More and more, ‘Medicare for All’ feasible

Bill Knight column for 2-11, 12 or 13, 2019

From last Saturday through this Wednesday, the National Nurses United labor union has been leading a coast-to-coast effort to strengthen the already-substantial public support for Medicare for All, and to lobby lawmakers to represent their constituents in passing this logical reform. 

Medicare for All (M4A) is “single-payer’ health care where all Americans would get health coverage from private providers paid by government. M4A would improve the popular Medicare program for the elderly and expand it to cover everyone. Advocates say it would omit insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays and private insurers and their huge profits, and save workers, businesses and consumers billions of dollars.

Health care’s high costs, lousy coverage and lack of options isn’t news, but within 72 hours early last month, three reports sparked renewed interest in the increasingly feasible Medicare for All: price hikes for various drugs, health-care reforms in developing countries, and the first Congressional hearing on Medicare for All (M4A).

Three dozen pharmaceutical companies raised prices on hundreds of prescription medicines an average of 6.3 percent, the Wall Street Journal reported; Bolivian president Evo Morales announced the launch next month of free universal health care there; and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi approved of the Budget and Rules Committees’ hearings on Medicare for All.

There’s hope:

* Americans support Medicare for All, according to polls by Reuters, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard/Politico, all of which show about 70 percent approval, including 64 percent of Republicans.

* Such single-payer care is endorsed by the AFL-CIO and many labor groups, plus the NAACP, the National Farmers Union, the National Organization for Women, the Green Party, and the Presbyterian Church (USA).

* Studies indicate Medicare for All over the next decade could mean spending trillions of dollars LESS than current health-care spending.

“Additional taxes that a person would pay annually are far less than the average person is paying in premiums to insurance companies,” says Dr. Pamella Gronemeyer, a physician and small businesswoman in Highland, Ill., active in the Illinois Single Payer Coalition. “Also, the savings created by a system that spends money for health care and not administrative costs is indisputable. Medicare operates on an overhead of 2 to 3 percent; the overhead of private insurance companies is around 20 percent.

“We can make Medicare better without copays and deductibles if we include the whole nation and all age groups,” she continues. “Many fear that if they give up their employer health benefits, they will get worse care. This is not true. As a Medicare enrollee, I have my choice of physicians and health-care facilities; I know that the bills will be paid; and patients and providers are not pitted against each other.”

Politically, legislators should recognize that issues that may be initially controversial eventually can be embraced by society, said U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Chicago), a Bradley University graduate and member of Congress’ Medicare for All Caucus.

“Medicare faced considerable resistance immediately prior to its passage [in 1965],” Kelly said. “It has now become a staple upon which millions of Americans rely. Many other developed countries had some form of social insurance that eventually evolved into national insurance for nearly as long as the United States has wrestled with the concept.”

Dr. Gronemeyer adds that the move to a system already used by most industrialized countries would also be good for the United States as a nation.

“The country is only as well as the state of health of the sickest and weakest,” Dr. Gronemeyer says. “Medicare for All is the most economically affordable, equitable and patriotic health care for this country.”

Moving literary classics to the screen sometimes works

Bill Knight column for 2-7, 8 or 9, 2019

Interplay between literature and cinema is common. This week, the 207^th anniversary of the birth of Charles Dickens (whose various works were made into many movies), is a nice time to reflect on films based on literary sources.

Aside from popularity and using older material not protected by copyright, movies based on literature (classics or modern bestsellers) often disappoint. There are exceptions: John Ford's 1940 version of John Steinbeck's “Grapes of Wrath,” Sidney Lumet's 1962 version of Eugene O'Neill's “Long Day's Journey into Night,” and Norman McLeod's 1933 version of Lewis Carroll's “Alice in Wonderland” are excellent. Some are decades old; filmmakers’ approach to literary source material has changed.

“Back in the 1930s, a film’s worth was often judged on how faithful it was to the book on which it was based,” wrote John Gallagher of the Detroit Journal. “The classic film ‘Gone with the Wind’ translated Margaret Mitchell’s novel nearly verbatim. Classic films such as ‘David Copperfield’ remained faithful to their characters and plot, no matter what shortening filmmakers had to do.”

That’s less true today.

Author Dean Koontz said that Tobe Hooper’s script Koontz adapted into the book “Funhouse” provided only 10 to 20 percent of the material required for the novelization. And there's the opposite problem – cutting a huge work into a manageable time. Length and depth don't always translate to film; films must be tightly focused to entertain moviegoers without ruining readers' expectations. It's a tough balancing act. Literature and film are different media by different makers for different markets. Of course, Hollywood brings literature to new and larger audiences, too. Before Martin Scorsese made “The Age of Innocence,” Edith Wharton's novel sold fewer than 20,000 copies a year. Now there are almost a million copies in print.

The publishing trade magazine Book had its “Ten Worst Adaptations of Great Books” – “Angela’s Ashes,” “Beloved,” “Billy Bathgate,” “Bonfire of the Vanities,” “The Brothers Karamazov,” “Dune,” “Great Expectations, “The Great Gatsby,” “The Razor’s Edge” and “The Scarlet Letter.” (Book conceded that some motion-picture versions are better than the stories from which they’re derived, listing “The Cider House Rules,” “Deliverance,” “The Fountainhead,” “The Godfather,” “Jaws” and “The Shining.”)

Here are 10 good films based on literary sources available online, etc.

“The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”/Mark Twain (1939). The Hannibal., Mo., scamp who runs away with a slave to experience adventure and danger, terror and life-changing experiences along the Mississippi is played by Mickey Rooney, and though this version of the classic American novel may not be the most faithful, its spirit comes closest. Rex Ingram co-stars as Jim; William Frawley is featured.

“A Farewell to Arms”/Ernest Hemingway (1932). In his breakthrough role, Gary Cooper stars as a World War I ambulance driver struggling with a doomed romance with a nurse. It co-stars Helen Hayes and Adolphe Menjou.

“The Last of The Mohicans”/James Fenimore Cooper (1992). The 18th century wilderness is magnificently presented in director Michael Mann’s vision of the tale. Daniel Day-Lewis stars as Hawkeye, a scout helping British settlers and soldiers during the French and Indian War. Madeleine Stowe, Russell Means and Wes Studi are featured.

“Moby Dick”/Herman Melville (1956). The classic tale of Captain Ahab’s obsession with the Great White Whale was written for the screen by Ray Bradbury and directed by John Huston. Starring Gregory Peck, it features Richard Basehart, Leo Genn and (briefly) Orson Welles.

“Of Mice and Men”/John Steinbeck (1992). Actor/director Gary Sinise used writer Horton Foote’s adaptation of Steinbeck’s touching short story to good effect. Besides Sinise, John Malkovich and Ray Walston co-star.

“Red Badge of Courage”/Stephen Crane (1951). Real-life war hero Audie Murphy (World War II’s most-decorated soldier) had his screen debut in this appreciative rendition of the Civil War novella about a young man who grows from a shy, even cowardly soldier, to a more seasoned combatant. Co-starring in filmmaker John Huston’s picture are Arthur Hunnicutt and Bill Mauldin.

“Sense and Sensibility”/Jane Austen (1995). Ang Lee directed this adaptation of the novel of 18^th-century manners and morals staring Kate Winslet and Emma Thompson, who won an Oscar for her script. It co-stars Hugh Grant and Alan Rickman.

‘A Tale of Two Cities”/Charles Dickens (1935). The fifth version of this masterpiece about the French Revolution is terrific, starring Ronald Colman, Basil Rathbone and Reginald Owen.

“The Three Musketeers”/Alexander Dumas (1993). Richard Lester’s 1970s-’80s trilogy is great, but this ‘Brat Pack’ version is livelier and rowdier. Charlie Sheen, Oliver Platt and Keifer Sutherland star as the swashbuckling defenders of the crown in 17th century France, with Chris O’Donnell as D’Artagnan.

“Wuthering Heights”/Emily Bronte (1939). The story of ill-fated love was brought to the screen by director William Wyler and stars Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon, featuring David Niven and Geraldine Fitzgerald.