The End of the Page

Health Care Debate Without the Actual Debate

Now turn your head and cough up $75. It’s for your deductible.

Anything worth doing is worth fighting for, but no one ever said the fight was going to be fair. Nothing in the current political climate proves that case better than the repulsive, divisive and downright irresponsible tactics being employed day after day by those against the proposed health care reform package put forward by President Obama.

Before I get any further, let me be frank and fully admit my own shortcomings. I have not read the full bill being supported by Obama. After doing a number of searches online for a copy of the bill all I could find were cut-down versions or ones rewritten as “plain-English” translations by people with their own agendas. Without getting the exact words from the bill itself I don’t feel any of the “laymen” versions are fully trustworthy (especially since most of those demonize the plan anyway without pointing back to the original language as examples). Yet with all the coverage being given to this debate from all around the political spectrum, I feel fine in pointing out some rather glaring hypocrisies being badly hidden by the raucous and rambunctious opponents of health care reform.

There are a wide number of issues to discuss, but I’m going to focus on one of the most talked about and absolutely least intrinsically important lightning rods inside the fight, the so-called “death panels”. Sounds scary, right? Does it bring images of judge’s benches built way too high specifically to make you seem insignificant in the eyes of the law and the people who run it? Then do you picture yourself being wheeled in front of said bench only to hear from robed faceless politicians that you are too sick to make continued care efficient for the economy, so the lever is pulled and you are essentially dropped out of existence? That is what the fear-mongering conglomerates on the right would like you to dream about at night, specifically so you will wake up on the day of your local town hall meeting and race out with your pitchfork held high and the light of your torch lighting the way.

Trouble is, there are no “death panels”. Nope. None at all. The tiny piece of legislation inside the 1,000 page bill which is being referenced for this demonic fantasy actually says that under the new government sponsored plan they would reimburse you for an appointment with your own doctor if you chose to have a counseling session about end of life decisions and setting up a living will. That is all. No death panel, no politician having any say what-so-ever about “pulling the plug on Grandma” as Sen. Grassley keeps touting. It is simply a small payment covered by your insurance policy for an appointment to let you talk to your very own doctor about how you would like to face that most difficult of decisions. The impact to the health care industry and its costs comes from the fact that thousands and thousands of people are kept on life support systems for many, many years with no hope of recovery and costing their families and the economy millions and millions of dollars. Studies have shown that an increasing number of seniors would choose not to have their life end with them lying in a hospital with wires and tubes protruding from every part of their fragile bodies. More and more are choosing to die at home, with their families, surrounded by loved ones and with a higher sense of dignity.

Before anyone decides to challenge the validity of the sentiment, my mother died just under four years ago from brain cancer. The moment she was diagnosed and it was made quite clear by the doctors that her condition was fatal and incurable, she immediately got paperwork going for a living will. She had no intention of wasting away hooked to a machine and due to her diligence and forward thinking she was able to spend her remaining weeks at home surrounded by a constant rotation of friends, family and loved ones. The living will also takes the onus and pressure off of the families. End of life decisions are terrible and painful to make and without the expressed sentiment of the actual patient, families have been completely torn apart. Let’s not forget just a few years back with the tragic case of Terri Schiavo. She was completely brain dead and her husband felt he knew Terri’s feelings about being alive solely based on life support, so he wanted to have her machines turned off so she could die naturally. Terri actually had a “do not resuscitate” order in place, but the medical staff at her hospital convinced her husband early in her treatment to have it rescinded. Years later, after no improvement at all, he tried to have the order re-enacted. Her family was dead set against that decision and felt prayer and God’s will would bring her back from her vegetative state. It turned into one of the most contentious court battles over the “right to die” in history.

The main reason why this case is of supreme importance to the current health care debate is the very people who are screaming and rallying over the purported offense of having the government step in and interfere in the intimate family-only decision of when and how a loved one should die, those people were on the forefront of the government effort to stop Terri’s husband and keep her alive. In that case they said it was their moral and ethical right to step in as the government of all people and help ensure the safety of one of their own. The President of the United States at the time, George W. Bush, actually came back from a vacation early just so he could sign a piece of legislation urging the Supreme Court to rule on the side of denying Terri’s previous wishes.

So you see, when stepping in supports what the right wing wants, the family and their heart-rending decisions have no place in front of the government desire. Yet when stepping in does not support their desire – which in the overall case it doesn’t because it will lessen the money flowing into the pockets of the health insurance agencies – now the government should keep their damn hands off our grandmothers. The hypocrisy is brighter and more apparent than a first grader’s coloring book.

The idea of educating and supporting the furthering of “advance care directives” or living wills, which now makes so many on the right sick to their stomachs since it is really a plot by Obama to kill old people (true statement from health care reform opponents), was once touted and rallied for by those exact same people. In 2003, tucked nicely inside the prescription drug reform package, was a very familiar sounding piece of legislation which actually pooled a percentage of funds to educating more people on living wills and even offering early consultation services as part of the drug plan package. That prescription drug package was sent up, voted on and widely passed by the current Republican majority of 2003 and celebrated by then President Bush as a major success for the health of our wise and venerated citizens.

For those concerned about the changes being talked about, please read between the lines and find out where the scary nightmares are actually coming from when they are being screamed and bellowed at these surprisingly camera-ready impromptu protests. These are all made up of random concerned citizens. A percentage of them, not all, but certainly some, are bought and sold mobs funded by the right wing special interests whose pockets are lined with millions from the health insurance industry and drug manufacturers. The people with the most money to lose are the ones feeding the hysteria, because this is the nightmares they see when they sleep. Dark dreams of years without $11 million dollar bonus and a gloomy “For Sale” sign posted on the lawn of one of many summer homes in the Hamptons.

This is a fight to help the common citizen. Don’t be blindfolded with the dollar bills of the rich.

Follow this link to find out the truth about what’s really in the reform bill: HealthReform.gov

Also, if you would like to help or support the foundation set up in memory of Terri Schiavo, click here.

District 9: Intelligence On Our Own Planet!

Wait a sec, was there crab in that dish? I’m really allergic. What do you mean you can see that?

Rating: 10 out of 10

Step back from your monitors, wipe your eyes and sit back down just so you can take in the full effect. The time has finally come, the perfect 10 is here!!! In certain genres, like Sci-Fi, you hope for a bunch of fun and flashy flicks, a ton of terrible pieces of tripe and one lone escapee from the chaos to shine as a bastion for this commonly maligned and under-appreciated area of filmmaking. Yet, this year we have been doubly lucky with the release of Moon, from debut director Duncan Jones (son of musical icon David Bowie) and now we have the incredibly original and yet comfortably familiar film District 9. I’ve decided to block myself from even looking into the remaining months of this year in hopes of pulling a Sci-Fi hat-trick with one more stellar addition to the ranks because the sheer hope of it makes me shiver uncontrollably. Before it gets too much and I lose the ability to type, let’s get into this wonderful and amazingly intelligent film.

District 9 is the name given to a government-created slum used to house aliens, negatively referred to as “Prawns”, who have descended into the airspace over Johannesburg with no reason as to why they are here. The initial excitement over first contact wears thin over twenty years of occupation and now the people of Johannesburg and the planet beyond have decided it is time for the government to move them even farther away from the city and human society. One man from a nearby multi-national military contractor is put in charge of the relocation efforts and what should have been the greatest achievement of his career becomes the most integral turning point of his life. “Right versus Wrong” is once again relabeled “Us against Them”.

There are a wide range of reasons why this movie succeeds so greatly in its message and mission. One of the first and most important I believe it its ability to borrow from previous Sci-Fi classics and repackage them in a new and fresh way, feeding us iconic imagery in a way which makes us feel like we are seeing it for the first time. There are no words to explain how hard that task really is. Starting from the look of the ship itself, a classic flying saucer design (very closely resembling the mother ships in Independence Day), yet the design team here adds much more of a steampunk feel to it. The ship is less shiny, less streamlined and actually looks like it is capable of breaking down, which is an important part of the story.

Moving beyond the surface, the subtext of the film is also a throwback to a number of previous Sci-Fi landmarks. Dealing with racism and segregation inside of an alien storyline is nothing incredibly new, since we all remember classics like Alien Nation and the TV mini-series V (currently getting a remake of its own), but District 9 piles on an even deeper layer by placing the whole film in Johannesburg and highlighting the already difficult class struggle inside the more poverty stricken areas around the city. They even pulled in the rampant crime syndicate that burrows through the society and seeks to gain money and power by exploiting the aliens and their technology. For many moments in the film, even with one of the “prawns” on screen, you might very well convince yourself what you are seeing is a live news broadcast. That type of realism comes from great research and great writing, learning to weave truth and real life situations into fictional worlds. Skills like that are inherent to creating a lasting and impressive story like this one.

Lastly I want to mention the arc made by the main character Wikus, played brilliantly by Sharlto Copley (a man with a whopping one single credit to his name before this one). Copley starts the movie as an ambitious, nerdy and somewhat adorable government worker looking for his big break. As he moves through the story you begin to see some cracks in the veneer, moments of rage, dangerous uncertainty and deep racism against the aliens (made apparent by his subtle but continued use of the term “prawn”). As the twists turn for our improbable hero he is forced to make a number of choices, ones that control the very outcome of his life. For such a touching, yearning and powerful performance to be given by someone with such an unassuming resume, it is one of those moments movie lovers wait for each year. I have little doubt that Copley will be seeing his list of credits grow and I hope to see that same list on this very site.

Neil Blomkamp, the director and co-writer of this amazing film, truly went beyond the norms of the Sci-Fi genre and brought together something with a contemporary and moving story. Very few times when walking out of a film with aliens, energy rifles and floating spaceships would an audience member hope to find that they have either learned something about how the world works or even more how they themselves view other people. Questions are indeed raised by this film about what we would do as a society in the face of an alien influx into our world. Would we welcome them? Would we attack them? It’s possible we’ll never know until the time comes, but District 9 lays out a very realistic and probable scenario, scary as that may seem once you’ve finished watching it.

Recommendation: Seriously, it’s the first 10 out of 10 film I’ve reviewed. What do you think I’m going to say down here – GO SEE IT! NOW!

Paper Heart: A Fake Story About Real Love

Did you just use the words “serve and obey”? Seriously?

Rating: 8 out of 10

Love. When we don’t have it, we want it. When we have it, we struggle to hold on to it. When we lose it, we blame it. Yet we always come back around to the beginning again and feel the need to bring it into our daily life. For some people it is a lifelong quest to find the kind of love only talked about in movies and books, while for others they are content with a much more temporary version of the emotion. Then there are those few and far between who for one reason or another can’t seem to find the connection to that world-driving feeling. This is the story of one such girl.

Paper Heart is a quasi-documentary starring Charlene Yi as a young girl who questions whether or not she believes in love. She drives across the country from Los Angeles to New York with a small film crew conducting interviews with a wide cross section of the American populace. Along the way she meets fellow actor, Michael Cera, and she finds her search for the meaning of love becomes increasingly internal instead of external. The arc of the documentary contours to the arc of their relationship and we witness her take that journey first hand.

[Minor spoiler ahead. Be warned]

There are two main things this movie has going for it. Firstly, when talking about the film, Charlene, who was also the co-writer and producer, and director Nick Jasenovec make no illusions about the fact they scripted the relationship storyline with Michael Cera. You begin to feel throughout the movie that things were just too perfect to all happen on film and it makes you doubt the authenticity about what you’re seeing. Yet, with the filmmakers completely and freely admitting those portions were created specifically as a throughline and emotional pathway for the film, you can relax and fully appreciate how well it was crafted. Secondly, Charlene herself is a joy to watch. It is refreshing and relieving to see her as herself, or a close facsimile thereof, instead of a ninety-minute movie about the diminutive stoner girl from Knocked Up. In Paper Heart, Charlene is adorable, honest, intriguing and at times nearly heartbreaking. She walks a very thin line between lovable and painfully awkward, but on this occasion she keeps her balance with rare precision.

Kudos also must be given the director Nick Jasenovec who also helped to craft the story and bring in the Charlene on-camera idea. If this were to have been crafted solely as a documentary about love it would have felt incredibly slow and long-winded. Being able to follow Charlene on her personal and poignant journey gave the audience a respite from the real-life interviews and personal stories from those outgoing and kinetic Americans along the road. Also, even though the director in the film following Charlene is named Nick, he is not actually the director. The softly toned performance of Nick was actually given by Jake M. Johnson and the crux he found himself in between creating a true and meaningful documentary and doing unnecessary damage to the growing relationship between Charlene and Michael felt incredibly honest and true.

Michael Cera himself does deserve mention as well. He has a very unique and particular charm to him and this role did nothing to detract from that. He is very easily pigeonholed into one small character type, yet I find nothing wrong with continuing to give us more when he does it so well. It was interesting to see him here acting as himself, but my personal favorite of his so far is still Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist (my deepest apologies to the legions of Arrested Development fans out there).

The half-documentary genre is a hard one to get right. The balance of the real world and the fictional one needs to be nearly invisible, but not to the point where the audience is feeling duped or lied to. Paper Heart moves along the line with rare confidence, especially for a creative team with such little previous experience. I was completely unsurprised to hear Nick and Charlene are working together again and developing a project for the near future. A narrative voice emerged in this film and I look forward to hearing what oddly funny and touching words will flow from it next.

Recommendation: If you find Charlene adorable, the film will touch you. If you find her too awkward to enjoy, the movie will most likely miss its mark. Also, at the screening I went to we made bets on the number of “awwww” moments from the audience. I bet seven (I missed by one, we got six.).