Slashdot Mirror
Michael Moore's New Film Leaked To BitTorrent
Jared writes "Michael Moore was afraid the Feds might sieze his new documentary Sicko, a scathing indictment of the US health-care system, because part of it was filmed in Cuba despite the US embargo. So he stashed a copy of the film in Canada just to be safe. He might as well not have bothered — the film has shown up on BitTorrent and P2P networks everywhere. So it's safe now."
...set of lies and twisted "truths" from this nutjob, who wouldnt know the actual truth if it came up and bit him.
portfolio
Whether you like him or not, believe what he says or not, you have to agree that Michael Moore is influential.
If you are for P2P, I'm not sure if this is the guy you would want on the other side of the debate.
Sunny
Be my Friend
I do--you suck.
To paraphrase a certain someone.... "Real men don't stash copies of their possibly illegal movies in other countries. They leak them to BitTorrent and let the world mirror them." -Michael Moore
...didn't want anyone to see how those cigars were rolled.
Family guy clip
We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm Because it's so damn good. Can't wait to have it provided to me when I'm older.
Michael Moore, you're such a fucking blowhard!
Life is not for the lazy.
Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind the bans on cuba. There are much nastier places that people are allowed to deal with. I always get a kick living in vancouver because anywhere there might be american tourists, there is usually a big sign saying "cuban cigars".
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
Other movies BitTorrent has recently saved are Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Ocean's Thirteen, and Knocked Up. Thank god for BitTorrent!
Remember that the most important thing about Michael Moore isn't that he's fighting to change the health care system, it isn't that he's tried to open America's eyes about the severe gun violence problem, it isn't that he's tried to do his bit to stop George W Bush's war in Iraq, it isn't that he's tried to get capitalism to actually fulfill the promises of helping all citizens and not just the richest, it isn't any of those things. None of those things are important.
The most important thing is that he's fat and his voice is a little whiny. If you can't see that and channel your rage accordingly, I feel sorry for you dirty hippies.
Whatever you make of MM, the point he makes in this movie is both a profound and necessary wake-up call. It's the kind of movie you don't even need to have an open mind to appreciate. If you're still dubious about state-funded healthcare then this should open your mind for you.
Michael Moore is a businessman catering to a niche market of rabid idelogues. Anyone who thinks he's anything beyond that is a bloody fool.
All his oh so controversial statements are just PR and advertising for his products. The political wonks go out and buy up his product and run home to masturbate endlessly to it.
And to be fair, same deal with Ann Coulter. Anyone who wastes a single moment arguing against her is wasting time.
Maybe "Jared" should have stashed a dictionary somewhere...
here are two takes on it, one interesting, and the other bordering on the ridiculous. first, apparently michael moore himself approves of people sharing. he was quoted to have said that:
"I make these books and movies and TV shows because I want things to change, so the more people that get to see them the better, so I'm happy when that happens. I think information and art, ideas should be shared."
So far so good, hats off to the guy for the message.
Now, onto part two. The funny thing is that there are some people in the so-called "blogosphere" (who seem to disagree with Moore), who have posted the movie for download, pasted a ton of ads on their website, and then gone to write something like so:
"Now I fully expect [...] Moore's people asking me to take this down. Which I will, because unlike Moore and most liberals I actually do respect things like copyright laws and property rights. "
Ain't that sweet, and ain't people on the internet nice -- you rip someone off while saying you "respect" copyright, you're making money off ads on it, and you have the audacity to say the movie is all bulshit. Cheers for the copyright 'lovers' on teh internet, really.
Need a fancy medical scan? (MRI, PET, etc.)
Depending on the political power your region of the country holds, you may be out of luck. It's not the market (number of sick people) which determines where these devices are installed. It's pure politics, and the resulting distribution is not even remotely fair.
That's not really an improvement.
...and Michael Moore is one of the few people with enough influence who has the sense to keep harping on it. I just saw Sicko (via bittorrent) and it was very good.
Of course as a nation we really are insane; most people still don't see the problem with putting the richest corporations in charge of absolutely everything and calling it "freedom".
Caveat Utilitor
Cuba is run by a fairly bad dude. He once even thought it nice to offer launch sites for Soviet missles.
Compare with Libya and Pakistan. We treated them the same way, until we got a wake-up call to go deal with the situation. Only then did we reevaluate the situation, decide it was stupid, and open up to them.
Cuba has had no such defining moment. If we suddenly needed Cuba for something (not likely), then we'd rather quickly let bygones be bygones.
Just because you tried to invade them and they beat you in a fair fight?
I see some other countries in South America are starting to complain about your bullying now - wait til they all start to rise!
Sicko is on Google Video too:4 032752909
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=900641484
Our problems do not come from a "failure" to socialize medicine. When I was up in Canada, the news was that brain scanners were mostly going to places with powerful politicians. Quebec got an unfair share. Money was disappearing for political reasons. Over in the UK, people are being sent to France for surgery because they'd die on the waiting lists if they didn't go. Here in the USA we install brain scanners (lots of them too) where there will be patients and we don't die on waiting lists for anything other than an organ transplant -- and that only because we made it illegal to pay the dead person's estate.
Our real problems are:
Some of these problems are not really solvable. Economics is what it is, people like new technology, and nobody wants to see their little children die. The lawyers have some mighty lobbiests, but a change would at least be theoretically possible. The same goes for the co-pay insurance system, which could be replaced by a sliding scale or percentage system. (example insurance fix: the patient's payment must increase by at least 10 cents for every dollar of the treatment cost up to "$200 for $2000", then by 1 cent per dollar thereafter)
If his new documentary really was in trouble, then who's to say he didn't leak it to the internet himself, it's definitely safe now. I think anyone would do the same.
"we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
I am not American, nor do I play one on TV; but, if I were, I would be pretty damn pissed at Moore for his rather large contribution to Bush's reelection.
Through his fact twisting, and sometimes outright lies in Fahrenheit 9/11 he provided a rallying point for the conservatives who could justly point to Moore's lies and misrepresentations and then unjustly paint all liberals with the same brush. A lot of previously neutral voters were swayed to the right by this.
(This, of course, assumes one is not happy with Bush having been reelected, which seems to be the case with most Slashdotters. If you are happy with Bush's win, go ahead thank Moore. Personally I couldn't care less who won. As far as I am concerned, most of them, dems and GOPers, are crooks.)
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
Now everybody can see it. Isn't that what he wants? ;P
The torrent has been about for at least two weeks, other news sites reported it last week.
/. and can expect a few more seeds.....
I guess you stick a torrent on
#include <sig.h>
There is no such thing as the free market, because access to every market is controlled by special interest gatekeepers. If you don't believe me, just try visiting the NYSE and buying some shares directly. Free market think tanks are as prone to special interest pleading as anybody else - unless you really believe, say, that the Cato Institute takes money from the oil and tobacco industries and is totally uninfluenced by it.
And here in the UK, we have had to move away from the medical profession being allowed to regulate itself as a result of numerous scandals. Although the great majority of physicians are doubtless more altruistic than the majority of society, it's been said that trade unions are like dishwater - the scum rises to the top.
I think that experience in Canada, the UK and most of Europe shows that you must be able to vote for the people that control the health care system, because there are too many ethical, special interest, and economic factors to be left to people acting blindly in their own interests. Adam Smith never foresaw a world of mega-corporations, and his understanding of capitalism was a long way short of that of Marx.
Pining for the fjords
We have the National Health Service, treatment is free to residents - yeah not just citizens, hence the many European holidaymakers coming over for plastic surgery.
The Welsh and Scots get medication for free too - courtesy of the English taxpayers who just got a rise in prescription charges.
I guess it's a bit like the US paying 100m+ usd annually for Mexico and Canada's healthcare - great eh?!
#include <sig.h>
Or when sounded as A, as in neighbor or weigh.
Sorry, ex-English teacher, had to say something. (Sidenote: always nice to see an old spelling mistake in a new word. I see far too much of "concieve" and "beleive" and not nearly enough "siezing". Of course, that is because I don't typically teach children older than middle school, and they don't have much call to say "seizure" unless it is in the context "Spelling nearly gives me a seizure".)
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
That's the second time this week!
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Health care is administered by the provinces, so the number of MRI or PET machines put into service is a local decision. People who need them get them.
0.46% is litigation
The cost of defending U.S. malpractice claims is estimated at $6.5 billion in 2001, only 0.46 percent of total health spending. The two most important reasons for higher U.S. spending appear to be higher incomes and higher medical care prices.
The medical insurance companies are making lots and lots of money, and that's not because they are giving services for the dollars they are taking in.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
This is NOT a news story. Just because Michael Moore was worried enough to store a copy in Canada, there is no relevance to P2P. EVERY movie shows up on P2P; there is no relationship here between P2P and Michael Moore/Cuba.
P2P enthusiasts seem to love hearing that Michael Moore doesn't seem to hate them, but the fact is he is an entertainer that wants to be paid. In principle he (and every other film maker out there) would prefer you pirate their film rather than not seeing it at all, but please don't forget that he'd MUCH prefer you to spend money to watch the film.
Michael Moore movies are like Wikipedia articles with one editor. Tons of links to questionable articles from all over the Internet, filled with POV content and unverifiable original research, and generally achieving no community consensus on anything. But be sure to cite it early and often in every term paper you write on the subject!
That said, I haven't seen Sicko, but I do agree with Moore that health insurance is essentially legalized gambling. It's also essentially a redistribution of wealth from the healthy to the unhealthy, with lots of middle men taking their cut along the way. The big question, though, is how do you fix it without making the average quality of health care worse?
Moore has made a name for himself by making documentaries holding a far leftist slant wherein he rants about the evils of conservative politics, but if you ask virtually any conservative if the current health-care system is working, they will undoubtedly say no. If they don't, their either completely out of touch, or lying. Now, if this is a documentary showcasing the benefits of a government run, full coverage tax-paid health-care system, then that would fit his style and I wouldn't have even bothered commenting, since I don't actually like him or his movies. But if all this is doing is dramatizing how bad it is currently, well, that boat already sailed and he's wasting his time and money. I don't like him, but I believe he and other political filmmakers are doing an important thing, generally, bringing political discourse to the mass market. But just making a doom and gloom movie about how bad the current health care system is, is not going to tell anyone anything they don't already know, is not going to get people to care about issues they don't normally (because everyone cares about their own health already), and is generally no better than making fiction. Which is fine, but since the movie is probably not very entertaining, pretty much demotes him from "mostly useless" to "completely useless".
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
Like Cuba. Or how about India? I have lived in India for a year now on business. Medical care is amazingly cheap here, and there are some good hospitals. But you can be darn sure if anything really bad happens to my health I'm heading straight back to the States for treatment and I won't mind paying out the whazoo for it.
IMO these statements about there not being government funded health care in the US are all bullcrap.
Why do I say that? Well, personal experience. My income is about $12,000 a year, and about two months ago I had an operation to diagnose a kidney disease. That is, this was not life threatening, but for diagnostic purposes. I didn't have to wait two years either, rather I only waited about a month and a half.
What did I pay for it? Nothing. No co-pay, no co-insurance, no cost for anethesia, no deductable. Nothing. Nada. Even my prescription drugs are free, everything from simple pain killers to the latest and greatest name brands. Who paid for it all? The state of Arizona. One acronym: AHCCCS. Similar programs exist in all 50 states.
If this isn't providing health care to those who can't afford it, then I don't know what is. It has all of the benefits of private health care, in fact it works into the private health care system, so you get all of the same doctors and everything you would get in most private health care plans. The particular plan I am on is called Health Choice AZ, and there are many such plans to choose from, including a few PPO plans. I am not making any of this up, google it and you shall see. The information is sitting right at your fingertips.
Why do people like Michael Moore completely omit this fact when they bash America's health care system? They act as though poor people get nothing here - its just not true. If our health care system was like Canada's, hell I could be on dialysis right about now with how long it would have taken for me to get a proper diagnosis. I don't know about anybody else, but I wouldn't trade our current health care system for anything else.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
http://isohunt.com/download/20820902/sicko/
Castro Killed Kennedy Simply As That
you can find it on Google Video.
4 032752909
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=900641484
Let's go through his huge pro leftist anti conservative stance shall we:
... if you're a pundit.
Roger and Me - what happens when huge companies abandon factory cities that spent the last 30 making them profitable. Wow really anti conservative cause he's looking out for the average dedicated american laborer. If it's right wing to mismanage a company and take it out on your employees then I think many right wingers will disagree.
Bowling for Columbine - Core message wasn't guns... it was about fear in our society and how it's used, and then how it affects us. So I guess the pro conservative view would be that it's alright for corporations to use fear to profit from us. Cause in that movie he was saying the opposite. It's really neither left or right wing.
Fahrenheit 9/11 - This one was hugely Anti Bush. If you think Bush embodies the conservative ideology, then you must hate ron paul too. This was a rant, but the message in this movie was bush was incompentant and he will f*** up america.
Three years later, sure the movie was average, but moore was right, bush is a moron.
Sicko, I haven't seen it yet, but I don't remember when being against inefficiency and to have compassion for every man to be a left wing view. I really don't suspect this to be a left wing or right wing view, just an expose on how close ring wing AND left wing politicians are in bed with Big Pharm and HMOs. Both sides will be brow beaten.
Only 1/4 movies could be deemed anti right wing
I don't think you need to be a left winger or a right winger to realize bush is a douchebag though.
It was on usenet the middle of last week. ant.
I wish there was a Michael Moore in my country as well. I'm not debating he is correct or wrong, or if he is using the right words. I just adore people that put a fair amount of altruism to shake the grounds of what is right.
...but really, is that an acceptable allocation of resources? The local system (UK) is so fucked up that patients have to travel to a foreign country to get treatment. The other system (France) may be fucked up as well, having excess treatment capacity.
:-)
Maybe the French send people the other way for other problems.
Government does NOT allocate resources well at all.
Ever put up with specific instances or shut up.
We've heard that crap since Fahrenheit 9/11, and his movie has stood up to scrutiny. Take that incident with the gun and the bank. The bank *lied*, claiming they did not give guns in the bank office itself. Nevermind Moore is seen aiming the gun in the presence of bank staff.
Yet you still read idiots like yourself claiming Moore forged this incident. That's revolting.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9006414844 032752909&hl=en
Torrent, schmorrent.
It's on Google Video too
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
Yes, the Cuban healthcare available to everyone is worse than the healthcare available only to those who can afford it in the USA. But then, there are also better hospitals available for foreigners and dignitaries in Cuba.. so, just like the USA, if you can afford it, you get good healthcare.
Now the majority of hospitals in the US providing emergency healthcare will not turn down someone who needs emergency healthcare, so if you have an emergency need, you are better off in the US. If you are poor and have any other need, you are better off in Cuba.
Whether you have a lot of money depends on 4 things: how much you work on profit-making activity, how intelligent you are, what luck you've come into, and how much you inherited. Only the first of these things is your doing. This is hard to realise if you're intelligent, healthy, etc., because humans are generally bad at empathising with those of dissimilar background (which is why such travesties as slavery were so easy to make socially acceptable). Indeed, I'm awash with inheritance, good contacts, I've excelled academically, and I'm pretty much a workaholic - but I see many others who works just as hard as I do and have not a tenth my winnings.
So, there is rarely anything "fair" about being richer than another man. There is thus little fair in the US about who gets access to healthcare. The moral question is, then: is it better for a proportion of people to get great care, and others none at all (determined primarily by luck), or for everyone to be guarnanteed a mediocre level of care, with a smaller proportion getting access to great care?
Since healthcare determines quality of life, or even its very existence, the point is more strongly made if we write "life" for "healthcare" - who deserves access to life? If you are reading this, then it's almost certain you are endowed with a generous serving of intelligence and good fortune - is life reserved for people like you?
WikiMovie?
Plot spins faster than an episode of Lost and Heroes combined.
movies get pirated on bit torrent all the time before they hit theaters, why does this get its own front page story?
michael moore reminds me a lot of jack thompson - if the media would just stop giving him so much attention, he would fade away.
Moore is about publicity. I don't say his documentaries are wrong, faked or anything, just that he knows how to push buttons and he knows the art of leading a story by omission. He's not lying to you. He just leaves a few key informations out to give you his side of the view.
Pretty much what everyone else does that tries to sell an opinion rather than giving you unbiased information.
He's also a master of publicity. He didn't cart those people who fell through the US social network to Canada or Mexico, no, it had to be Cuba. Why Cuba? It makes little sense in a medical way, but it does make a lot of sense when you think about it from the point of publicity and when you try to create a lot of discussion.
And a more interesting question, would they have gotten the same treatment if they were Cuban or was it a publicity stunt for Cuba as well? That's a question that isn't answered.
Now, I think Moore's films are important as counter-spin to the spin of our corporations and government, but you have to realize that this is what is is: spin. It's not "the awful truth".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Florida is a "swing state" with many cuban voters. They left cuba for a reason and that reason is that they hate Castro. So much so that they would rather see the family and friends they left behind live in poverty than give any legitimacy to Cuba by trading with them. So any party that would get rid of the idiotic embargo (China is a preferred trade partner for crying out loud!) loses the Cuban vote in Florida and thus lose any election.
THAT is why the embargo is still in place.
I know everyone loves M. Moore and his message and I would be the first to root for him...if he was genuine. This guy seems to have no journalistic integrity, at least there is enough information out there to be very skeptic. He likes to manipulation just the same as the people is he critical of. Just for some balance: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html. (I am not affiliated with this site in any way, just a random google pick. There are plenty of other sources, just google for "michael moore fraud".)
We would, if you could stay the "frak" out of our business.
USA still has a lot of international say and use it in a not so civilized way at times.
Stop kidnapping our citizens and send them to Guantanamo for no good reason.
Stop keeping "secret" prisons in our countries.
Stop your european missile shield program.
Stop invading souvreign countries to protect american profit interests.
Stop pushing SW-patents and other bad ideas onto the rest of the world.
Stop being the top polluter in the world.
etc...
Your politics affect us, and as long as that's the case, we really can't stay the "frak" out of your politics.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
One thing always missing from these debates is the fact that you shouldn't extrapolate to infinity from a few data points.
Before deciding on the merits or shortfalls of socialized medicine based on Canada or Cuba, how about noticing that the societies of these countries are far different than our own?
First, assess what socialism applies to us - iow, what social exchanges are acceptable Americans, ideally by demography, then assess what medical services might work within said context(s).
Or, we could have what the two aforementioned societies have, US style - something rammed up our keesters by politicians, fueled by psuedo-intectual films and Comedy Central helping to install buzz phrases to use as a substitute for thought.
Lobbying - it's not just for the rich. Here's a hint to those can afford it: every major election, send 10 bucks to each major candidate, regardless of side. Then when the time comes, you contact your congressperson and can identify yourself as a campaign contributor. Sorry if you don't like the sleeze of politics, but I can forego a few luxuries to help insist that voices are heard. Don't sit in front of an LCD monitor and say you can't afford the same - and if you're poor, as we have all been, then collect pennies at parties and bars, and lobby collectively.
The president is not a king, the Supreme Court appointees are not the end of the world - congress isn't doing its job for us on healthcare. So make yourselves heard where it counts.
Anyone who needed a film by Moore to face the shocking discovery that health care is a problem in the US needs more than antibiotics for what's troubling them.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
It isn't a case of either fully private or fully social health systems. Both have their problems. Fully private misses the poorest who can't afford it, fully social always has limited funding and waiting lists.
The third way is "Compulsory health insurance". You don't need to run a huge health service, or even manage a state health insurance system. It seems to work in several European countries, (Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany) the poorest benefit from the lower premiums which are brought about by the universal coverage. It doesn't prevent the state from providing a healthcare system, neither does it require it to do so.
Deleted
saying frak.
.. You're letting fucking TV politics affect your fucking choice of language you fucking sheep. If you mean to say 'fuck', then Just Say Fuck.
Frak (BSG new style), Frack (BSG old style), Frell (Farscape)
It varies from state to state. For example, in Washington State, my mom can get two pairs of glasses, one for her astigmatism, one for her nearsightedness, for $59 via America's Best. However, the WA medicare only goes through a very (as in one) limited list of opthamolgists (sp?), for ONE pair of obviously higher cost glasses.
In my own experience here, I don't qualify for dental insurance, for the most part, I have to face toothlessness since the dental clinics are on a sliding fee scale, and the one cheapest treatment over all is extraction.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
People are saying that the UK health system isn't perfect, and you can be damn sure they're right.
HOWEVER - You don't HAVE to use it. We have private health care, too. But what the NHS does provide is a health care service for people that wouldn't be able to pay for it, elsewise.
People may (and have) argue "Well why would I pay tax that goes towards the NHS if I'm also paying for Private Health care?" But again, I think a free health service is vital for the well-being of the country. Also, our taxes cover the fire service, which I have never had to call.
So don't think the ONLY option in the UK is to use the NHS, there's private options, too.
Most countries with universal health care do not have "socialised" health care.
France, Germany, etc, have "socialised" health insurance.
Care itself is mostly private. Doctors, dentists, pharmacists have private practices. A majority of hospitals are state-run, but there are plenty of private hospitals, too.
You are free to go to any doctor you want.
Here it is @ isohunt.com
Just 1700 seeders? C'mon you leechers!
That's a lot of insults from what appears to be the same Anonymous Coward, but no rational argument.
Yeah, that's it. I'm just wacky. Maybe you'd like to suggest I'm evil too?
IMHO, once you spew like that, you've lost the argument and you damn well know it too.
"Leaked to BitTorrent" just gives the anti-piracy jerks more ammunition to use against BitTorrent. At the very least, change it to "Leaked via P2P" or even better, just "Leaked".
Everyone knows what you mean. I actually use BitTorrent exclusively for legitimate downloads (yes, I realise that sounds unlikely, but it's true) and I would be very disappointed if use of it was criminalised because of clueless lawmakers who are deriding their information from subjects like this.
Look, I'm actually more to the left than he is, as usually is the case in Europe. What by US standards counts as "conservative" and "liberal", in most of continental Europe would pass for "ultra-conservative" and "conservative". Yeah, we're a bunch of commie mutant traitors like that ;)
I even agree with some of his points. Well, dunno about this particular movie, but I ended up buying a couple of his books because the back cover said they were "hilarious." (Ooer. Americans must be quite a cheerful and fun loving folk, if even that kind of bitter whine counts as "hilarious".)
That said, his endless "auugh, the government is out to get me" is starting to look stupid already, for a start. Look, if the government wanted to silence him, he'd be silent already. If America was the kind of fascist oligarchy that he always describes, he probably wouldn't even be alive at this point, or at least someone would have framed him for something already and sent him to a maximum security jail.
This is just yet another such publicity stunt, for conspiracy theorists. How about waiting until the government actually does something about it, before "leaking" the movie? Or if he wants to distribute it via P2P, fine, that's a mighty fine way to distribute your works, really. But it's just a choice of distribution, not some great act of resistance against fascism.
Hyperbole (like metaphors, similes, and everything else) is like a condiment in food. If half your dish is salt or pepper, you probably overdid it. Same here. Not only it makes his bitter whine sound even more bitter, it doesn't even serve his purposes that well, since you never know what's a genuine assessment and what's another of his over-the-top hyperboles. It's like the boy who cried wolf: by the time you've described something as a totalitarian plot for the 1000'th time, noone (sane) takes it seriously any more.
Such ego-stroking stunts are just that kind of bad hyperbole. Yes, probably some people above would dislike his point, but some might even agree with him. Either way, he's _not_ going to end up with the Gestapo on his doorstep and with the SS burning his movies and book, either.
More importantly, there are always two sides to each issues. There's rarely a free meal: to get X you give up some Y, or viceversa. And neither extreme is an utopia, so you have to figure out your own least crappy compromise among all possible crappy compromises. Which is why there's a political debate and more than one party and platform. One thinks that it's totally worth giving up X to get more Y, one thinks the opposite, one thinks the balance is good enough as it is, one wants to give up both X and Y to gain Z, and yet another one runs around with pencils up its nose and thinks it's an airplane.
The reason why the government does X instead of Y, may not always be the best, may not always even be honest, but aren't always "let's oppress someone for the fun of it either" either. Whether it's about health care or letting the Bin Laden family fly away after 9/11, there are real issues ranging from costs to international relations to ideology behind those choices. And by ideology I mean "what we think is best for the economy", not just "let's be neo-conservative because the conspiracy told us to". Those ideas might well be wrong (everyone can't be right at the same time, or you wouldn't need more than one party), but painting one side with the broad brush of "auugh, they're all bought by their industrialist friends and trying to silence me" is just an ad-hominem.
Stances basically saying "my version is by definition perfect, and everyone else is a fascist peddling crooked crap solutions" aren't really doing anyone any good.
Or at least I hope it's hyperbole, because otherwise he'd have to be paranoid schizophrenic to actually believe all that. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. It's probably hyperbole.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
All you do is miss out the things the boy done good.
If you want to villify Mother Theresa, all you do is show the things she did bad. And she DID do bad stuff. And somehow those wanting her sainthood gloss over that (would you call that untruth too?). Pointing out the bad things isn't necessarily showing everything, just those things (still true) that aren't shown by their opponents' bakhers.
So what untruths were shown? Or were they only the litany of bad things shrub did and none of the good? Well, shrub isn't too good at showing the bad stuff, so we NEED both or we aren't getting the WHOLE TRUTH.
'The Official Truth' must always be balanced by a counter-weight. Now Moore is needed for that - and he does his thing well. But after Moore, who could continue the good work of Larry Flynt and Michael Moore?
We invent new technology, expect to use it, and expect that costs won't rise. Huh? We're expecting to get more for less. That only works for computer hardware. (in a socialist medicine system, quotas and delaying tactics are used to fight this problem)
When costs rise, we don't expect higher than average margins. All the HMOs have experienced major returns recently, and Moore's film mentions this. He doesn't speculate on why, however. Which I think is a bit unfortunate.
The attitude is "I'll pay anything to save my dying children!". We then act all offended that the hospital bill heads toward infinity. Since death is common (100% of your children will die!) you can expect to pay until you can pay no more or until we run out of technology to sell you. (as above, socialist systems deny you this choice)
How much is another six months worth to you personally? How much additional loans would you take out to extend your life by six months (or ten years)? In a free market scenario, you take out as many loans as you can to support yourself and your family to survive. The children of the poor will suffer poor care while the children of the rich will live life to the fullest money can buy. This is a (if not the) fundamental problem with free market health care. Life extending health care's value approaches infinity. All I can say is, your phrasing makes you a bastard, and by your own logic you should kill yourself now to spare the potential expenses you'll incur in living life.
Simple economics is causing all service industries to be relatively more expensive. The factory worker is now more productive because he has huge machines. The high-tech worker is absurdly productive because he only produces digital data which is trivial to replicate. The hospital worker, like the college professor, is not getting such huge productivity increases. Widgets and software can be sold cheaply while still paying the workers well, but hospital services can not be made cheap while paying the workers well. Because everything is relative, hospital costs skyrocket.
So despite the heavy economic incentive currently available, no huge increase in productivity is being found. There's likely a large number of reasons for this, like the definition of productivity, the unintended drug-prohibition side effect of junkies faking illnesses in ERs to get a fix, and a lopsided bargaining table with HMOs. But even if that's all bunk or acceptable, there's still a failure of the market to find inefficiencies.
Over in India, patients have a very limited ability to sue for malpractice and pain and suffering and... Medicine is cheap there....Before a jury, it looks good to have done more intervention.
How on earth does malpractice insurance correlate with the price of medicine? They're two fundamentally different aspects of health care and it's becoming clear you don't understand it. Drug companies in the US defend their pricing strategy as recovering costs. By "costs" they mean "paying universities for their findings, free samples for doctors, and buying large ads telling you to ask your doctor about a specific drug".
Cesearian is in no way a cover your ass maneuver. It correlates with an increased mortality rate, quite sharply. It seems most critics feel this is because the hospital can charge more for a C-section than a normal birth. Recall that at the same time our insurance agencies are booming hospitals are becoming broke. I'd wager a good number is also due to vanity.
Our health insurance is too good at insulating us from the costs of various procedures. We don't shop around for a good deal.
Bullshit. My last insurance had a premium and high deductibles. I'm not about to go shopping for diseases I don't have. Others might (re: drug addictions), but good luck. And if the expensive lot downtown is truly expensive, your HMO probably doesn't have it on its "preferred" list -- their primary legitimate objective is to reduce
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Here you go, slapping a stereotype on me and comparing that to a ficticious person who is wholly stereotype...
I'll presume you mean that this ficticious person gets bad care. Why should I not be abhorred to get bad care?
you mean saying only those truths that help your position, then two or more wrongs make it right.
If I tell you only good things about myself and someone who doesn't like me only tells you bad things about myself, if we are still telling the truth, then you now know the whole truth. Which is better than a half-truth, isn't it.
But Independence is rolled with love .
Why bother.
US Government here: Some people may think Michael Moore is a fat self aggrandizing piece of shit who's a danger to the US government. Well I'm here to tell you they're right! Don't do anything productive with your life 'cause the cops will be with you shortly.
One of the main points of the movie isn't people without insurance - it's people with insurance who think they are covered but find out they are screwed when they hit their benefit caps when hit with a serious illness/accident. Start paying attention to the numbers of charity events in your area ment to help people pay medical bills. Start paying attention to policies that pay for organ transplants but not the $3,000 a month people have to spend on the anti-rejection drugs.
The state of the American health care system is atrocious, and anyone who defends it is either ignorant, a crazy Libertarian, or a tool for the insurance industry.
If cuba is so bad, and Fidel is so evil and they want him dead (isnt that against the law somewhere?)
Why is Bush so chummy with a bad ass MOFO ex KGB guy like Putin that wants the old soviet russia back.
If Putin is so pro west (ie sanity vs insanity) then he would have made the KGB not so evil.
He is nothing more than a global school bully with nukes.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I wish I had read your posts before replying to 2 others. I agree that Michael Moore is a hack, but I think that his 9/11 movie raised some important questions. I just wish he hadn't been in the movie. The evidence he presented was so eloquent that all he had to do was not screw it up, but his very screen presence is so obnoxious that people want to disbelieve him, even if all the evidence comes from independently verifiable sources. He is an impediment to his own message.
SiCKO got also uploaded in full on Youtube. http://www.i4u.com/article9613.html
This doesn't prove a thing. Because you have experienced 1 (!!) event that doesn't sync with some of what is said in Sicko, doesn't mean that ALL statements are false! It doesn't even prove that anything in Sicko is false. It just proves that there are exceptions to the rule. In my view, Sicko doesn't prove much either though. Except 1 MAJOR thing: Does the health insurance MAKE money? YES! And should they? NO! They should NOT! Health insurance should be non-profit organizations. If they make a profit a year, the surplus should be fuelled BACK into the organization. NOT make some rich owners happy...damn...this should be OBVIOUS to all of you!
I may not agree with everyone thing MM says, but at least the parent is trying to point out that some of it has value, rather than just jumping on one side or the other.
Then either there is a problem with this free system or it is not made readily available enough, because multiple sources that I've read recently state that approximately 18,000 people die each year in the US due to a lack of medical attention because they do not have health care. That number may be small compared to the total population of the US, but it is nonetheless distressing.
I downloaded it directly off visualvendetta.com a few days ago, and thats no a warez site or anything. I get the impression Moore just cares about getting the word out rather than making money.
"Score:5 , BadAss"
the issue is the middle class. they are the ones saddled by bills and unable to afford health insurance, and ineligible due to income level for the wonderful arizona program you love
the poor and the rich in the usa get just dandy healthcare. the rich can afford it out of pocket, and the poor benefit from generous state and federal programs. it is the middle class who are screwed by the us healthcare system
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That must be nice. I make about $22,000 a year, making me inelegible for the plan you're talking about. Health care is available to the "impoverished" of America, but totally out of reach of those of us just keeping our heads above water.
is there such a thing as a person with a social conscience and some passion for their cause, either from the right or the left, who don't stretch the truth in order to advocate their cause?
take "supersize me": the guy who lived on mcdonalds food for a month and in the movie it was like he was going to suffer massive organ failure. complete and utter bullshit, you can live on mcdonalds just fine. however, the usa is currently too fucking fat, so if you scare the fatties into giving up their supersize fries, which is exactly what the movie convinced mcdonald's to do, then you have served society. and you did it by pushing the envelope on truth versus propganda
and that's perfectly ok by me
conservatives who accuse liberals of propaganda are usually a kind of hypocrit, as they will happily traffic in the same half-truths to serve their agenda... and visa vera: liberals will howl "propaganda!" at passionate conservatives, even when they push propaganda themselves. they are all full of shit, from the right and the left. but this isn't a complaint on my part, this is merely an acceptance of reality
social advocacy is all about passion, and passion doesn't play straight and boring, it skirts the edges in order to get a leg up on the competition. do you honestly expect human beings full of passion to play it any other way? if you push the envelope of truth a little bit and get your message out to 10x as many people with a little sensationalism, wouldn't you do the same?
of course there are some without much social skills who will poo poo this notion. these same people will never ever be in a position to advocate socially for anything they care about: no one will isten to them if they play it straight and boring with the cold hard facts
is this a good thing? a bad thing? doesn't matter, it's just reality, you need to accept it, no matter how uncomfortable the simple fact makes you: passion for a cause will lead people to push the envelope on truth versus propaganda. just accept it, and develop a strong bullshit meter on your part
it's not a stranger's job to spoon feed you the undulterated truth. no source of media, anywhere, is unbiased. it's all tainted, always was, and always will be, in all time periods, in all cultures. we're human beings, not robots. it is YOUR job to cast a critical eye on the images and words you hear, and to stop expecting the media to be magically unbiased in a way it never was and never will be
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If the line is too long, they can go to America for health care.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Then you shouldn't have bothered commenting at all. The documentary includes testimony from both victims, and former HMO officers/employees. He then shows examples of different styles of health care in foreign countries. He then explains how the public in those countries believe their health care is paid for. Etc, etc.
once again they are flooding the p2p networks with garbage in order to try and destroy it.
I'm tired of all of this crap about Moore's documentaries being nothing but lies. His documentaries are heavily biased against the Bush administration and the direction of the country, but, for the most part, his facts are pretty accurate. This new documentary was created to point out how bad the national health care situation is currently. His using Cuba to demonstrate national health care shows his bias, but it doesn't make his point less accurate or factual. Health care in this country is screwed up. When needing medical care could mean years, or even decades of extreme debt, even when you have "insurance" (if it can be called that with the crap these companies pull), we have an issue.
I'm tired of the ad hominem attacks here. If you disagree with the man, fine. If you don't want to watch the movie, fine. But if you want to disagree with him as vocally as many do here, counter his facts, stop the BS and petty name calling.
Clones are people two.
We should hold documentaries to the same factual accountability as we do journalists. But maybe we already do, these days, and I'm just behind the times.
Yeah, like we do Fox News. Bah-ZING!
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
but stave off yuor little persecution complex for a while and realize that it's because you're spouting non-sense, not because of the Vast Liberal Media Bias.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
And this, kids, is why mnemonics aren't such a good idea.
;)
"Except after C": fancied, policies, science, conscience, prescient, ancient, efficiency, financier, glacier, society, species
"Or when sounded as A": seize, caffeine, protein, either, leisure, weird, feisty, height, heist, kaleidoscope, neither,rotweiller, seismic, zeitgeist, counterfeit, forfeit, foreign, sovereign, heifer, albeit, atheism, deify, deity, onomatopoeia (just for fun)
Heck, up here in Canada we had a car commercial devoted to showing why ex-English teachers.. shouldn't.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
......strangely, they were all NATURE DOCUMENTARIES. Guess what? Whenever you try to present anything related to the human social construct, a purely subjective entity by nature, it's going to be subjective. There is no objective truth about society. At. All. There are only facts about part of it and the interpretations of angry ranting men.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
But if all this is doing is dramatizing how bad it is currently, well, that boat already sailed and he's wasting his time and money
In Bowling for Columbine, one of Moore's main themes was that a culture of fear and scaremongering was paralyzing America.
Ironic, to some degree, that he's now going further and further down that course himself. Your post really demonstrates how this *should* have been done, but as Moore well knows - scare tactics put bums in seats.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
And how do you know whether it's urgent without doing the tests?
God you people are fucking stupid.
"The particular plan I am on is called Health Choice AZ, and there are many such plans to choose from, including a few PPO plans. "
Plan - why are there plans? Either the state covers you or it doesn't. No need for plans (unless tey charge you after all)
"I am not making any of this up, google it and you shall see. The information is sitting right at your fingertips."
Naa, if you have something to say you could say it here. Like how can they pay for it with the low US taxes.
"Why do people like Michael Moore completely omit this fact when they bash America's health care system? "
Because it sucks?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
If you're comfortable living in poverty and don't want to make any more money than you currently are, then don't worry about it.
Of course, the hospitals are also for-profit. So don't be suprised if you come into the emergency room in crisis some time, and then find yourself walking around drugged out and confused in hospital gowns on skid row three hours later. They may have to take you in, but administrators seem to find a lot of leeway in how long they take you in.
You can't chalk that one up to poor presentation. Changing a man's words to mean the opposite of his intent is a falsehood. Either he got it wrong because he's incompetent or he got it wrong because he's deceptive.
It's hard for me to believe that you've really looked into this if you believe that Michael Moore has no intent to deceive his viewers.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
The first thing I thought of was that a new fast food eating orgy was leaked. It is horrible to say, but that is about the only thing that man can be an expert on.
I started watching it on google videos, and it was pretty interesting; especially after I had read that link regarding Moore's use of 'editing' to vilify Charlton Heston. So with a new attitute towards Moore, I started watching.
) which doubtlessly have truthful elements.
And yes, for the first time, I can see the bullshit. I live in the UK, and I don't 'love' the NHS. Just like the railways, I certainly don't think we're getting what we're paying for. One example would be the new NHS computer system. They've already spent (I shit you not) £12.4 Billion on a computer system that still_does_not_work, and that's taxpayer's money. That's the hideous %17.5 V.A.T. we pay on... well, almost everything. Don't get me wrong, I like the NHS - and as a UK Citizen, I'm proud of it. But listening to Moore's hideously one-sided argument makes me uneasy: there are so many hospitals that you could go to, and criticise, so much talk of MRSA infections, jokes about hospitals that have 500 administrators but no patients (http://http://www.yes-minister.com/ymseas2a.htm/
And then there's the anecdotal evidence. 'I have a friend who was shafted by the HMOs'. Absolutely no doubt they're souless corporations, and evil etc, but tacking together a few stories doesn't make a argument. A friend of a friend once went to get innoculated before going on holiday to Turkey. Well, something was wrong with the syringe, because he's now in a wheelchair, and has been for 5 years. He consulted a lawyer, who informed him that _no_one_sues_the_NHS. No recourse there.
Then he talks about France. Sure, France _may_ have fantastic public services, but at an economic cost: the French economy is in trouble. The regulations regarding the hiring and firing of employees mean that... well, you can't fire people without paying an absolute fortune. The 35 hour week isn't fantastic - it stifles productivity, because a lot of people actually -want- to work more than 35 hours a week.
But when the government tried to change these regulations, there were mass protests by students: which hardly seems much less self-serving than drug companies 'buying' the US Congress. Yes, the government should be afraid of the government - but if people are complaining because they are working too hard when (in the case of the French) they clearly are NOT, there has to be a time when they stop taking the people so seriously.
I'm not saying Moore is wrong, just that it would be advised to take this cum grano salis.
Or Malaria.
Incidentally two big diseases that American Pharma couldn't give a rats about.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -- Josef Stalin
Poor Mr. Heston went to Columbine after the shooting to hold a pro-gun ralley. He's done that in similar places after similar horrors. Poor Mr. Heston is so concerned about losing his precious right to bear arms, as he and his pals interpret it, that they have no compassion for communities that have experienced such horrible events. Poor Mr. Heston, IMHO, deserves an ass-beating, however old he is. He's right up there with Fred Phelps in my book.
Yes, if you lived in Canada, you COULD have waited 35 years to get your test back.
And pigs COULD fucking fly.
Anybody can throw the word "COULD" around. Got any evidence to back it up?
If it's not immediately critical. You are on the waiting list.
My mother had knee replacement surgery at Mayo Clinic, and she had to schedule it 6-9 months in advance.
A comparison to Canada with the boogy man of waiting lists is fine, but at least be honest about the US waiting lists.
...everytime you watch a Michael Moore production, he eats a kitten.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
My wife just had an MRI, she needed one just to check something in her head to make sure it was ok. Not a critical procedure. She was put the bottom of the waiting list. It took 1 month to have the MRI done. You know who gets put in front of the line? The people that need it most. Anybody that goes to america for treatment is most likely just a paranoid hypochondriac. People will REAL serious problems get treated first in Canada.
Meh.
Anyone who thinks that Michael Moore makes documentaries doesn't know the meaning of the word. Just to help some people out, here's the definition of the word: documentary (dk'y-mn't-r) pronunciation adj. 1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. 2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Moore's films have very little to do with fact and more to do with his personal agenda. A real documentary will use 100% facts, not just pick facts that only support your view and then fill in the holes with opinions.
Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
The same folks who attack Michael Moore and call him a liar.
Also claim that it is irresponsible to point out the President lied about Weapons in Iraq.
Double-standard?
for the record, i went to see Moore once give a speech and I ended up walking out early. He's funny, but he irritates me too. What irritates me is others who have this double-standard, that it's ok for a Republican elected official to distort and lie, and talk show hosts, and movie producers, and op-ed columnists, etc. But not Michael Moore. He's not allowed to exagerate as part of his comedy schtick.
Oh my god, he killed Kennedy. You bastard!
Only on /. does this crap get modded +5 insightful (despite saying nothing of content), and for example, a comment I made that water is in fact BLUE gets modded -1 Troll (it only got up to +1 after I posted a source).
:D
As others have pointed out, Moore regularly uses these tactics of improperly framing a situation and withholding information that would make you reassess his claim (and ultimately not accept his original framing). His most common tactics are: stating selective facts out of chronological order to present an entirely different situation; using quotes out of context; and most importantly, withholding information that would make it obvious he's messing with you. For example, he did this in Bowling for Columbine when he presented Charlton Heston as a racist by using a quote out of context, and did not bother to mention that Heston marched alongside Martin Luther King Jr, Sidney Poitier, etc, in favor of civil rights.
Disclaimer: I'm a liberal and I've never shot nor owned a gun.
"When I had health insurance, one doctor prescribed me a name brand antibiotic and made me refill it twice. It was considered "not approved" by my insurance company leaving me a $35 copay on each fill. He could have given me enough pills on the first fill to treat the illness so I would only have one $35 copay... or he could have prescribed me an equally effective generic that would have cost me $15 without insurance."
So, it's your doctor's fault that you failed to tell him you insisted on a generic?
They work for YOU. Stop blaming them for your failure to address what you wanted from them.
"That's what the *doctor* is for, you idiot. If the *doctor* said, Hey! This looks urgent! you wouldn't be getting in line, you'd be getting in a hospital gown."
No imbecile, that's what the TEST is for. If it LOOKS urgent, you test to make sure. If it DOESN'T look urgent, you test to make sure.
Stop posting AC to defend something stupid you said.
I pay less than the price listed on that website ($3300 per capita per year). I live in America and I get 1-2 day response times on doctors visits ... my wife is currently having an issue diagnosed and she is in and out of the hospital in under a days notice at times, with either a $25 or $0 copay. My son was sick a month ago and got into the doctors later the same day we called. I have no complaints about American health care coverage. And I've been at all ends of the spectrum - from making less than $15,000 a year and having to buy it out of pocket (with a wife and child) to having a comfortable job where they help pay for it.
And I have friends in Canada, who wish they were back in America, and health care is one of the big reasons why. The amount of time spent waiting for service is unbelievable. They've told me they wait, in some cases, a month for service. I can't take that. Even though I'm apparently paying less than a Canadian, I'd gladly pay more for prompt medical service.
A lot of the problem isn't with the poor. It is in the gap between poor enough to be granted state-funded medi-care, and rich enough to afford health-care on your own. They are the working poor.
The people who get lost are those working low-wage jobs and are just making ends meet. The state doesn't recognize them as being poor enough to need assistance, and to these people it is more important to put food on the table than purchase independent health-insurance. If they get sick, often what little health-insurance they may have through work will not cover their needs. This leaves them with enormous medical bills, and no way to pay them.
Actually I think the poor are well looked after in the states, if you are unable to work or qualify for state-assistance you can be better off than people who work two jobs and make just enough money to scrape by. It's the people in the middle that fall between the cracks. I only have heard anecdotal evidence that that gap is getting larger... but I don't have any real evidence at hand to justify that statement so it could be false.
This is not a sig.
I don't know what Michael Moore's arrangement with Lionsgate is, but I suspect that he has a much higher financial interest in his movies than the vast majority of musicians do in their CDs.
At any rate, I'm going to go see it in the theater. Aside from being the right thing to do, I really enjoy Michael Moore's movies and I'd like to encourage him to make more by voting with my dollars what is worth paying to see and what isn't. Here's the trailer, it looks like it might be his best one yet.
Opponents might be sent to jail, but they're not tortured. Women's right are respected. Religious rights are respected. No child labor. Education is good. There doesn't seem to be massive corruption, at least compared to similar countries.
No offense, but where do you get your info? There are thousands of people in Miami who actually used to live in Cuba, who would disagree with pretty much everything you just wrote. You won't find many Cuban expats who are fans of Castro. Quite the opposite, usually.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Power of Nightmare is also a must-see, as it provides a parallel between Iraq-war era US gov't, and Vietnam war era US gov't, as well as a parallel between neocons and Al'Qaeda.
personal accountability and all that
of course, the healthcare issue is more complicated than a simple exercise in personal accountability, but that's how ideologues on the right see it. and they do that to their own political detriment: it is the middle class who suffer for the current healthcare regimen in the usa, and you don't win anything in us politics by pissing off the middle class
therefore, being a social liberal, i cheerfully pat all republicans on the back when they spout off about personal responsibility in the context of healthcare. because by not supporting universal healthcare, republicans chart a sure path to political loserville
hey all american republicans: right on about universal healthcare! what a nutty idea, right? wooo! you go girl!
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...even though I agree the healthcare system is a mess, his credibility is really only with his fans. I for one sat through F/911 just to say I could fairly criticize it. The result was Moore was trying to say we're in an undeclared war brought about by sneaky and deceptive means.....by making a sneaky and deceptive movie that also flattered his ego.
I never watched "Bowling for Columbine," but the rants of his fans only show that whatever he says has got to be right. Never mind they may never have known a victim of gun violence, the country is awash in it and somehow the evil government weapon conspiracy is part of it all.
I still remember on that TV show he had where he was talking about how after Clinton's 1994 gun law that America was a place where people wanted to shoot their guns and be left alone---with shots of him at a trap shoot. Go figure.
So after all this, attacking any convenient target, having an approach that's as much tabloid journalism as comedy---how can he be taken seriously? He got a lot of attention for F/911, but that was a couple of years ago, and to be honest, outside of his fan base and people who love to hate him, I don't think anyone cares today.
Regiser, you bastard.
You're a no-good anonymous coward. Simple as that. Same as I.
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8852/Michael+Moore's+ 'Sicko'+appears+on+Google+Video
Most medical care is not emergency, but rather falls into three categories:
- Proactive care (physicals, etc)
- Non-emergency illness (flu, strep throat, etc--treatable at doctor's office rather than ER)
- Treatment of chronic conditions (diabetes, high blood pressure, arthritis, etc)
These aspects of medical care can easily satisfy the requirements for market forces, at least as much as other markets.
- Information - There is no shortage of information available on proper proactive care and the most common illnesses and conditions, as well as their most common and effective treatments. Patients are awash in information today.
- Elasticity - The numbers of people who get sick are not dependent on market forces, but where they go is. If people had to pay for their own strep treatment, don't you think they'd drive an extra 15 minutes to the next clinic to save $50? If it's not a life-threatening emergency--and most medical visits are not--then there is elasticity.
- Barriers to entry - Of course it's still hard to get a doctor's license. But it turns out that many of the services above can be performed by nurse practioners or physican assistants. And, this is not an issue with who is paying, but rather with the nature of the service. Many other specialized-skill markets suffer from this deficiency.
Furthermore, it's not like medical care is the only market that has the aspects you describe. In fact the conditions you describe are true for many specialized professions. For instance the legal market suffers from all the same deficiencies in information, elasticity, and barrier to entry. Same with civil engineering.
Finally, your garbage collection analogy is terrible. For one thing, garbage collection works the same for everyone--and typically anything outside the norm is not collected. And garbage collection is a mature technology. There is no great need to encourage innovation in garbage collection.
Put another way: garbage collection is a commodity. But even that doesn't automatically qualify it for goverment provision. Food is a commodity too, one that suffers from many of the defects you list above. Yet, the private market does just fine providing it to most people.
What many people do is look at the medical system and envision a system that is mostly provided by government, with some private service on top. But that system sucks when it comes to flexibility and innovation. A better system is one that is mostly private markets, with the governement picking up the few at the bottom, who the market does not serve. It works for food and housing and legal care.
It's important to keep in mind that the failure of our medical system today is a failure of this particular system, not all private systems. History is full of industries that were inefficient until the right market structure or business model or technology came along.
We need to better expose consumers to the actual cost of their most common care. Right now the system is actually run pretty close to a garbage-collection system, with the insurance companies as the intermediary between consumers and their care. What is needed is a system where consumers can better force down the cost of the most typical, non-emergency health care. Insurance should be for broken legs and other emergencies, not a pill you take every day for your asthma. We don't pay for all home improvements and repairs through an insurance company--just the emergency stuff. Health care should work the same way.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
As for the speech, here is a comparison someone transcribed from F911 and from Heston's actual speech.
Here is a link to Moore's website where he responds to attacks on his movie. The page is long and there is a lot there, so I'll copy the text where Moore responds to this specific charge. I'm going to leave it as is, without correcting the paragraph/formatting errors.
At this point, there's nothing more to say, really. Judge for yourselves if Moore is being honest or dishonest.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
I'm impressed. Do you base all of your opinions on puppets and cartoon characters?
I'll jump on this since I also have some experience.
My family was on PA Medicaid when my first daughter was born. We didn't have to pay a dime out of pocket and we saw doctors very frequently (first pregnancy, it's an average of every other week). The major differences I saw between "public" health care and the HMO I'm on now.
1) It was easier to see a doctor on Medicaid. It might not be the doctor you want, but we saw a family doctor and she was great. In addition, doctors spend time with you. A lot of time. If my wife went in and I had a cough, they would check me out. In addition, the buck stopped there. With my HMO I have to get referrals, doctors refer to specialists so they aren't liable..... and on and on and on.
2) Technical evals (blood, imaging...) are severly limited with Medicaid. We got one Ultrasound, and every time she needed to pee in a cup, we had to traipse across the city to a "testing site". I assume this is to limit costs.
3) Hospital choice. We didn't get a lot with Medicaid. We had to go to a teaching hospital. We had a lot of younger doctors. There are cases where this is ok, and cases where that is not cool.
These are the main differences. If I could pay into Medicaid I would. (Note: I realize that I subsidize it every day with my taxes). If you need to get a 4D hyperbeam imaging when you twist your ankle, Medicaid is not for you. If you just need a doc to wrap it up and give you a prescription, Medicaid +1.
Technology Consulting & Free Downloads
Cuban exiles living in Miami ... you mean just like Jose Posada?
Well pardon me if I don't have much trust in avowed terrorists.
Robberies are MORE common by day. When you are out to work and person whose reasearched you or just notices the signs that **no one is there to stop them** are you kidding us? A thief would prefer to burgle a house where the slightest misstep means they have witnesses?
Stop watching the movies and spewing that crap as truth! Most robberies are in the day time, while people are not home. DUH.
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
You need to work on the subtlety in your attempted trolling...see, no one has even modded you down. You were that unconvincing.
generous state and federal programs... which we all know simply pulls the money off trees. The same trees the tree-owners would have like to have harvested, but their crop was taken and given away.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Just goes to show what all the people who "don't read AC posts" are missing... Ignorants!
I'm not in Canada and I don't know much about.
Whoa, slow down buddy. Nobody is dying on a waiting list. There is a list, yes. if your doctor thinks it's supercritical you get bumped to the top. As for going to France, if the waiting list is too long then you can be sent anywhere where there is space. An englishman will tell you a ticket to France is a definite upgrade over treatment through NHS. Also, if you didn't know, they pay for this.
Your right there is no waiting list. Those that need that scan get straightup denied if they haven't contributed enough. Fact is lots of people are dying and it's got nothing to do with a waiting list.
New technology pricey? yes. Existing technology that has had its R&D recovered through time should be cheaper, no. We expect technology to refine existing technology to make it more affordable. Like computers. A good example of technology that is affordable is OpenMRI(you can google that). I don't know what blocking technique you are refering to. Most social health insurance plans (within the G8) have the same access to new technology as the good ol' USA. I mean a CAT scanner might be rare in Uzbekistan, but I don't know.
That's the point of the movie. Do we really place a price on our health. Every other (G8, again) socialist healthcare service can provide these things. Why are 8 million children unequipped? The whole point is to provide for you in time of need. And yes we are all guaranteed to die but I'd rather it happened because I fought to the end rather than the size of my wallet. And those 8 million kids they should get a job with benefits too.
So those other countries must be paying a fortune for these things, but they're not. If you really saw the price that other countries are paying for medicine and equipment you'd burn (??pick an HMO??) to the ground.
You should visit Moore's own site where he effectively refutes every claim made against F9/11.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
It will be leaked to Bittorrent, and it is called: "Journalisticality," a film documenting Michael Moore documentaries and how they are fake.
My head asplode.
I don't know of any unscheduled visits after shootings. The NRA planned the visit long before the tragedy. They plan their annual meetings years in advance, I think. You should read Heston's real speech. I felt it was trying to be conciliatory. In fact, in his speech (second paragraph), he announces that much of the NRA festivities had been canceled.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
...as an example of a functional symbiosis of public and private health care. But the taxes!
Of course the wealthy just go to the Mayo Clinic in America and pay for services they would otherwise be put on a waiting list for. While the current system meets the majority of the public's needs, depending what you need and when, waiting lists can be much too long.
Cuba is interesting in that there has in recent years been a flourish of activity to expand and involve the role of the academic community in developing practical solutions which are applicable for lesser economies. This includes, but is not limited to, health care. Agriculture is another. For this reason Cuban scientists are coming to be in high demand all over the world.
Now, as to how well and how evenly the Cuban government implements these ideas there may be less than perfect performance as well as some considerable debate, much of it slanted according to the debater's current state of emotions regarding the players involved.
With his other flicks, he got to stay on the sidelines, but just looking at him, I would be surprised if he isn't in need of medical attention in the not too distant future. What's the betting he gets it from the Mayo, spare no expense! Tsk, tsk, tsk, these limousine liberals...
Well, we can all use a good laugh. Ha ha ha.
After so many replies, can somebody at least post the fucking torrent?
Come on guys!!! I'm stuck at 93%!!!
You can't take the sky from me...
Conservatism is defined as being against anything Michael Moore is for. Or on more general terms, anything Liberals complain about.
So, if that means supporting inefficiency, incompetence and such, then you betcha!
There's no evidence over the past 6 years or so that this isn't the case. At every turn, when given a chance to stand for the right thing, Republicans have chosen to simply kneejerk stand against liberals.
Everybody is starting to ask if news coverage is objective. And I will say yes it is.
If the objective is to make shareholders more money. The only real solution to the problem is to get the stock suits out of the news room.I know it'll never happen even though the news as we (in the U.S. at least) know it has become nothing more than a break in between ads. If you want to know about anything that is really going on you have to look for it yourself.
Unless of course someone makes a movie about it ( for however precise it is in its arguments ).
It says a lot about a person when they consider facts less important than the appearance of the person delivering them.
You can't take the sky from me...
who feed and care for their tree with benefits society gives to them, and yet they are blissfully unaware of that fact, and imagine themselves an island, all alone with their trees
sad and selfish
you have to mandate compulsory contribution to society, simply because some people are so ignorant as to imagine that they don't have to contribute to society... at the very same time they benefit in many ways from being part of that society, ways in which they are completely blind to in the formation of their opinions about how society does work or should work
ignorance
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I know how the rabid anti-Castro types work: throw innuendo, half truths and incendiary propaganda against any positives that had come from the Cuban Revolution.
They are incapable of rational thinking and will go fuming in the mouth after any positive aspect of life in Cuba.
I will deal with only the first bits of the link being referenced, because frankly I don't have much time or inclination to deal with vulgar propaganda, but somebody has to do it I suppose.
First let me state what may not be obvious: I am disillusioned with the government in Cuba, like many Latinamericans that came of age during the Cold War, there was a time I looked at Castro and Che Guevara like heroes. But reality and and open mind (that the poster I am replying to clearly lacks) as well as the opportunity to travel to several Communist and former Communist countries, made clear that those Revolutionary Heroes had failed their peoples badly. The economics did not work, democracy, even the type envisioned by Communism inside the single party, did not exist, freedom of expression was crushed, personality cult was paramount (which created weak societies politically), repression was widespread. In synthesis, the balance is very negative.
But, and this is a big but, it is just not fair to lie about the achievements of the people in power, no matter how flawed they have been and how pernicious in other aspects they have proved.
I will not deal with the pictures of the hospital. The website says they are of a hospital in Havana. We only see a building with cows in front of it. With no independent verification I would only say that you should not believe all what you find in the Internet.
But the 2nd link in the page is more interesting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/galler ies/cubahealth/pages/page1.html), here we are first showed photographs of the dire situation in Cuban hospitals and clinics.
But for the person that is not lazy, and that knows that real journalists have to cite their sources, can go to read the actual article, which I quote and comment:
"Although health care has continued to be a high government priority, with overall expenditure increasing 17 percent between 1989 and 1994, according to PAHO, the lack of foreign currency is reflected in sharp decreases in health care investment, a growing scarcity of drugs and the inability of the health care sector to easily obtain disposable medical supplies and replacement parts for aging, pre-revolution equipment made in the United States."
So actually the Cuban government increased health spending when the Berlin Wall fell. Unsurprising considering that Soviet aid was gone, but still positive.
"These shortages, while not affecting overall public health indicators, have resulted in increases of treatable conditions such as acute respiratory infections and intestinal infectious diseases, among others. Food intake in Cuba has fallen below nutritional requirements in recent years."
So public health indicators are not affected. And here I refer you to the WHO website if you are so inclined. Or the OEA (Organizacion de Estados Americanos in Spanish). Or whatever other credible source you care to find (anti-Castro websites, given their nature, are not credible).
I need somebody to explain how health indicators, as recognized by international bodies, have not fallen, but in the other hand treatable conditions have increased, this seems paradoxical and may need more explaining, but overall health indicators are positive and this can't be denied.
Finally:
"The Cuban government, and many Cubans, blame the shortages and general decline in the quality of health services on the embargo. While the sale of most pharmaceuticals and medical supplies are not prohibited under its terms, U.S. government procedures for selling drugs to Cuba are "difficult, discouraging and cumbersome," according to an Oxfam America study, and few companies participate. Many products are not available in ot
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The wealthy can always afford treatment regardless of politics.
In all countries with state provided health care wealthy people provide for themselves if they can afford it.
The important point is that poor people have medical service that far exceeds what they could get otherwise.
Even in a country like Mexico, where the state provided service is far from perfect (I have painful experiences of this) many people without any means receive proper medical treatment that they could not afford otherwise.
This is of course much better in rich countries like Canada, the UK or Norway.
Imperfect, hell yes, but at the very least you know that there is a service you can rely on if needed.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
This guy is so transparent. And huge amounts of people are gullible enough to be moved by it. It's not hyperbole to liken this to the bigtime propaganda days of "Work makes Freedom" and "A lie told often enough is the truth".
He and the left are dedicated to ruining this country; the one that defended Europe and basically freed the world last century, one of the first (if not THE first) to outlaw slavery, and the power keeping the crazies from slaughtering their neighbors ever since.
If Moore wanted to spread the propaganda around, putting it onto BT is about the best place to do it; that's the exact same content reachable by DemocracyPlayer and many others. When people capable of buying an entire media network turn their money to making a mass appeal spring from nowhere, making millions of tiny sources of propaganda is the way to go. And it's working.
Just remember Rosie's words: "Fire doesn't melt steel!"
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
He certainly offered sites for Soviet Missiles.
But this was after the US supported an invasion, plotted to oust the new government and threatened Moscow from Turkey.
It was not like Cuba pulled out their paranoia out of nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I'm not necessarily upset with your interpretation of the speeches. Moore's page says we should read the whole thing, and he regards the whole speech as ugly and upsetting. Maybe you do, too. Maybe you think Moore's edition of the speech maintains what he really thought Heston meant. If so, fine. But please don't simply discard my position as anger at Moore editing the movie.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
I don't know why all of you are worked up...I think the US is perfect just the way it is, and that's coming from Michael Moore's illegitimate son.
... Michael Moore has shown on several occasions his willingness to blatantly distort information to prove his point. This is beyond mere interpretive bias.
Moore seems to thrive on controversy and the influence he's gained by being in the spotlight several times. However, his misrepresentation of truths has done a great disservice to himself by sullying his credibility. He does often have interesting views on social issues. Really, it's a damned shame. Also, I really dislike calling his films documentaries. Docudramas, or mockumentary is about as far as I'd go. And its not just drama or bias, again. (eg, in BfC, making it appear as if he got the gun directly at the bank immediately after opening an account. more examples from BfC here: http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_11_24_arc hive.html )
What is more important in documentary filmmaking as well as other documentary enterprises is the ability for the viewer/reader to be able to identify probable biases.
I propose instead:
It is important that the consumer of any information be able to skeptically approach and critically analyze said information, especially when its aim is to influence opinion and belief.
be careful in assuming that your side represents truth and justice.
Often the left and right are leading down the same path.
While slavery is illegal, our government encourages corporations to create products at near slavery conditions in other countries.
While this country was based on new freedoms, some restrictions like the century publishing monopolies of pre-america are essentially re-established with current copyright law.
Messages of documentaries like march of penguins, winged migration, political documentaries like inconvenient truth, and somewhat propaganda films like moore's are all apparently less important that the profit that they generate. You would think that if there was a film that someone really wanted everyone to see, it would not have an FBI warning for violating the 95 year publishing monopoly.
so if we didn't mandate contribution to society, everyone would contribute their fair share?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
oh man dude, thanks for the humor
i'm talking about the guy who's trade is say, gardening, and drives from job site to job site. and he holds the opinion that he need not pay a damn thing for the maintenance of the roads he drives on
such people don't exist in your mind?
likewise, it is true that government bureacracy wastes a lot of money. it is still superior to a voluntary contribution society though, because even with the waste, the compulsory contribution society can better care for its shared infrastructure than the voluntary one
i apparently am better in touch with human nature than you are: without compulsory contribution, people would drag their heels on contribution, and contributions would dwindle to a tiny fraction
do you deny this?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
However, it is almost impossible to shop around for the best price. We don't know the actual cost of treatment and it is impossible to tell what the cost is going to be upfront. A basic physical at one office may not include the same bloodwork as another office. You can't compare services to get accurate price comparisons.
Exactly the problem I was getting at in my last paragraph. The solution is to directly connect the consumers to their care financially as much as possible. Substituting the government for the insurance companies will do nothing to solve this basic failure.
The problem in healthcare is that the unit cost is going up--regardless of who is paying. Medicare costs are going up as fast as private costs, proving that the problem is not related to private vs. public funding. What is needed is pressure to drive the efficiencies up and the prices down. Regulation can provide pressure, but it is inflexible--requires legislation, rule-making, and often court cases. Market competition is a more flexible and powerful way.
You can't call a doctor's office and ask for a quote on Strep throat treatment.
Depends on the doctor's office. Minute Clinic is IMO a prototype for the future of healthcare. Complications can ensue from any treatment, but they are often the exception rather than the rule. The market should be able to handle the most common things; right now the entire structure is built to handle the exceptions.
The second problem with elasticity is the desire to deal with a single doctor regardless of price. This is a business built on relationships and is not extremely price sensitive. If my Doc charges $50 more than the guy down the street, I will probably still go to him because of trust.
This is also a factor with lawyers, mechanics, financial advisors, handymen, personal trainers--basically anyone who provides us a service. For some people the effect might be stronger for doctors, for others, not. (I've never had a "close" doctor and don't care if I ever do.) The key is to allow that to be one factor in individual decision-making, rather than enforce it as a structure for everyone. If someone wants to save money by jumping from doctor to doctor for their physicals, shouldn't they be able to?
Incidentally, this is one area where technology can make a huge difference. Right now the big problem in jumping from doctor to doctor is your medical history. It's typically on paper and needs to be sent from old office to new office (remember that Seinfeld episode?). This is just dying for an IT solution. Medical records are information, and if there's one thing we've improved in the last 20 years, it's the storage and movement of information. Except in the medical field.
Actually, it works fairly well for legal services since they aren't universally required, but works horribly for food and housing. If it worked so well, why do we have a huge number of homeless and hungry people?
The number of people who actually starve to death in the United States is very, very low. Hunger is far from a solved problem, but consider that way more people die from influenza or heart disease than from hunger. Likewise, the number of homeless people in the United States is, as a percentage of population, very low. Again--not a solved problem, but numerically a much, much smaller problem than what we see in health care today.
There will always be the disadvantaged, poor, and (yes) mentally ill, who will require some assistance. These are not easy problems to solve. What we see today in health care is that not only are these groups not adequately served, but neither are huge swaths of lower and middle class people who are gainfully employed, housed, clothed, fed, etc. People who can pay their way in every other aspect of their lives, cannot afford health care. To me that makes it obvious that the problem is systemic.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Plan - why are there plans? Either the state covers you or it doesn't. No need for plans (unless tey charge you after all)
Glad you asked actually. The different plans are for different people with different levels of income, different family situations, and differing socioeconomic status.
Take my parents for example. They own a small business, so they aren't eligible for health choice AZ. They are middle class. Therefore they are on the plan called "Care 1st AZ."
Care 1st AZ covers *any* small business with less than 50 employees, and it basically provides health care for all employees working for that business. Now, it doesn't cover all costs, but it does cover most of them. It has a low monthly premium, $20 copays, and you'll pay a small percentage of the costs for prescription drugs. If your employees make less than $15,000 a year, they are still eligible for free plans like Health Choice AZ.
FWIW, the other free plans are for different status as well. For example, the PPO plans are usually for elderly or disabled people, but are still free - PPO plans cost more for the state to provide, so they don't give them to everybody. The big difference between HMO and PPO being that you can go directly to specialists without having to see general physicians first, thus speeding up your care.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
A person can be unobservant without being unintelligent. Though I often agree with Moore, he presents things in a misleading manner. If people were not susceptible to having their attention directed, magic tricks wouldn't work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voAntzB7EwE
I would say he does numerous "tricks" with the medium, and therefore will never rely on what is presented in a Moore film to form my own opinions. (Anyway, why would I when I can rely on Slashdot, where every assertion anyone makes is picked apart for my reading pleasure? That way I don't have to be observant; I just need lots of time.)
If this isn't providing health care to those who can't afford it, then I don't know what is.
You're fortunate to live in Arizona. It isn't like that in much of the US. Here's a counter-example from my own experience.
I live in North Carolina, have an income about the same as yours, and I need psychiatric services. Health Choice in NC is only for families with children, which I do not have. I'm not eligible for Medicaid because I do not receive state or federal assistance. I'm not legally disabled, and my financial "resources" (not income) are according to the state too high for state or federal assistance. The state psychiatric services were privatized several years ago, so my only remaining option would have been to go to the local low-income psychiatric clinic. I say would have because it closed last year because it wasn't making enough money to cover costs. Now I'm looking at $100/hr. to see my old shrink.
Thank god for privatized health care and state assistance for those who can't afford it!
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
A lot of the problem isn't with the poor. It is in the gap between poor enough to be granted state-funded medi-care, and rich enough to afford health-care on your own. They are the working poor.
Not really. Remember AHCCCS stands for Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System. This does not mean it only provides free health care to the poor. It is a program that subsidizes the costs of health care for everybody. That can range from free to not so free.
That said, as I posted elsewhere a few minutes ago, my parents are middle class and own a small business, yet they are eligible for AHCCCS. Although they don't get 100% free coverage like I do, theirs is subsidized by the state under a plan called Care 1st AZ (FWIW this exact same plan is available in California.) This plan covers small businesses with less than 49 employees, and is much cheaper and more comprehensive than most private health care plans. They do pay a small monthly premium, and they do pay some co-pays and co-insurance fees.
I stop being eligible for the Health Choice AZ plan I am on after I make around $18,000 a year, and after that point I am eligible for another plan that provides all of the same coverage I have now, only I do pay $20 copays, and $10 for prescription drugs no matter the cost. There are some other costs as well but I am not certain what they are as I haven't looked at it yet.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Lawsuits are tools to help the lawyers.
I once saw a great cartoon illustrating this. Two farmers were fighting over a cow. One was pulling on the front of the cow, and the other was pulling on the rear. The lawyer was milking the cow.
Basically, the legal profession is a parisitic drain on productivity.
Not true, I'll bet there is a plan for you too:
r eshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=19549325#19 553359
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238779&th
It varies by state, but in general they especially help people with families more than single people.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
The $millions are getting paid by doctors who do stuff related to childbirth.
Florida doctors often don't bother to get the insurance. They take advantage of the bankruptcy laws instead, buying a multi-million-dollar house. The house, no matter how expensive, is untouchable in Florida.
That doesn't make it not political. This is certainly a political film - he's clearly trying to effect social change on a societal level.
The fact that it's not partisan, that its goals don't align with either major party, is another matter altogether.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
I've been tracking premium plus out-of-pocket since 1990s and they've average 14% increase per year. If they dont increase the premium a lot in a year, then they raise the deductable or co-pay percentage. Extrapolating into the future to medicare age, the amount is like the "grains of rice on the chessboard" - astronomical. Medicare isnt so great either, its costs are increasing rapidly too.
And of course, /. fell for it again.
Subject line says it all.
I have a number of acquaintances who've gone this route: stay officially poor, take advantge of free medicare, disability, supplemental social security; maybe some hidden income on the side, gifts from relatives. Its possible to have decent life. Sometimes people feel trpped in this rut. Often theres some rationalization: "it free and its there", "the gov'ment screwed me or some relation and I getting my dues", etc. Some of these acquaintences were AIDs patients or illegal immigrants, some from middle class Anglo families. I usually have mixed feelings: sometimes resentment, other times "for the grace god goes I", etc.
Dude, there is no truth. Every fact is shaped by perception, and every perception is ultimately made from the pov of the person doing it. A comittee might agree on a collection of "facts" as they all see them (God's name is Allah, the world is flat, jews are responsible for economic oppression of gentiles) but that neither ensures the "facts" are accurate nor impartial.
A journalist's job is to report events, honestly and as he or she sees them, to his or her audience. That's all any can do.
I agree that dramatizations are more effective when it comes to impact. However, its the sensationalism and deceit (where was the mention of dramatization with the gun sequence? it was delivered as truth) that really rub me wrong. There were many more ways he could've truthfully, effectively, and entertainingly gotten the point of prevalence of guns and even their political acceptance across.
Is Michael Moore a muckraker? I disagree. I think he's a yellow journalist.
Wikipedia defines yellow journalism as "... a pejorative reference to journalism that features scandal-mongering, sensationalism, jingoism or other unethical or unprofessional practices by news media organizations or individual journalists. It has been loosely defined as "not quite libel"." Under see also, it directs readers to articles about Parachute journalism, Supermarket tabloid, Culture of Fear, Moral Panic, James Creelman. It also likens yellow journalism to corporate media.
However, the one thing that stands out.. and the main reason I also watch Michael Moore's films (ever so cautiously) is that his works tend to favor the people. They aren't written to protect the institutions of government and business. So, perhaps he acts as a mirror to the rest of the corporate world. That I think is a somewhat fair assessment.
So, while I don't agree with Moore's methods, I can at least respect his tenacity, and respect that he puts people in the center, and brings this kind've scrutiny to topics that are deserving of public attention. Also, I'm *right there with you* regarding reasoning and logic in public education. It's sorely needed. It would be so much more worthwhile than cramming facts into kids' heads for them to regurgitate onto a test and then forget. Teach people how to think, FFS! Seems like a no-brainer, eh?
While most countries with a level of social health care are indeed facing problems with it, mostly connected with the ageing population and the availability of expensive & time consuming treatments for many ailments of the elderly, it's not all bad.
... decent.
For one, you don't have to use it. The public health system is *entirely* optional, and you can pay to get faster and often better treatment. Unfair? Definitely - but on the other hand, it (a) reduces the load on the public system, (b) helps pay for the development of technology the public system will later want to adopt, and (c) that's life.
More importantly, if you can't pay, it's a whole crapload better to have the offerings of the public health system than nothing.
I find it extremely depressing that here in Australia our government is butchering public hospital funding (among other things) to fund tax cuts. WTF?!? Since when did we become America? Maybe if the US adopts a degree of public health care our copy-cat government will start being a little bit more
I definitely take your point on malpractice insurance, though. It's a big problem even here now, and getting worse, but it's *nothing* like the US. IIRC some limits are now placed on payouts in recognition of the fact that (a) the money won't bring someone back, (b) beyond a certain point they offer little incentive for caution but rather just drive up insurance costs. I'm not sure, but I hope an exception has been made for funding long-term care of people who need it.
Hospital system aside, I'm always stunned to hear about people in the US not going to a GP because they can't afford it. At least that can't happen here (yet - our government is working hard on making it possible) due to the availability of GPs under the Medicare system.
> My income is about $12,000 a year
I think you're on to something... now, if we could only reduce everybody's salary to $12,000 or below... we... we... COULD SOLVE THE HEALTH CARE PROBLEM! OMG!
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Troll? What the fuck did I say that was so outlandish?
It's interesting to me that the total failure of Hostel 2 at the box office is being attributed by the filmmakers and studio to a workprint of the film being released onto the net, and now that Sicko has also leaked (methinks it's likely a Lions Gate vendor -- probably someone at the sound mixing company -- or someone internal at LGE) Michael Moore is publicly defending P2P. P2P Torrents DON'T help the box office, and I think studios are rightly justified to closely guard their IP through release. Moore seems to think that everyone out there who downloads his movie will also see the movie, but that really wasn't the case with Hostel 2.
"watch the movie before you run your mouth off"
I'll wait until the "MM is an Asshole" documentary comes to a theatre near me. Haha ha hahhahahaha.
Someone asked for a link to the torrent. You can find it here
Just watched it. Not bad quality but the sound goes out of sync for a couple minutes in the middle.
Awesome documentary.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
No wonder he's an anonymous coward.. this comment says it better than I could:
d =19550581
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238779&ci
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
This is just like the news stink he ginned up before Fahrenheit 9/11 where he claimed that Disney yanked a distribution deal that never existed. The only thing Moore is beholden too is money. He makes as much of it as he can and gives out as little of it as possible (just see the complaints from various employees of his).
This is nothing but another PR stunt.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Am I the only one who thinks the title is flawed? Are pirated programs described as "leaked to Zip files?" BitTorrent is of course nothing more than a method or protocol, the title makes it sound like it's some actual entity. Sure, there's no ambiguity in what the title means, but it is inexact, and it bugged me.
From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070618/en_nm/moore_si cko_dc;_ylt=AlCwA3Q_lgqYCdEP6.QZgqLMWM0F
Separately, Moore said he would not prosecute those already circulating bootleg copies of the still-unreleased documentary on the Internet. "I'm happy for people to see my movie. I'm not a big fan of the copyright laws in this country," he said.
We need a comprehensive reform that addresses the entire medical industry. A free market does not do that.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear above, but what I'm talking about is a targetted reform that better harnesses consumer market forces for certain segments of care. I never said the whole has to be a "free market," whatever that is--the term is basically an epithet these days. What I want is to divorce preventative and common care from the insurance gatekeeper, and introduce consumer choice. The government backstop would benefit from the resulting cost reductions as much as individuals would.
I disagree that we have to transform all of U.S. health care in one fell swoop. For one thing, there's a lot about our health care system that does work well, so why trash it. For another, such radical change won't run the political traps successfully. Incremental is the way to go--pick one problem and solve it, then reevaluate.
The greatest efficiency that we can achieve is a system of preventative care that prevents higher cost treatment later.
How does a market driven health care solve this problem? The short answer is "It doesn't". People don't buy things they think they don't need. The lower middle class and low income people will not shop around for an annual physical. They will rely on the same method they have now: Go to the emergency room for my current illness and let the government pick up the tab.
So what's your alternative--force people to get preventative care? In the U.S. at least, people make whatever choices they make. If you want them to change their habits you have to convince them it's in their best interest to do so, and then make it easy for them to change. Markets are very good at both of these.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
It felt to me like the debate over switching from PC to Mac. I can stick with what's comfortable (PC/USA) and continue along my merry way ignoring the fact that some people are doing things differently (Mac/Europe), and claim that I've lived my whole life doing things this way, and it's good enough. On the other hand, I can switch over to the new system (which has been highly idealized) and spend a good deal of time learning to get things done in a new fashion. The price of entry is nontrivial for the new system, and I will have to leave behind a lot of things that I love.
The third option, which is Michael Moore's approach, is to take what you like out of the other system and bring it into the one you are familiar with. Whether you lobby Microsoft or the US government, no one will pay much attention to you unless you are in a position of power within that system. The process will be lengthy and difficult (and most likely buggy at first), but this change is ultimately necessary in order to keep the masses from migrating and/or killing off the system.
Yes, this analogy isn't perfect, and I didn't include Linux because the analog would be to make a new country which everyone can live in for free, or something like that...but anyway these are the three basic responses one has in response to a distaste with their system. Hopefully we can fix this problem a little easier than in 1861, the last time we were 50 years behind the rest of the Western world.
I understand that a lot of people don't like Michael Moore for various political reasons based on his political history and work. That is hardly relevant though to the simple fact that PEOPLE DIE HERE YOUNGER THAN ANY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY. That seems like cold hard science to me, and is instructive, to say the least.
Don't shoot the messenger if the message is important and necessary, no matter how much you don't like getting the message. I myself am a victim of the US health care system, and it is most certainly and horrifically broken, to say the least.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Visit a random Cuban family who aren't high-ranking party officials (i.e., 99% of Cubans) and you'll see poverty and suffering, and zero health care. They subsist on shitty little rations from these little bodegita shacks in their neighborhoods. A little rice and chicken (and shitty cigars) every two weeks.
Go to Cuba and see for yourself! Anyone who thinks he is getting the truth from Michael Moore is getting snowed.
I think the most important fact about Cuba is that police officers make more money than doctors (the latter are also known as "cab drivers").
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
It's a damned useful movie, because it takes aim at one the Right's most cherished myth, and opens fire: the myth that, whatever the drawbacks of the American system, we still have it better than anyone else in the world. Sure, we all know it's bad. If 'Sicko' was just about the badness of the American system, you're right, it would be an inexplicably pointless movie. But all the demonizing and bad-mouthing the Right dishes out about the evils of socialized medicine has managed to stall just about every useful reform that has come up.
This movie could help reframe the debate. Since Clinton's failed attempt at reform, the debate seems to have been "How can we fix the system without bringing on socialized medicine and dooming us all?" If Moore moves the debate to "What would happen if we adopted a system more similar to other countries?" then he's done the whole country a huge service.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
A look at your posts shows you score a remarkably consistent -1. Thus, you are an asshole, you always have been, and you always will be. Try to think outside the mindless liberal drivel you've been fed all your life as a Canadian. There is a world outside of The Globe and Liberal, the Toronto Liberal, the National Liberal, and the Communist Broadcasting Corporation.
Why "force people to get preventative care"?
Exactly! You can't.
There are plenty of steps that could be taken far short of saying it's illegal to skip your yearly physical. For example, mandating that employers give people the time off that they need to obtain preventative care. How about making such care free? Or actually paying people for especially effective procedures?
I love the idea of mandatory preventative care time. I don't like the idea of "free" care because it doesn't exist. "Free" care this year actually has to be paid by taxes from last year. And the U.S., like Europe, has a shrinking worker-to-payee ratio. It's going to get harder, not easier, to pay for government programs. That's not a political statement, it's just demographics.
As for "people make the choices they make," it's hardly that simple...[examples snipped]...Simply put, the market doesn't just reflect peoples' wants, it actively alters them.
This is exactly my point. Why not put this power to use for good instead of evil? The same techniques that convince people to spend obscene money on a diamond, also convince them to buy more fuel efficient cars and appliances and lightbulbs. If preventative and family care clinics sold directly to people (instead of to insurance agency bureaucrats), they would use marketing to convince people to come in and use their services. You'd see advertisements for annual physicals the same way you see advertisements for car tune-ups and brake repairs.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I think he is true patriot who feels for his countrymen. Keep the great work going..
Wish every country have filmmaker like you..
Regards
Indian
My lifetime of Canadian citizenship can't match that.
The people who wait 6 months are those who don't really need the scan, but might as well get thrown in the mix when the machine isn't in use. People who have a legitimate need, as decided by doctors, get them promptly.
We frown on people bribing their way past people with legitimate needs up here.
Alberta has somewhat substandard care because you voted in a bunch of yokels who promised to do just that. You made the choice to shit were you sleep, so don't go blaming everyone else when you stink in the morning.
Gentlemen, gentlemen!
yes, and you too, Nicholas!
Can't we all just get along?
We KNOW Bush has tried his best (from each according to his abilines)
And Moore has tried not to exaggerate (to each according to his knees)
But sometimes things get mixed up. And then it's time to sit down
together and have a glass (or two) of Pinoqachole and then reflect
upon one's mistakes.
I for one, hope we can all settle our differences amicably.
- The ol' philosopher.
The U.S. has been bosoum buddies with far worse regimes, and has done some fairly nasty shit on it's own, just ask Jose Padilla.
"I'm not killjoe"
Liar.
"Perhaps you've never been to a doctor -- maybe you can't afford one? -- but doctors don't treat everything as urgent because not everything is urgent."
And you're missing the point killjoe, what happens if you don't have the option of treating something as urgent? OOPS!
Stop posting AC and stop lying about it.
I guess it's a bit like the US paying 100m+ usd annually for Mexico and Canada's healthcare - great eh?!
You guess wrong, munchkin. Mexico != Wales. Canada != Scotland. United Kingdom includes England, Wales and Scotland.
British National Insurance contributions pay for British healthcare needs. I know... it's really complicated.
Two reasons.
First, the reason you might find offensive. It's more important (for our economy, for our gene pool, whatever) that we keep the highly skilled people alive. Given the choice between saving a brain surgeon and saving a homeless person, I want to save the brain surgeon. Not that money is the perfect way to judge value (lawyers!), but it's pretty close.
Second, this isn't just a matter of one person's wealth vs. another person's wealth. This is also a matter of one individual person choosing between alternate things to spend money on. A nice new car may be worth more than a toe joint replacement, but less than getting laser vision correction. Money is a way to cause individuals to decide their own priorities. If I choose to get the new car, than somebody else (who feels differently) can schedule time with the doctor. It's better for me to make this choice than to have some other person make it for me.
What you are thinking of is a trade status called "Most Favored Nation" which no longer exists in the US. MFN doesn't mean that a nation is somehow a preferred trade partner. Really, it was just another way of saying "Normal Trade Relations" (indeed, nearly every country in the world had MFN status at the time). In the late 90s, because of windbags such as yourself decrying the fact that nations with poor human rights records were our "Most Favored" trading partners, MFN was renamed to Normal Trade Relations (NTR) in order to more accurately describe the situation.
At the present time, only two nations, North Korea, and yes, Cuba, are the only nations on the planet who do not enjoy Normal Trade Relations (what used to be called MFN) with the US.
Most Favored, indeed.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock