he just recycles over and over. They all boil down to "why do you hate freedom?"

He's a fucking joke, and an old, tired one at that.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't know why anyone bothers to reply to amicus anymore. I swear he's got a file full of canned answers he just recycles over and over. They all boil down to "why do you hate freedom?"

He's a fucking joke, and an old, tired one at that.

Not posting to Amicus to engage with Amicus. Posting to Amicus to give nonroutine readers a clue about Amicus. Much the same reason TxRad posts to Scouries. And, lord no, I don't do more than skim any Amicus posting.

I note that his underage incest books are being pulled from the marketplace. Yet another socialist plot, I suppose.

 

[cloudy]

Not posting to Amicus to engage with Amicus. Posting to Amicus to give nonroutine readers a clue about Amicus. Much the same reason TxRad posts to Scouries. And, lord no, I don't do more than skim any Amicus posting.

I note that his underage incest books are being pulled from the marketplace. Yet another socialist plot, I suppose.

Of course it is! Amazon hates freedom too!

 

[sr71plt]

Of course it is! Amazon hates freedom too!

Strangely enough, I think Amazon is the only distributor still carrying the books.

 

[amicus]

Even for the poorly educated college graduates of today, it is quite simple to understand why Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, sub-titled, The Mind on Strike'.

It is amazing, in retrospect, how she foresaw the virtual Nationalization of Industry by the progressive left and the forcing corporate decision makers to leave the US and look for ventures in non union and low business tax areas. Why should they ply their enterprises here only to have it taken, regulated, controlled and taxed to death?

Rand created a fanciful 'Galt's Gulch' where those who produced could escape the slave state mentality of Washington, DC, forego the lobbyists and all the bearucrats with their hands out for bribery, just so they could 'do' business; why bother?

In the last few years, I have noted the prevalence of 'foreign born' doctors, especially in the Primary Care area, where doctors refer patients to 'specialists', who limit the patients they take because such a large portion of medical insurance is backed by the government in one way or another.

Government union employees, Unions of all sorts, including the Teacher's Unions, have forced the industry to offer 'gold plated' medical and retirement insurance to union employees, thereby monopolizing the entire medical community and leaving the poor tax payers in the lurch.

Fewer and fewer medical school graduates are going into Primary Care, your regular Medical MD.. for that very reason, it is the lowest paying area in the field.

Oggbashan from England doesn't like it when I mention the 'Brain Drain' of the 50's when GB instituted socialized medicine and doctors fled the country as if from the plague.

Ayn Rand foresaw an humorous situation, asking the question, 'what would happen if all the producers just walked away and left the parasites to fend for themselves?'

Pure, and others, in their convoluted justification of a command economy, again, as always, ignore the individual and concentrate on the 'needs' of society rather than those who keep society alive. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" It doesn't take much to see where you folks are headed for, just as Rand predicted.

They tortured John Galt until their electrical device failed, so he offered to fix it for them...the height of irony, and the very depth of depravity, upon which course y'all seem hell bent to continue.

Where is Galt when we really need him?

Amicus

 

[amicus]

Oh, by the way, I can't begin to tell you the warm and fuzzy feeling I felt when you said you read my stories. I don't read yours.



der amicus

 

[sr71plt]

Oh, by the way, I can't being to tell you the warm and fuzzy feeling I felt when you said you read my stories. I don't read yours.



der amicus

Is this addressed to anyone in particular? Not me, I hope, since I don't read your stories (didn't even know you had any posted to Lit.), and didn't say that I did.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Where is Galt when we really need him?

He's hanging out with Superman, Zorro, and Mickey Mouse in a fictitious bar, getting fictitiously plastered on fictitious bourbon and staring at Lorelei Lee's fictitious tits.

You really think a fictional character can solve your problems? Oh, dude. That is sad.

 

[amicus]

It can only be a lack of a literate education that does not include the Greek Gods, Thor, King Arthur, Robin Hood, that enables one to dismiss the super heroes of fiction as part and parcel of the 'God' thing, which gives man hope and faith that the cruelties of life and nature can be survived.

Galt, Ragnar, Francisco were all representations of the 'perfect or ideal man' in Rand's lexicon of leadership and integrity.

Since there are no heroes in the pathetic iterature of the left, only the circular peripatetic amoral, agnostic anti heroes; small wonder the bitter clique around here detests the conventional role of heroes in literature.

I find it satisfying that the 'usual suspects' are reduced to the lowest levels of whining bitterly when faced with the reason and logic that so escapes them.

I published my 9th book today, ten and eleven should appear on Monday, a collection of 100 selected poems is next up with five more lengthy novels to follow during the winter months and they will all appear on a variety of distributors around the globe.

It is not quite yet the body of work I have planned, but getting there.

Amicus

 

[cloudy]

It can only be a lack of a literate education that does not include the Greek Gods, Thor, King Arthur, Robin Hood, that enables one to dismiss the super heroes of fiction as part and parcel of the 'God' thing, which gives man hope and faith that the cruelties of life and nature can be survived.

Galt, Ragnar, Francisco were all representations of the 'perfect or ideal man' in Rand's lexicon of leadership and integrity.

Since there are no heroes in the pathetic iterature of the left, only the circular peripatetic amoral, agnostic anti heroes; small wonder the bitter clique around here detests the conventional role of heroes in literature.

I find it satisfying that the 'usual suspects' are reduced to the lowest levels of whining bitterly when faced with the reason and logic that so escapes them.

I published my 9th book today, ten and eleven should appear on Monday, a collection of 100 selected poems is next up with five more lengthy novels to follow during the winter months and they will all appear on a variety of distributors around the globe.

It is not quite yet the body of work I have planned, but getting there.

Amicus

"reason" and "logic"....I do not think those words mean what you think they mean....obviously.

I've been here six years and I have yet to see you use any type of reason or logic.

 

[AngeloMichael]

A "perfect" or "ideal man" as a hero is boring in literature.

Flaws are what make heroes interesting.

However characters that are or think they're perfect or ideal usually make the best villians and antagonists. See Anasurimbur Kellhus, The Prince of Nothing - R. Scott Bakker

 

[amicus]

Dear Cloudy, Happy New Year to you and yours...in all the time we have attempted to communicate, which anyone can confirm by reading, you have a subjective, emotional approach to everything, typically feminine, which, in itself, is not a bad thing in that it functions as a foil to reason and rationality which can sometimes drift into ideology and fanaticism.

Some attribute the differences in the intellectual approaches between man and woman, male and female, as endowed by a Creator, I tend to interpret our existence as a result of nature, where the division of labor and specializaton arose from the physical and psychological differences between masculine and feminine.

In the general scheme of things, each is necessary and neither is superior to the other, but a peaceful association between the two is the essence of all the values of mankind in general.

Confrontation and disagreement is natures way of resolving differences on a pragmatic basis, with that which is most efficient, and includes a moral factor, will be the ultimate victorl.

It is a long journey and seldom a smooth one, when one embarks upon a quest for knowledge and must contend, step by step, with opposing opinions and conclusions. A cursory examination of every discipline known to man will illustrate my point beyond question, as each rises or falls on the demonstrable provability of the premises and conclusions of each.

Having dabbled in dozens of encounters at all levels, I soon understood that rational intelligence, objective perspectives are a rarity among men at all levels and the most expressive of those, on either side of an argument, should be respected and valued.

I am a good man of integrity, loyalty and tolerance among those I have associated with over a lifetime. Not that you could or would, but asking of my character in any place I have ever engaged, you will find nothing but kind words and fond memories of me, many of which have lasted decades and I gain new friends everywhere I go.

I am living on borrowed time, which in essence, we all are, as no one knows when the grim reaper will appear. I cherish my children and grandchildren as they do me from a youthful perspective, looking ahead to where their own lives will eventually be.

I think I have recommended to you before, my novel, "The First Chief, Ahjeed" an historical fiction about the first inhabitants of North America and I believe that volume two, The First Chief, Sahjeed Deeda, is still posted on Literotica. I think you might change your opinion of me, at least as it relates to Native Americans.

But then, that is all up to you.

Be well...

amicus