Connect with us

Lifestyle

In the movies, villainous health insurers have been a chronic condition

Published

on

In the movies, villainous health insurers have been a chronic condition

In the 2002 medical thriller John Q, Denzel Washington and Kimberly Elise play parents who learn that their 9-year-old son’s heart transplant won’t be covered by insurance.

Cinematic/Alamy Stock Photo


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Cinematic/Alamy Stock Photo

The killing of health insurance executive, Brian Thompson has led to a flood of anger on social media — directed not at the shooter but at health insurance providers — and suddenly, we’re surprised that in the public imagination, insurance companies seem to be bad guys? But Hollywood’s been making villains of them for years.

In 1997’s Oscar-winning comedy As Good as It Gets, one of the biggest laughs was always the scene in which Helen Hunt erupted into profanity while talking to a sympathetic doctor about care for her son. Care that’s not been coming his way because of “F****** HMO b****** pieces of s***,” is how she somewhat indelicately puts it.

When she glances at the doctor and adds a quick “I’m sorry,” he offers a bemused, “Actually, I think that’s their technical name.”

Advertisement

YouTube

This moment in one of 1997’s most popular movies was just the tip of the HMO-bashing iceberg that year. Two other movies actually centered health insurance in their plots. The satirical comedy Critical Care took a doctors-eye view at a hospital where patients with good insurance were seen as cash cows, as opposed to the John Grisham thriller The Rainmaker, where Matt Damon’s crusading, if inexperienced, lawyer struggled to get his clients any care at all.

Negativity: A pre-existing condition?

Was all this negativity about health insurers just a bad year’s PR for the industry? Well, for a while, insurance companies didn’t have a lot of good years in Hollywood.

Advertisement
  • Queen Latifah got a brain tumor diagnosis in Last Holiday (2006) that her HMO wouldn’t cover.
  • Michael Moore suffered no health industry fools in his documentary Sicko (2007).
  • The horror flick Saw VI (2009) centered on an insurance adjustor who quickly wishes he hadn’t denied coverage to the Jigsaw killer.
  • Even Pixar’s animation team got into the act in The Incredibles (2004), though about insurance companies in general, not just health insurance. When Mr. Incredible is told to hang up his suit at the beginning of the film, he glumly returns to his insurance office cubicle to do what movie insurance adjusters invariably do: deny coverage to a sweet little old lady who lives on a fixed income. Then, his wife jokes about saving the world one policy at a time, and he comes up with a way to help her. But that gets him in trouble with his boss, who screams at him to stop writing checks to every Harry Hardluck and Sally Sobstory, and remember that his job is to keep Insuricare in the black.

YouTube

Managed care and cost control

Films inevitably reflect public attitudes, and by the late 1990s and early 2000s, the public was demonstrably not happy with how health insurance works.

A 2004 article in the Journal of Health Law argued that Hollywood healthcare stories had turned into horror stories after insurance companies in America largely turned to a system called “managed” care — aimed at reducing unnecessary hospitalizations and making the healthcare industry more efficient.

By the mid-1990s, these corporate plans were widely credited for doing that. But their success came at a reputational price: never mind that hospitals, drug companies and others had all played roles, insurers got cast as the prime villains, and that sentiment was the one being reflected in Hollywood films, nowhere more urgently than in the 2002 medical thriller, John Q.

Advertisement

YouTube

Denzel Washington played the title character who, when told his insurance wouldn’t cover a heart transplant for his critically ill 9-year-old, took hostage not just the hospital’s emergency room, but the sentiments of a public that gathered behind police lines on the street outside the hospital, seeming as disenchanted with insurers as he was.

Advertisement

And, much as his plight resonated with that crowd on screen, it seemed to touch a raw nerve with the more than 17 million movie patrons who saw John Q in theaters worldwide.

The film inspired editorials, soul searching and even full-page ads by the American Association of Health Plans, attempting damage control: “John Q: It’s not just a movie,” proclaimed the ads, “it’s a crisis for 40 million people who can’t afford health care.”

Critics were less enthused, but who’s ever accused a critic of having a heart?

Lifestyle

‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University

Published

on

‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University

Students walk on the Stanford University campus on March 14, 2019, in Stanford, Calif.

Ben Margot/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ben Margot/AP

When Theo Baker arrived at Stanford University a few years ago, he joined the student newspaper, following the path of his journalist parents, Peter Baker, a White House correspondent for The New York Times, and Susan Glasser, a writer for The New Yorker.

Through his reporting as a student journalist, he eventually broke a story about manipulated data in Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s neuroscience research that helped lead to the university president’s resignation.

Theo Baker’s book, How to Rule the World: An Education in Power at Stanford University was released May 19. In it, Baker describes Stanford as a place where proximity to Silicon Valley gives rise to a parallel system of influence, recruitment and money, with investors looking to identify promising students almost as soon as they arrive on campus.

Advertisement

He told Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep there was “a sort of Stanford inside Stanford,” where elite students are drawn into an “alternate reality” of excess and access to cut corners.

In the interview, he discusses how Stanford is not just a university but also a pipeline where status and power can matter as much as ideas.

We reached out to Stanford University for comment and have not heard back.

Listen to the interview by clicking play on the blue box above.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf

Published

on

OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf
The Italian fashion group behind Diesel and Maison Margiela is taking full ownership of the avant-garde haute couture house, acquiring the remaining 30 percent it didn’t already own. Founders Viktor Horsting and Rolf Snoeren remain creative directors.
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet

Published

on

How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet

The scoreboard shows the results of the women’s singles final match between Iga Swiatek of Poland and Amanda Anisimova of the U.S. at the Wimbledon Tennis Championships in London, Saturday, July 12, 2025.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP

Fifteen points in tennis? Nice. Thirty, 40 — even better. Advantage — that sounds good. “Love” — that also must be great, right? Well, not quite.

As the French Open rolls on and Serena Williams has announced her return to the sport, maybe you’ve been paying a little more attention to tennis. The sport’s scoring system is notably distinct, and can sometimes be hard to grasp for newcomers. But even tennis aficionados might not know why, or how, “love” became the unmistakable callout for zero points. For this installment of NPR’s Word of the Week, we’re exploring how a word that signifies trailing behind got such a sweet name.

“Love” comes from the heart — or an egg?

It’s hard to pinpoint when the first tennis ball went over the net. Tennis is a derivative of lots of other sports, such as “jeu de paume,” a handball game played in France, said JT Buzanga, the collections manager at the International Tennis Hall of Fame museum.

Advertisement

But tennis became a patented, official sport in 1874, said Steve Flink, a journalist whose tennis coverage got him inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. It has retained its unique, mysterious scoring system ever since.

“By and large, the original system has held up almost entirely,” Flink said.

The use of “love” goes back to the late 18th century, said Jesse Sheidlower, a lexicographer. But it was used earlier than that in card games such as whist and bridge. Before the term made its way to tennis, the sport favored plain old “nothing,” or “nil,” he said.

Why love in the first place, though? Historians don’t really know for sure, but there are a few theories.

The French could have something to do with it. Some historians believe “love” derives from “l’oeuf,” which means “the egg” in French. Because eggs are shaped like zeros, terms such as “goose egg” and “duck’s egg” have been used in other contexts to mean zero, Sheidlower said.

Advertisement

It’s also possible English speakers mispronounced l’oeuf as “love.” But Sheidlower isn’t convinced that’s the answer.

“It’s the French equivalent of an English expression. But since that expression doesn’t appear in French, the French word wouldn’t have been used,” he said.

To be sure, France has had a lot of influence on tennis culture, Buzanga said. For example, “deuce” or a game tied at 40 points, comes from the French word for “two”: “deux.” But he prefers another prominent theory: that “love” comes from the idiom “for the love of the game.” Even if a player hasn’t scored, it doesn’t matter, because their heart is in it. It’s the theory Sheidlower said is the most plausible, because the idiom was used by the English before tennis was popularized.

Another variation of the “love of the game” theory is that the word could have come from the Dutch “lof,” or “honor” — or the Latin “amare,” meaning “to love,” Flink said.

But if tennis’ “love” doesn’t come from a French word, the theory at least has a French sensibility.

Advertisement

“I think the ‘for the love of the game’ is kind of romantic,” Buzanga said.

“Love” probably isn’t going anywhere

Tennis used to be a sport of leisure. The style of play has changed a lot over the years; players are more athletic and competitive, for instance, Flink said. But the rules of the sport are more steadfast, he said.

“There’s this incredible, enduring respect for tradition in tennis,” he said. “Changes are not made easily.”

There has been one major change in modern history: the tie-break. Matches can go on and on because players have to score two consecutive points to break a deuce, or by two games to break a tied set. But the onset of television meant matches would have to get shorter if the sport wanted to capture a larger audience, Flink said.

Change even came for “love.” An alternative sprouted up in the 1970s, and is still used today: “bagel,” named for its zero shape, Sheidlower said. Novices may say “zero,” and insiders will understand what they mean, but they “will needle them about it,” Flink said.

Advertisement

But “love” still prevails.

“People kind of like it,” Flink said. “It’s different. Why say zero when you can say love?”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending