In a letter to the editor of The New York Times dated September 15, 2009, Roger Ebert, film critic for The Chicago Sun-Times, writes:
I am one of those you write about [“For Speech-Impaired, Insurance Fights Remedy,” September 14, 2009] who uses a computer voice after losing the power of speech as a result of cancer surgery. After trying an $8,000 custom device with little computing power and a small, dim screen, I tried the built-in speech software on my MacBook and found it much more practical.
It will read anything aloud, including what I define on a Web page or in an e-mail message. Several voices are built into the computer, and others are downloadable at moderate prices.
I combine talking and Web surfing — for example, sharing a news headline with my wife. Instead of using the weak built-in speakers, I use nice loud, lightweight speakers powered from a USB port, costing around $50.
Anyone who uses a computer and has lost the power of speech knows that e-mail becomes invaluable. It’s stupid of insurance companies to insist on an inferior device costing 10 times as much.
Source: The New York Times
More info about Apple’s Mac OS X’s VoiceOver feature here.
Ebert’s website – two thumbs up – is: rogerebert.suntimes.com
MacDailyNews Take: Ebert has long been a great backer of Apple Macs and we wish him the best of health.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “WhitIV” for the heads up.]
Talking e-mail! Alright! Canceling my landline phone right now.
You’re cancelling your landline? Welcome to last decade.
Ebert is a legend, and his heroic battle with cancer is an inspiration to me.
Innovative.
Start your journey now, my Lord.
what is the brand name of the overpriced $8000 unit?
I never knew he had thyroid cancer until now. I use to really enjoy ‘Siskel & Ebert’, but I never really watched him after Gene Siskel passed away. Still, I’m sorry for his problems and wish him well.
I’ve been a fan of Roger Ebert since I was a kid, when he and Siskel were on Public Television, and my admiration for him has grown in the internet age. He has embraced it and incorporated technology into his life and work like few other “old media” folks around. Andy Ihnatko is sort of an acolyte of his and has collaborated on books with him. They are both good writers, good thinkers, film lovers, and top-notch Mac advocates.
I read Ebert’s movie reviews even if I have no interest in the movies he’s reviewing, he always has something interesting to say.
People worry about the government taking over health insurance but they often must accept limitations like this from their private insurers. Here are a couple of interesting insurance company percentages…
Change since 2002 in average premiums paid to US insurance companies: +87%
Change since 2002 in the profits of the top 10 insurance companies: +428%
@ Renderdog,
I think it was just yesterday on CBS News that a spokesperson for the health insurance industry said that they only make a .05¢ profit from every dollar they take in.
I find that just a wee bit hard to believe.
Mr Ebert illustrates an all-too common problem when it comes to solutions for the disabled: oft-times a simple solution is overlooked by “professionals” to settle on costly and same-for-all solutions.
A friend of mine who is in a motorized wheelchair due to severe MS applied for a computer in order to be able to read and send email. He was turned down because his health insurer would only provide a machine that replaced type writer functionality as in “put in sheet of paper, type on electronic keyboard, typed paper comes out”. His inability to handle sheets of paper was not seen as a problem.
It’s insane policies and abuses like these that Obama and Co. need to focus on, rather than shoving healthcare down everyone’s throats. They really should work on fixing what’s broke about the system first.
I simply cannot understand why _anyone_ would oppose universal healthcare–it promises realistically affordable healthcare to anyone, without taking away anything at all. How mean-spirited do you have to be truly to want to deny healthcare to the millions and millions of Americans who either can’t afford _any_ healthcare at all, or who have ridiculously-restrictive plans through absurd HMOs?
Obama and Co can’t move fast enough, as far as I’m concerned.
Dear Health Care Socialist
I oppose it because experience has taught me that it will run as efficiently as the post office or the cash for clunkers program. I oppose it because the example of Mr. Ebert is that he handled it on his own, made his own choices. If the public option is the only option, you lose all choices. We’ll be forced to use the Windows Vista of health care. When the powers that control access to health care look to cut costs, my dad won’t be given access to a new heart. He will be deemed too old and it won’t be approved and he won’t have anywhere to go.
I oppose it because I won’t buy into the straw man argument that people are dying because they don’t have health care now. Everybody knows all they have to do is go to the emergency room and they’ll get treatment. No body is turned away.
HCS wrote:
“I simply cannot understand why _anyone_ would oppose universal healthcare–“
Because the universe is a pretty big place. And it’s not “health care,” it’s health insurance.
“it promises realistically affordable healthcare to anyone, without taking away anything at all.”
Yes, it sure makes a lot of promises… unrealistic and not proven out by any examples of any of the countries which have tried it. In every case, there ends up being overall lower quality of coverage. As someone who has lived in a western European country with government health insurance, I much prefer the American system, despite its higher personal costs. The treatment given to the masses that I experienced was positively crappy (quick example: a room with 16 beds less than a meter apart filled with people with all different illnesses, no phones, poor ventilation, and, unbelievable to me, nurses who smoked in and yelled between rooms with no concern for the patients. Everyone who could afford it carried private health insurance to stay in special clinics.
A recent national poll found that 84 percent of Americans who are currently insured are satisfied with their health care. (http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1722 ) That indicates a system which is overall good with a need to improve efficiency, not be scrapped altogether in the fantasy that government can do it better.
Everyone has at least a basic level of health care here, it’s just that too many don’t have insurance, so they go to the emergency room for the care. That and other inefficiencies raise the costs for those who pay. Our system needs improving, not a government takeover.
Don’t get me started on health insurance companies…..trust me. My post would take up a whole MDN page.
Joel and HSnetworkGuy, I live in Massachusetts. If there’s a way to mess something up, the state will typically find a way. They had to FORCE me to buy into their health insurance plan. A couple years on, I’m beginning to think they’re doing a pretty good job! OK, the people I’m insured with (no “public option”) pretty much rammed a couple stents down my throat – stents I think I could have done without and later research suggested were counter-indicated – but they paid for 95% of it. I had been living without insurance, at 60+ – talk about dangerous!
Joel (and others),
Healthcare rationing is coming no matter what. It has nothing to do with Obama or who is President – it is a reality of the state of our society. More and more people who choose to not take care of themselves when they have the means leads to spiraling health care costs. The day will come soon when an ethics board decides who gets to continue to receive health care and who doesn’t, and I’m not talking just about big expensive procedures – I’m talking about being able to go see a doctor and take medications.
It’s coming; it’s already happening in England, and patients themselves are to blame – not politicians or insurance companies.
That’s hardly surprising. The federal government fails to provide custom shoes to people with diabetes suffering neuropathies, but gladly shells out thousands of dollars for below-the-knee amputations secondary to infections. Expect more of the same from the idiots in power.
However, one can’t lay all the blame on government. Type II diabetes is a self-inflicted illness and one cannot legislate intelligence or individual responsibility.
@ health care socialist
“I simply cannot understand why _anyone_ would oppose universal healthcare–it promises realistically affordable healthcare to anyone, without taking away anything at all. How mean-spirited do you have to be truly to want to deny healthcare to the millions and millions of Americans who either can’t afford _any_ healthcare at all, or who have ridiculously-restrictive plans through absurd HMOs?
Obama and Co can’t move fast enough, as far as I’m concerned.”
Here in the UK we’re following this story with a considerable degree of astonishment. We find it difficult to fathom how a nation as rich as yours deals so callously with the health of its people. Our National Health Service was miraculously established at a time when our nation was battered and impoverished by war. It certainly has its problems- often caused by the interference of politicians and the creeping presence of US-style private interests- but it’s nontheless a wonderful institution within which everybody get the healthcare they need when they need it, irrespective of how much money they happen to have.
Leaving the decision about whether you live or die in the hands of uncaring, avaricious insurance companies seems to us the ultimate folly- one which you can surely afford to do away with if youn really wanted to.
Wow. I am astounded at how fast these threads become hijacked. Yes, EVEN ME!
Back on topic (sort of), when deciding what to DVR, I often cross reference Ebert http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
and rotten tomatoes
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/
I give considerable more weight to Ebert.
To everyone complaining about private insurance companies and saying the government would fix it:
A NY Times article describing this problem points out that the federal government program Medicare is the one that set the STANDARD for requiring these “single-purpose” over-priced, stripped-down devices, instead of general-purpose computers with superior software. They will only pay for a device if it can ONLY do the one thing supposedly needed. The private insurance companies often match their rules to the government, and are doing so here.
So, this problem is one defined by the federal government’s ineptitude in providing cost-efficient, patient-friendly health care.
Let’s hand them the whole thing – I’m sure they’ll do a better job if we give them a lot more to do.
To all those opposed to universal health coverage:
Virtually anything would be better, fairer and more humane than the system we have now. If you can’t acknowledge how profoundly and tragically broken the current U.S. system is, then you really have nothing meaningful to say about the alternatives.
@Cubert
Health care has always been rationed. The question now is who will ration it: you or the Federal Government. The medical care issues in the U.S. are a combination insurance, fraud, cost of medical education, tort, and our dedication to keeping people alive as long as possible regardless of age or feebleness. Instead of a massive Government take over of the entire system, which has disaster written all over it, the legislature should tackle each of these issues independently. Fraud is rampant, both in private insurance and governmental programs. Figure out how to put an end to that. Malpractice suits are filed as a lottery in many cases. Seriously consider some tort reform. Insurance reform? Sure. Prove where they are ripping off people and develop specific legislation to address that. The government can’t even figure out how to fund Medicare and Medicaid. Put that house in order before biting off more to “F” up. Most people see the problem, but I like many others don’t see more Governmental “control” as the answer. Medical schools have for decades purposely limited the amount of graduates to keep their value up. This has to change. The government could perhaps spend tax dollars better by subsidizing more training for doctors and other medical attendants. Lastly, the reality that about 80% of medical costs go to maintain life for folks over 65 years also needs to be examined. I don’t know the answer, but a carte blanche system for the aged will bankrupt ANY system put in place. I’d be more willing to listen to government proposals that tackle these individual issues, rather than one huge bill that basically says, “Everything is a mess, we’ll take it over.” Republican or Democrat, there are not enough brains in Congress to make it happen. One thing I’ve learned is this: There is no going back. Once the government is allowed to “remake” our medical system, there will be no putting it back, or even parts of it back, if or when the error of that decision is recognized. You only have to look at the useless and obsolete departments of government still staffed and sucking huge budgets annually, decades after there need has disappeared. And every time you, me or we invite the government to take over an area of our responsibility (yes, taking care of one’s own health used to be a personal responsibility) you, I and we give up another chunk of liberty. Liberty is taken for granted, but it is often only treasured when gone.