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."
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
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
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.
...set of lies and twisted "truths" from this nutjob, who wouldnt know the actual truth if it came up and bit him.
Because we all know the President Bush tells the truth and would never mislead us.
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.
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.
How simple minded do you have to be to assume that hating Michael Moore equals loving Bush?
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.
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
Since when is flatulence "Flamebait"? ...oh...
Blank until
Because we all know the President Bush tells the truth and would never mislead us.
The fact that Bush has often misled the american people does not prove that Michael Moore is telling the truth.
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
...set of lies and twisted "truths" from this nutjob, who wouldnt know the actual truth if it came up and bit him.
I kind of liked The Onion's take on it:
Half Of Nation Outraged At New, Not-Yet-Released Michael Moore Film
[...]
"This film is absolutely tasteless and misguided, and I can't believe theaters are even showing it," said GOP presidential candidate Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), who, along with the rest of the nation, has not yet seen the film.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Because we all know the President Bush tells the truth and would never mislead us.
Because when someone disagrees with a liar they are automatically telling the truth.
For example, I too think Bush is a liar. Also, your hair is on fire.
Bush, Rush, Coulter etc. vs Clinton, Moore, Franken, etc... it's the circus part of the bread and circus formula. Their goal is to really change very little but get you all worked up about it in the process.
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.
"Because we all know the President Bush tells the truth and would never mislead us."
Right, so piling on more mistruths is totally justified. I feel full of insight, now.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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.
So, two wrong DO make a right? Cool.
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
Yeah, methane will do that...
My sig can beat up your sig.
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
Michael Moore is a pretentious hack. Every time I want to see his smirking face like he's teaching the world a thing or two I want to gouge my eyes out.
Every time I hear Ann Coulter talk about the liberal media bias I want to light something on fire and throw myself in it.
So which am I, fucktard GP? Right or Wrong? Left or Right?
I'm a goddamn self-critical thinking American who realizes we've fucked up but also realizes that distorting the truth in a documentary is probably the worst thing you could ever do for the industry. You want to present an opinion - cool, say it's your fucking opinion. But saying right is left and the sky is actually a pretty shade of lime and presenting that as not coming from you, but coming from facts is the lowest thing you could do in documentary journalism. It's as bad as any (insert ideology) media bias and worse for the hard-working true blue documentarians who want to present both sides of an issue but are shown that doing that isn't sexy enough, that they won't get the respect they so richly deserved by allowing both sides to speak and letting the audience decide, or by presenting their opinion and letting the audience decide whether it's right or wrong.
Moore makes me as sad and pissed off for my America as any other partisan lobby-owned political hack.
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.
The government lies, and the media lie, but in a democracy they are different lies.
Ok. My faith in US democracy is restored.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's on Google Video too
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
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.
I didn't know insight smelled like a cattle farm! Thanks Mikey Moore!
Except Al Franken actually tried to change things. Instead of ranting like an idiot, he sat around for 3 hours and talked to experts, pundits, wonks and Norm Ornstein. It's one thing to say your opposition is wrong, it's another to spend a few hours and go indepth and discuss actually *why* they're wrong using things like truth(which has a liberal bias, wierdly enough).
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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
I wish I could mod the "flamebait" as funny as I sure laughed when I read that.
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
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.
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.
Michael Moore twists the truth as a form of entertainment. What's Bush's excuse?
'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?
What's your excuse for continuing the attempt to redefine the debate?
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
But Independence is rolled with love .
Why bother.
I've read a bit of the "Michael Moore is a liar" threads here and elsewhere, but their content is, from what I've seen, limited to re-interpreting the facts a different way, just leaving out the facts that led to his conclusion, all the while pretending that he's just spouting foundationless opinion, a la Rush Limbaugh.
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
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.
...and the fact that wombat feces are good for the skin does not mean that the sun is getting warmer.
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
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.
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
You're the one who brought up Bush not the poster. Perhaps it is you that secretly loves him?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Finally you understand that two wrongs really do make a right!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
And they're making millions of dollars in the process.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
For me, I don't see him as lying, I see him as bending the truth.
I've watched this movie, and he's glossed over the fact that our (the UK) NHS infrastructure is a bit shoddy. Sure, it's one of the best in the world, but it's a giant money hole.
Also, it appears to be an advert for Clinton. Would have been nice to see this party-neutral. Ah well.
If you ignore the partisan politics, this is a fantastic film with one important message: Societies are not judged by how they treat their heroes, but how they treat the bottom rung. Only with universal healthcare, free at the point of need (that's need, not want - no free boobjobs, obviously) can the US elevate it's status as one of the worst infant mortality rates, poor general health and positively narcissistic health corporation which have done nothing but bolster corporate profits.
The US is a fantastic place, but I'd never want to live in a country that didn't care about everyone - regardless of whether they're a billionaire or a meth-addict in dire straits.
......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
I've watched most of his films except Roger & Me.
The one part that bothered me in Bowling for Columbine that seemed a bit sketchy was the sequence of events regarding the Detroit shooting and the interview with Mr. Heston.
I would have liked to seen the rest of the letter. It was fuzzed out in the version I read except for the sentence or two that highlighted what he wanted said, but there was a lot of text there that you couldn't read. Why hide something (other than the name/address) if there was nothing to hide?
Just seemed iffy.
I'll probably watch this one too when it hits DVD. But I also think Michael Moore taints his 'documentary' to be more of a spin than a real documentary. Though I don't know how you'd film something 'National Geographic style' by hiding in alleys and using telephoto lenses on people
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Okay, I'm going to take your post, and do to it what Michael Moore does with the video he shoots:
.
Please post an actual lie that Michael Moore had in his movies. The arguments in Fahrenheit 9/11 were presented in terms of evidence--government documents, congressional transcripts/testimony, interviews, books, etc. You can interpret the facts differently if you wish, but that doesn't mean he's lying.
I've read a bit of the "Michael Moore is a liar" threads here and elsewhere, but their content is , from what I've seen, limited to re-interpreting the facts a different way, just leaving out the facts that led to his conclusion, all the while pretending that he's just spouting foundationless opinion, a la Rush Limbaugh
ZOMG, you just said Michael Moore is pretending that he's Rush Limbaugh!!!!
Now if you said that was a lie, and that you said no such thing, and I retorted saying those were your words, who would be right? I dare say you would be. It is a lie, and not a "bending" of truth.
Here is an example: In the movie "Bowling for Columbine", Michael Moore wanted to paint the NRA as a nasty gun club that lacked compassion for the Columbine shooting. Here is how he did it. First he spliced in some video of children crying outside columbine, then cut to Charlton Heston saying "from my cold, dead, hands", then cut to a billboard about an NRA meeting in Denver while Michael Moore tells us that after Columbine Charlton Heston decided to have a pro-gun rally in Denver, then cut to a video of Heston's speech (except utilizing the above demonstrated edit job to alter the message).
The problem with this is that Heston's "cold, dead, hands" speech wasn't even from his Denver speech. And after the Columbine shooting, the NRA didn't suddenly decide to hold a gun-rally. Their National Convention has been planned to be there for years. And it wasn't even a pro-gun rally, as all the exhibits and committee meetings were canceled in respect of the recent tragedy. The only thing not canceled was the members meeting, which could not be canceled due to state laws governing non-profits.
When you imply something untrue by using careful editing and splicing, you are lying. I'm sorry that we live in a world where lying is so casually dismissed (thanks to our current and last president), and that lying about somebody we don't like is okay. But the fact remains that Moore is a liar and his "documentaries" aren't worth the film they're printed on.
I'll tell you why: The concept that both might be right or wrong in some instances escapes some people. That, and we live in a society where people in power will skew "the truth" to make themselves look good, regardless of the reality of things. When was the last time you heard a president apologize for being wrong about something? Anything? Show humility?
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
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.
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
But you can mislead with factually true statements. You can talk about congressional pork, and if you go on and on about Republican pork projects, while just omitting any mention of Democratic pork, then you have lied even if all of your statements were factually correct.
But documentaries are always slanted. Even if you go back to "Nanook of the North," they didn't use harpoons by that time (from what I've read), but shotguns. But in the film, you see harpoons, because the filmmakers are trying to evoke a lost innocence, or something like that. So I don't ask for objectivity, and I sort of assume that there is an agenda there, whether disguised or not. My question is whether or not the issues raised have some connection to reality, can I corroborate with other sources, and so on. I also happen to like right-wing documentaries on Waco and Ruby Ridge. Are they true? I'm sure parts are.
Michael Moore brings important questions to the fore, questions that are flatly ignored by the mainstream media. Some of the objections to his work are nitpicky, and I get the feeling that they're looking for some pretext to throw out the entire set of questions. If you look at the entire PNAC/9-11/Iraq/Haliburton casserole it's obvious that the official explanations don't add up, and a gadfly like Moore does the public a service by pointing out problems, even if he gets sloppy. I just wish his screen presence wasn't so grating. It's like he's taken every stereotype of the smarmy, self-righteous liberal and decided "that's who I want to be!"
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
Maybe if you only saw the first half of the movie. The other half paints her as a opportunistic corporate shrill that will sell her own mother to get into the presidential race. Since the movie is about nationalising the health industry in America, and H. Clinton was the only one to bring this up in the last 20 years, I would have been surprised that Moore would have not mentioned her
Personally, I loved the movie. His best since Bowling. I also think a lot of the French and British will complain in their own respective countries about how it paints their health system as pixies and fairies. But, the conclusions are still correct. (For instance a few nights ago the BBC showed a documentary about how dirty/unclean hospitals are in England and the huge cases of MRSA related deaths due to this. They also showed how other countries dealt with MRSA. They didn't pick America. They picked Denmark (or was it the Netherlands?) where, the biggest hospital there, has 0 deaths from MRSA.)
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 meant "poor Mr. Heston" in the sense that he suffers from Alzheimer's, and it is questionable whether he was 'together', coherent, or even basically aware of what he was being accused of during the interview. The person he was may be ethically reprehensible for what he has done, but the person he is now bears little functional resemblance to that man. I think it entirely possible, and preferable for that matter, to impugn someone's actual crimes without stooping to nastiness, and also addressing targets that have the capacity for response and therefore for responsibility.
And to refocus a little bit on my original point, I didn't have a problem with the interaction until Moore started 'peppering' him with causitric questions toward the end, when it was clear he did not want Heston to have a decent oportunity to articulate what he originally clumsily had stated. And finally the antics of the picture of the little girl did nothing to enhance Moore's point in any fashion, certainly not to the audience and I would suspect with Heston himself as well.
I certainly wouldn't argue the point that what Heston did in scheduling the timing of those rallies was reprehensible; merely that simply his being a jackass does not in any way excuse M. Moore then in turn acting like a jackass to redress the issue. It detracted from the effectiveness of his point, one which he in fact made quite clearly and more intelligibly earlier in the film.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
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.
The fact that Bush has often misled the american people does not prove that Michael Moore is telling the truth. The difference between Bush and Moore, is that Bush maintains he is telling the truth, even when the facts suggest otherwise. Moore claims only to give an opinion, and is frequently on record as saying his movies are 'op-ed pieces'.
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.
The "evil" Mr. Heston held NRA rally because it had been planned for many months to be held in Denver and there was no way to change it for legal reasons. NRA in fact canceled most of meetings except for a reception and one annual meeting required by law. I can't think of any other tragedy he showed up and held a meeting. If your talking about Flint which Moore referenced, that was 8 months later during election time. Moore trickery editing has been well known and in fact is quite dishonest.
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.
Sure, it's one of the best in the world, but it's a giant money hole.
Yeah, health care costs money. So what would you rather do with the money you'd save? Save it for after you're dead?
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
Schnapple
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8852/Michael+Moore's+ 'Sicko'+appears+on+Google+Video
"Also, it appears to be an advert for Clinton. Would have been nice to see this party-neutral. Ah well." You obviously didn't watch the whole thing. 10 minutes later he says how she's now changed and is a friend to the insurance industry.
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!
The primary criticism of the Bush "prosperity" is that the economic growth is being driven primarily by firms outsourcing high-paying jobs overseas. So, the bulk of the wealth that is being created is going to the already very wealthy, while the middle class is exchanging their previous high-paying jobs for lower paying jobs. Most of the jobs being created are low-paying service sector jobs.
Yes, there is widespread speculation that a recession is coming, fueled mainly by the crisis in the housing market, but people speculate about the market all the time. This speculation is coming from economists in general, and is certainly not limited to the left wing.
Also, the Film Actors Guild (FAG) was a fictional organization in the film "Team America: World Police". The acronym is part of the humor. So, while your point of view is legitimate, you may want to research your assertions before throwing bile at fictional entities.
Also, while Moore undoubtedly plays up certain aspects of his films for entertainment value and to prove his point, he does often bring up quite a few good points that are solidly based on fact. To ignore a point of view out of hand merely because it comes from a source you find distasteful is closed-minded.
Hey, you don't have to hate Michael Moore to love bush! I totally love bush!
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.
It would have been more apparent had they not put the NRA billboard between the two scenes. And I doubt most people noticed the different suit, lighting, etc. But even if you ignore that part, the part about the mayor telling him not to come there and that they were already there...that is blatantly deceptive editing and is dishonest.
It is sort of ironic to have a Moore supporter accuse the other side of discrediting the intelligence of the viewers.
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
And I still don't know.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
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.
Wait, Bush's alterations of the truth aren't entertainment?
-Turkey
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.
Because like Al Franken, I know the comedic value of a funny name like Norm Ornstein.
But I was still serious. I mean, sure, Al was on radio station that was financially fucked since day 1, but let's face it, he's leaving to PARTICIPATE in the process, not just kibitz and abuse drugs. Those were his SNL days.
(Well, actually, most SNL insiders pegged Al as being one of the 3 guys on the set in the 70's who didn't abuse drugs. So there goes the fuckin' Rush/Drughead/useless pile of shit gag.)
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Yeah, but it's much easier to just label them unpatriotic and call them names.
"But this one goes to 11!"
The internets, obviously.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
...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.
Who were probably US soldiers before. since security contractors only recruit ex-forces. But thats just nitpicking
Moore is a propagandist in the extreme. There are a dozen websites out there devoted to pointing out every single false statement he has made, but that misses the point. The point is that the content of his films are clearly blatant attempts to persuade even in the absences of facts. The most obvious example of this comes in the way that he manipulates what he films. Slow motion shots of someone talking and then degrading the film quality makes anyone look creepy. Showing people about to appear on TV getting makeup put on as if that some how bolsters your point is laughable. I bet Moore himself puts a pound of makeup on before going on TV... like all the other public figures. Yes, Bush played golf after 9/11. Dear god, anyone who isn't in perpetual misery after 9/11 is clearly a terrorist. Moore's movies are full of such blatant propaganda techniques. He isn't making a documentary. A documentary would have poured through documents, interviewed people, and in general built a convincing argument. Moore's work does do this to some extent, but also spends vast amounts of time using every single cheap trick in the book to manipulate, cut, and distort the video and sound to influence the opinion of the viewer without using facts.
Like his message or hate his message, Moore would find himself far more at home in a Soviet propaganda studio then among the ranks of real documentarians. I don't find Moore nauseating for his message, I find him nauseating for his methods.
It does not necesserily escape them - fallacy is sometimes intentional. //
Come on guys!!! I'm stuck at 93%!!!
Schnapple
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.
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 just watched Franken's Documentary thinking, wow, this may be a pretty funny look at Al Franken from a new perspective. There were a few jokes, but the majority was pretty dry and the whole movie looked like a put on for his senatorial running, sad.
On another note, I was said good bye to Al Franken and Air America when they decided to take personal swings at Nader. He may not be the same party, but he holds many of the same ideals. To tear him down for political gains cheapened the medium and erased any message they could speak to me.
The Democrats really have to start defining themselves instead of attacking who they're not.
Bye!
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
Of course, no one but me heard him apologise for the government's past actions, since the news was on more "important" matters that day, but he did show some humility.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
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 invoke Godwins Law! :-)
Politics will sooner or later make fools of everybody... - Dick Armey
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.
... 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.
As for Heston's "mixed ethnicity" line at the end, that is clearly another edit job. Moore claims the interview was shown in its entirety, yet the clock in the background shows a lot of it is missing. It shows Charlton Heston getting up and leaving the interview 23 minutes in. But the whole interview only takes up less than 6 minutes on film. That is nearly three quarters of the interview edited out? I'm figuring the "mixed ethnicity" line was, like just about everything else, taken out of context.
I want to light something on fire and throw myself in it....It's as bad as any (insert ideology) media bias and worse for the hard-working true blue documentarians who want to present both sides of an issue but are shown that doing that isn't sexy enough
I agree with most of what you've said, but one other thing that makes me want to pull my hair out is when people assume that every issue has exactly two sides.
I saw that part of the film. I am anti-gun, and I still didn't reach the conclusion that Moore is said by his critics to have foisted on me. That's part of what I find odd about the criticisms of his movies. Politically I'm in his neighborhood (roughly), but I never saw what everyone says he is showing. I take hyperbole for hyperbole, rhetorical questions for rhetorical questions, metaphor for metaphor, and so on--I guess I'm not literalist enough to feel that he's trying to lie to me. The main ideas of the film are what matter to me, and oddly, I haven't seen those questioned. I just see them thrown out altogether, sight unseen, because Moore spliced two speeches together and "that means we can't trust him."
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
I guess you believe that the government is more efficient than a company at collecting and disbursing money.
It is, actually. France pays 1/4 the cost per person for health care than America does.
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.
I agree it was his best since Bowling, and I also agree about the gloss. I live under the Canadian health care system, and it sure as hell has it's problems. I think this movie's best point is going to be for the Americans who watch to realize that there are alternatives, and that "socialized health care" is not demonic.
Poor Mr. Heston, IMHO, deserves an ass-beating, however old he is.
Ahh... but if you tried to beat Poor Mr. Heston's ass, he would put a cap in yours. A perfect example of the Second Amendment being used to protect the First Amendment.
The only people whose ass you will give a beating for exercising freedom of speech will be those who are unarmed... which just goes to show you the importance of the right to bear arms. Mr Heston will say whatever the fuck he wants, thank you.
Schnapple
Policy.
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
Just remember Rosie's words: "Fire doesn't melt steel!" So go ahead and stereotype a whole group of people because one vocal nitwit doesn't know her science. Can I do that to all the conservatives based on what Bush says? We all know people and fish can coexist peacefully, and we know it's for certain because the god-chimperor has done talked it. making millions of tiny sources of propaganda is the way to go. And it's working. Ahh yes, the fox news model.
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.
Subject line says it all.
ZOMG, you just said Michael Moore is pretending that he's Rush Limbaugh!!!!
One's a fat guy in a suit, the other is a fat guy in a flannel. They both smell funny, and need different jobs.
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 can't imagine when AAR or Al took on Nader. I know Randi Rhodes yelled at Nader(and did a damn good job of it by asking simple questions like, "Who woudl you caucus with?").
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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?
### I never watched "Bowling for Columbine,"
Then go watch it, the movie isn't contra guns, in fact it comes to the conclusions that guns are not the real problem and the real issues are lie elsewhere, i.e. "climate of fear". But yeah, its of course much easier to bash him for no good reason, then to actually take time and watch what he has to say...
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?
I agree with your first two sentances. However..
I seem to recall the first four years of the Bush Administration being called a recession, I wouldn't call what we're seeing here doing "quite well" it's more of trying to catch back up to where we should be.
I think you also mean Screen Actor's Guild the acronym for which is SAG, while not nearly as amusing as FAG, it's more technically accurate.
Eternity is a time bomb.
Troll? What the fuck did I say that was so outlandish?
Consider how the economy has done quite well during the Bush tenure, and all you hear is how the prosperity is just a pause before the financial storm.
I've yet to see my personal economy recover. "The economy has done quite well"- only if you think the stock market is the economy, and can afford to invest instead of living life getting eaten by usury, credit cards, subprime loans, and bad bankruptcy laws.
Of course, if you're over the age of 37 you've already escaped all that- and "fuck the future, I've got mine" has always been the neocon liberal baby boomer's defiant motto anyway, never mind the broken homes, hearts, and lack of financial ability you left behind in your divorces and drug use.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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.
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.
thats some ugly code. if(bush is lying){ moore is right; } else{ moore is wrong; }
here:
moore.Right = !bush.Lying;
don't say i never did anything for you.
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
you don't need the brackets there.
You do if that's Perl...
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Of course, if you're over the age of 37 you've already escaped all that- and "fuck the future, I've got mine" has always been the neocon liberal baby boomer's defiant motto anyway, never mind the broken homes, hearts, and lack of financial ability you left behind in your divorces and drug use.
I have, huh? You say I've got mine, but I wouldn't even know where to look for it, much less have the idea that I have nothing to worry about. And do you mean to imply that everyone over the age of 37 is a neocon? Not hardly. I have always been and remain somewhere left of what the US considers 'liberal' - something in the range of Democratic Socialist.
Of course, what am I expecting? This is Slashdot and the generalizations will fly.
And BTW - everyone born in the baby boom (1946 - 1964) would be over the age of 42, while those of us between the ages of 37 and 42 are actually the early part of GenX.
Of course, what am I expecting? This is Slashdot and the inaccuracies will fly as well.
Death looks every man in the face. All any man can do is look back and smile. - Marcus Aurelius
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.
I'd like to add a quote to this discussion that seems to let people think a little more clearly... "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle Simple, but effective.
I have, huh? You say I've got mine, but I wouldn't even know where to look for it, much less have the idea that I have nothing to worry about. And do you mean to imply that everyone over the age of 37 is a neocon? Not hardly. I have always been and remain somewhere left of what the US considers 'liberal' - something in the range of Democratic Socialist.
The neocons ARE lefties- your generation was the last generation that had a *better* standard of living than your parents. If you squandered the money you made in the 1980s and should have been investing in the 1990s, that's your own fault. Where for those of us who went into hock to get a college education in the 1990s to graduate just in time to get thrown out of work for a bunch of people in other countries (Bill Clinton and George W's idea of "liberal free trade"- between those two we might as well not even HAVE a country, neither one has ever heard of "border control" or "tariffs") have NO CHANCE AT ALL- we'll be working all of our lives just to pay off the debt run up trying to become adults. And our children will be paying for the governmental debt the baby boomers ran up.
And BTW - everyone born in the baby boom (1946 - 1964) would be over the age of 42, while those of us between the ages of 37 and 42 are actually the early part of GenX.
True. That's part of the transistional stage....When did you graduate from college? Early enough to make money off of the boom years of the 1980s?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Bush maintains he is telling the truth, even when the facts suggest otherwise. Moore claims only to give an opinion, and is frequently on record as saying his movies are 'op-ed pieces'.
Hey, when Moore starts talking to the Creator, then we'll talk. Till then, I'll put my faith in God's little buddy. I, for one, think Bushie is doing a heck of a job.
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.
If it were one nitwit, I wouldn't say anything. It's a legion of people discarding common sense for hatred.
You're an example:
making millions of tiny sources of propaganda is the way to go. And it's working. "Ahh yes, the fox news model."
How many news sources agree with the Democratic National Committee? One doesn't, and that's Fox. My point still stands. Just because lots of people are doing something doesn't make it right- history's full of such diversions.
How many actors now *love* Castro? Ed Asner's a huge fan, Sean Penn, the whole "hip" crowd, too. Now...doesn't it bother anyone that it's a police state, with political prisoners there until they die?
And I don't mean, "You don't agree with me- you watch Fox News, so I'm arresting you on public drunkenness..." but instead, "You carried an item declared by the state to be treasonous; you will be shot." (An eerie echo of thousands of SS raids in the 30's)
The liberal left _tells_ you they want enlightenment, they say they care, but instead they house vast numbers of people in poverty, promise them a better life they never get, and gain more power. Yeah, the welfare state. If they really _cared_ about these poor (of multiple races, by the way) they'd educate them. They'd make them work, and become useful, so they could have their shot at the American Dream, too.
Instead, the left loves victims. And they want you to drink (but not smoke: that money powers industry) take all the drugs you want, have sex as much as possible, and don't feel too bad if you kill someone along the way. They don't want a concept of right-versus-wrong, they just want to rule. The more victims they have, the more power they have, because they own the TV, radio, academia, a huge chunk of scientists, and most celebrities. Once they rule, it will be equal misery for all...except those in the PolitBureau.
Chaves is a good example of this; make victims...victims who vote for you. Promise to work for you, take care of you, but then it somehow doesn't happen.
Don't bother to reply; I've seen this throughout history. And it chills my blood that the truth has become "propoganda" and vice-versa. Look up "Arbite Macht Frei" if you want to know what that feels like.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
I got a full page rant including you qouting the infamous slogan @ auschwitz because I made a joke about fox news? I think you need to lighten up a bit.
How many news sources agree with the Democratic National Committee? One doesn't, and that's Fox. The reason lots of people "hate" fox is because they CLAIM TO BE FAIR AND BALANCED. Guess what dude, they're not. I don't know why so many people hold fox news up as a beacon of freedom or journalistic integrity, but it shouldn't be.
I have no Idea where you whole rant came from, but it's obviously very angry, and you got some SERIOUS pent up anger issues. Maybe you need to get that checked out. Fröhlichkeit macht frei.
The neocons ARE lefties- your generation was the last generation that had a *better* standard of living than your parents. If you squandered the money you made in the 1980s and should have been investing in the 1990s, that's your own fault. Where for those of us who went into hock to get a college education in the 1990s to graduate just in time to get thrown out of work for a bunch of people in other countries (Bill Clinton and George W's idea of "liberal free trade"- between those two we might as well not even HAVE a country, neither one has ever heard of "border control" or "tariffs") have NO CHANCE AT ALL- we'll be working all of our lives just to pay off the debt run up trying to become adults. And our children will be paying for the governmental debt the baby boomers ran up.
So sorry to hear that things are difficult for you with your college degree. In the 80's I was in the Army, so none of that "Big Cash" for me, sorry. And because my enlistment papers will filled out improperly at the inprocessing station, the $48,000 I was promised for college turned out to be $480.00, to be allocated in equal monthly payments over four years as long as I was enrolled in college full-time. Yeah, right. Instead I have spent the last 15 years working my ass off to have the things I have, and am now (at the age of 41) seriously contemplating going to college, finally, to pursue my passion (physics).
I imagine I could have gone into hock to go to school years ago, if I hadn't bought the Army's line about money for education. Because, you see, the way the VEAP (Veteran's Education Assistance Program) was set up, if you qualified for any amount from that you were disqualified for any other federal tuition assistance, including FAFSA student loans. So, I was in a totally fucked position until my benefits ran out (they expired after 10 years) and by then I was busy supporting a family. So say what you want, not all of us have had life handed to us on a silver fucking platter. And BTW - going to college does not make one an adult. I had to do that at 17 when I was booted out on my freshly graduated (HS) ass to make my own way. And no, I didn't go straight into the Army. I spent most of a year working a minimum wage labor job first. I don't know why I didn't join immediately, but I didnt. Hell, I was 17 and I did a lot of stupid shit back then.
True. That's part of the transistional stage....When did you graduate from college? Early enough to make money off of the boom years of the 1980s?
I think if you read the above you will see that I have not attended college yet, and I graduated from High School in 1984. I am sorry if I have totally blown your image of me as some sort of rich asshole neocon nutbag, but those are the facts.
Death looks every man in the face. All any man can do is look back and smile. - Marcus Aurelius
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.
I think if you read the above you will see that I have not attended college yet, and I graduated from High School in 1984. I am sorry if I have totally blown your image of me as some sort of rich asshole neocon nutbag, but those are the facts.
Actually, you blew two images at once. The first was the real image- you would have missed the boom years (by 1988, we were falling into the minirecession between Reagan and Clinton) even if you HAD gone to college. But the second image you've blown is you as an intelligent being- I grew up KNOWING uncles who had been in Vietnam and so didn't believe the first word any of the recruiters said, thus never signed up to "serve my country". Just about everybody I know who did got fucked over just like you did.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
...But the second image you've blown is you as an intelligent being- I grew up KNOWING uncles who had been in Vietnam and so didn't believe the first word any of the recruiters said, thus never signed up to "serve my country". Just about everybody I know who did got fucked over just like you did.
Touchè! I'll bite on that. I never said that joining the Army was smart, just that I probably would have suffered less (living in a park for 3 months, trying to save enough of my meager wages to afford the deposit on a shitty apartment) had I joined earlier. Besides, that would have gotten me out a year earlier. With that said, I hold no grudge against anyone who serves, especially since most of them are in the some position I was, hungry.
Death looks every man in the face. All any man can do is look back and smile. - Marcus Aurelius
If you were in the Army, then you have military training. I would consider my 2nd Amendment rights very carefully. There are a lot of people being fucked over so a few rich assholes can live like kings. I'm not sure why we put up with the situation, really. There's way more of "us" than "them". It should be a simple matter to distribute the wealth more evenly. What's stopping us?
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
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.
lol.. I love that part in the film where Moore is in the UK talking to staff in Hammersmith hospital and they're just laughing at him for suggesting that someone should pay for healthcare. It's a shame that we in the UK are blatant commies for having such a system of healthcare-for-all. Oh well. :D
Requiem for the American Dream
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.
Whatever you are smoking, sir, I should also like to partake.
Read their trade agreements. NO CONSERVATIVE WOULD EVER SIGN SUCH HOGWASH. CAFTA alone gives away billions in business.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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!
But the American system isn't even mostly private.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Hang on, he has Alzheimer's and may not have it together enough for an interview, and he's the head of the "Give Me More Guns" group?
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
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.
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.
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 think if you knew more about Charlton Heston you would not be so quick to label him a racist. It is true that a lot of older people are racist, but it would be fallacious to conclude that Heston is also. Heston was part of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. He marched with Dr. King, and did so "long before Hollywood found it fashionable" as he likes to put it.
Michael Moore asked him to explain why the United States was a more violent society, and Charlton Heston replied that it may be because we are a nation of "mixed ethnicity". I think this is a damn insightful response for an old guy with Alzheimers. Think about it, a lot of our country's violent past involved race struggles and Heston knows this better than most. But Moore didn't include the entire interview so what we were seeing is taken out of context.
It is dishonest to take quotes out of context to the extent that Micheal Moore does. If he and George Cloony want to perpetrate that it is ethical to be a dickhead towards people because they are in the NRA then they can do so without my dollars.
"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.
Moore is not a liar - he cites all of the statistics that are used in his movies and they have been verified by a non-biased panel. You may not agree with the opinions he presents based on the facts - that is if you've ever watched his movies, but facts are facts. People need to learn the difference between fact and opinion.
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
To be honest, I'd prefer to save a lot of cash through outrageous amounts for some drugs/vaccines.
The cervical cancer vaccine costs pennies to make and costs the NHS ~£300. Seems a *little* unfair, considering they recommend *all* girls to have it at the age of 12.
Plus, there's the whole bowel cancer drug that fixes eye problems that was refused to be licenced - but that's enough for one day.
If only pharmaceuticals could be nationalised...
If I were a US citizen, the only candidates both similar to my interests and aren't a wasted vote (in that they stand no chance, thanks to the electoral college system) are Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. Neither are likely to pass the primaries/caucasses, but hey, going to support them either way.
At least you don't have to listen to sodding Hazel Blears whinge her way up to deputy Prime Minister. Gahd, she's a twat.
Read my post again. Free at the point of *need*. That means that if you break your leg, you don't have to worry about paying for it. Sure, it comes out of general taxation, but I'd rather it be spunked away within Government than have to deal with the typical corporation attitude.
At the end of the day - if you get seriously injured, there is no competition, you go to the first hospital and get fixed. You don't phone your insurer and get taken to a pre-approved doctor, and get pre-approved treatments - you go and get fixed. And to hell with the costs.
"Isn't it nice that all those doctors are willing to put in 10 hour days for absolutely no pay, and the medicine companys give away all of their products for free, and the power/gas to run the hospital just magically appears, not to mention the maintenance and construction costs."
Doctors get paid mighty fucking well in this country. GPs get an average of $200,000 per year. And few get 10 hour days - if they do, they certainly don't do 6/7 days a week at any rate!.
And medicine companies SHOULD give products away at near cost. I'm a firm believer in the nationalisation of pharmaceutical industries, because the US system has been *proven* to be wasteful, harmful and in some cases negligent of their duties to their patients. It's less of a factor in Europe, but you can bet your bottom dollar it still happens.
Seriously though, do you think that because I implied you don't pay for something at the point of use that you don't pay for it? Did you pay for the road outside your house? No - it came out of general taxation (well, I presume it does, it happens in the UK like that)
The US is either a third world country or at best similar to pre-war England when it comes to health. Which is such a shame, because apart from health, the US excels in so many other areas.
I'd consider myself a liberal, a libertarian and an agnostic. In no way do I want the government intruding on my life - but I expect them to help when asked.
If I get stabbed (let's face it, I'm in the UK, I'm not going to get shot), I want there to be CCTV and police at a moments call.
If someone commits a crime, I hope that person is dealt with in a fair manner - be it rehabilitation or incarceration.
Individuals generally *don't* know what's best - if you left it to the general vote, there would likely be ethnic cleansing, a fascist state and people would be miserable. Society needs rules, boundaries - and an end zone. And when things go wrong, there has to be something to protect us from those that choose to exploit us.
Liberty is a fantastic thing, but there is such a thing as "too much liberty". Getting the balance is something that (afaict) no country has acheived.
Do you have anything to back up Moore calling his films "op-ed pieces"? I have only seen him refer to them as "documentaries" and would be curious to see him being more honest about it, especially since, to my knowledge, his movies themselves don't actually present themselves as anything short of the truth.
Also, it appears to be an advert for Clinton. Would have been nice to see this party-neutral. Ah well.
You mean Hillary? The one who is mentioned to have initiated the push for universal health care in the USA but then was bought out by the healthcare industry? Doesn't seem like much an advert to me.
Chicken fried butter sticks? Do