Michael Moore's "Sicko"

[mousepod]

OK, we just watched the newest Michael Moore movie.

Wow.

This could be the big one. Unlike his last two films, Sicko might really be the one to start a revolution.

[Alex]

Since I don't want the medical system he wants, I hope not.

[Jughead P. Jones]

I have to admit, not having seen any of Moore's previous works (you know, Fahrenheit 9/11 or Bowling for Columbine), I gotta say...this one looks very intriguing. Whether you like him or despise him, I'm curious to see what he has to say on the subject of healthcare.

[mousepod]

Since I don't want the medical system he wants, I hope not.

In a way, that might be why the movie is so effective. He actually doesn't propose any specific system, except that it's "free". He shows how the US system fails even the insured, and how the systems in Canada, England, France and Cuba take care of their people.

I went into the movie with my skepticism on high alert, and clearly there are huge holes in the piece, as there are with any propagandist documentary.

What I meant in my original post is that in this movie, as opposed to his previous two, he's not overtly attacking any deeply held beliefs of people who call themselves conservatives. He lifts Hilary up, for example, and then dashes her against the rocks moments later. It's a persuasive piece, and if enough people see it, there are going to be some very interesting debates.

[Alex]

In a way, that might be why the movie is so effective. He actually doesn't propose any specific system, except that it's "free".

Like I said, I don't want the system he does, so I hope not.

[innerSpaceman]

And what system would you suppose that to be, Alex? Have you seen the film? Or listened to Moore speak on the subject?


I have my doubts this will start any sort of "revolution," but it's certainly going to spark some interesting debate and conversation (some of the latter right here, I hope). I do think that, unlike gun control and Iraq, the suckitude of the American health care system is pretty much agreed upon by the vast majority of Americans.

[scaeagles]

I'm sure all here will be surprised to know that I don't plan on seeing it.

It is easy to present a persuasive argument when only one side of the argument is presented. This is fine and I have no problem with that. It is not intended to be a debate, but something tells me the less than ideal parts of socialized medicine are not presented. If I accept the premise that Cuba provides the best health care in the world (which I do not), then I would ask for what? So I can live on rations of beans and rice in a communist dictatorship without freedom and be relatively free from illness in my servitude of the state?

As for the "suckitude" of the American system....someone once said (and it escapes me...Benjamin Franklin, maybe?) that democracy is the worst form of government, except for tall the others. I would suggest something similar could be said of the American health care system.

[Alex]

"Free." Mousepod says Moore has only one requirement and it is a requirement I oppose. First of all, there is no such thing as "free." Just making people who use the system less than average subsidize those who use it more.

I do not think it is the role of government to provide health care and I think, in the long term, handing complete responsibility for that to the government will lead to the eradication of personal freedom of choice in almost every realm of life. Just as the commerce clause simply forces congress to find a way to define every activity in terms of interstate trade so that they can regulate it, once all medical expenses flow through the government any activity that government wants to regulate will be filtered through how it effects "public health." This is already too big an abuse in our current government (see, for example, the arguments for motorcycle helmet laws). When I am responsible for the medical bills of mountain climber Bob who falls and breaks his leg do I not (so will go the argument) have participation in deciding whether he'll be allowed to mountain climb? Or eat fatty foods. Or live in places that increase general medical costs or any of thousands of other things.

I believe that the increasing roll of government in mandating medical care is a large part of its atrononimcal increase in cost and this will only get worse, not better unless the government nationalizes the whole system from research, to equipment manufacture, to institions, to employees.

There are some things that are good about other nations systems for doing things and there are some things that are good about ours. That's why we go to Canada for drugs and Canadians come to America for heart surgery.

No I have not yet seen Sicko. Unless there were previews this weekend I don't think anybody in this country has yet seen it legally though I know it is readily available on the internet now. But based on previous Michael Moore documentaries I expect that he has cherry picked his facts, engaged in guerrilla tactics to catch people off guard and make them look stupid, and generally distorted things to present his point of view. Which is completely his privilege.

[Ghoulish Delight]

He shows how the US system fails even the insured, and how the systems in Canada, England, France and Cuba take care of their people.Except that the very same list that he points out ranks the US as ranking 37th in the world in quality of health care ranks Cuba at 39th.

Just sayin'.

[scaeagles]

Alex hits it on the head, as is common.

Smoking is the best evidence of what is coming, and it will only be hastened by some form of uniform health care. You smoke? Well, then you don't qualify for these procedures because you are willingly putting yourself at higher risk, and as was evidenced by Hillary's health care plan some 15 years ago now, seeking treatment outside the system (or providing it) would be a crime.

Transfats are being banned even though they cannot possibly affect the health of those around them, as has been the argument regarding second hand smoke. There are already talks of taxes on fast food restaurants because the food is unhealthful.

Put the government in charge of health care and there will be more of the same. Mandatory exercise programs. Overweight or obese? Government diet programs and taxes by the pound. Drunk? Pay the tax. The possibilities for abuse are unlimited.

I don't think I'm being paranoid. With smoking, the beginning was a simple warning on packages. Then bans on airlines, and it has continued to advance, with some municipalities even trying to ban smoking in private residences now.

I don't think so.

[innerSpaceman]

One of the main purposes of the tax code is to act as a carrot and stick to promote behaviors desired by the government (purportedly at the behest of the American people).

So I don't see anything wrong with using taxes to promote health, and reduce costs on public health care.

Alex is right about one thing: there's no such thing as "Free" - and since he didn't bother to see the film (I haven't yet either), he's simply assuming that's what Moore is recommending. From the extensive interviews I've heard Moore give, he is simply recommending that the profit motive be removed from health care, and I heartily agree. Whether or not that would stifle innovation, it's blatently immoral to make health decisions for individual people based on profit motive.

Everyone's morals are different. But I'd like to see some rationale for this kind of thing being morally justified. And I'd like to see any such justifications include a hypothetical involving the justifier's self or loved one.


Just a request.

[blueerica]

To be fair, Alex used the term "free" not of his own invention, but rather, as a response to Mousepod's definition of what Moore wants, or whatever.

In a way, that might be why the movie is so effective. He actually doesn't propose any specific system, except that it's "free". He shows how the US system fails even the insured, and how the systems in Canada, England, France and Cuba take care of their people.

When I have less of a screaming headache, I'll post some stuff. But in short, and no I haven't seen the film, I do feel there should be a profit motive, for truly innovative research requires big bucks. With such high risk, there must be great reward and I'm sorry, saving someone I love probably won't cut it for them. People I know and love need that sort of innovation so that they can stop preventing death and start finding a way to a cure.

[Tref]

People I know and love need that sort of innovation so that they can stop preventing death and start finding a way to a cure.

Fear not, young friends, there will always be innovation. Indeed, it is in our genetic make-up to want to improve life. As the old stand up joke goes (and what follows is the non-funny version of same), so long as there is the opposite sex to attract, society will continue to grow and improve on the past, if only to help the person get laid.

Nevertheless, it is time we start looking at health care the same way we do our fire and police departments. Somehow, these two groups survive even without handing us a bill for saving our house from fire or burglary. Thankfully, we live in a society whereupon if my home was set ablaze or robbed, the police and fire departments would not first ask if I had the fire/robbery equivalent to Blue Cross, before doing their job.

When health care does pass, and I believe that it someday will, it will not be perfect (the fire department can not save every house) but it will be vastly superior to what we have to-day.

For the moment, the naysayers have the stage. They'll bluster and sputter and shake their fist in the air, but when its all done, and free health care arrives, we'll wonder how, as a society of caring people, we ever lived without it.

I haven't seen the movie yet, either, but God bless Michael Moore.

[JWBear]

Fear not, young friends, there will always be innovation. Indeed, it is in our genetic make-up to want to improve life. As the old stand up joke goes (and what follows is the non-funny version of same), so long as there is the opposite sex to attract, society will continue to grow and improve on the past, if only to help the person get laid.

Nevertheless, it is time we start looking at health care the same way we do our fire and police departments. Somehow, these two groups survive even without handing us a bill for saving our house from fire or burglary. Thankfully, we live in a society whereupon if my home was set ablaze or robbed, the police and fire departments would not first ask if I had the fire/robbery equivalent to Blue Cross, before doing their job.

When health care does pass, and I believe that it someday will, it will not be perfect (the fire department can not save every house) but it will be vastly superior to what we have to-day.

For the moment, the naysayers have the stage. They'll bluster and sputter and shake their fist in the air, but when its all done, and free health care arrives, we'll wonder how, as a society of caring people, we ever lived without it.

I haven't seen the movie yet, either, but God bless Michael Moore.

Amen!

[scaeagles]

Firemen respond in the case of an emergency. The biggest issue with health care is that it goes far beyond that emergency. I don't call and schedule an appointment with the local fire department to come check the status of my smoke alarm batteries, plan a fire escape plan for my family, inspect the pool fence, They aren't making sure that I have a fire extinguisher which we are all trained to use.

The police aren't liable for your own personal security. If they don't get there, they don't get there. There was a case I have cited before where a woman had a restraining order on her ex. He kept stalking her, the police would not sit outside her door to make sure it was abided by, and they guy eventually killed her. The family tried to sue the police, but the supreme court ruled that the police are not a private security force. They maintain the peace. They cannot, nor are they required, to stop all crime before it is committed. They can't.

I hope we never view health care as the fire department or the police department.

Because I do care, I realize that profit motive is just as much the mother of invention as is necessity. It would surely be nice if that were not the case, but it is. Until there is a general change in human nature, I'm not thinking taking the profit motive out is a good idea.

The logical course, should there be socialized medicine, is that the market no longer controls how many doctors and of what type there are. There will be shortages because of the exorbitant cost of medical school, meaning that there will be cries for free education for those who would be government doctors. Those doctors will be told what they have to practice. The huge amount of medicare fraud that there already is will expand with the expanding government system, requiring an even larger bureacracy to manage.

The government does not even do well that which it is specifically mandated to do (control the borders among them). I do not care to trust them with the management of my health care.

[Kevy Baby]

I just don't know how to respond to this. Simply because I cannot understand how people believe that socialized medicine is better. I would rather wait a couple of weeks, maybe a month or two on the outside, for a needed surgery than to wait a couple of years as it would be in Canada.

And as for Michael Moore, considering the proven hypocrisy and intentional misleadings of his past films, why should I want to see it? I haven't experienced death first-hand, but I know enough about it that I know to avoid it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I would rather wait a couple of weeks, maybe a month or two on the outside, for a needed surgery than to wait a couple of years as it would be in Canada.
And I would rather people not be denied life-saving procedures because their insurance company determined it wasn't in their economic interests to approve it.

[scaeagles]

And I would rather people not die while on incredibly long waiting lists for lfe saving procedures.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Do you have anything that demonstrates long wait times for emergency/life-saving procedures? Everything I've seen regarding long wait periods in Canada has been about hip and knee replacements.

I'm not saying that that's acceptable either, but the arguments usually used against single-payer systems usually seem to me like nonfactual exaggerations.

[Not Afraid]

Switzerland has the best healthcare system in the world. They require compulsory private healthcare insurance with options of adding on additional care needs - and their care is excellent and, apparently, is very cost effective.

I'm no expert here and, the only reason I know about this at all is because of Chris' Aunt who lives in Switzerland. She got to recuperate at a spa for 6 weeks after hip-replacement surgery.

Long article here if you are interested. (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:O6F8y8ZrAJgJ:www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Switzerland.pdf+medical+care+in+switzerland&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

I think we spend waaaaayyyyy too much time on arguing against socailized medicine and not enough time looking for ways to fix our VERY broken healthcare system.

[scaeagles]

I have read on it, and have seen lists of wait times, but frankly, the data I look at varies widely. I have a listing of articles, though, regarding the concerns of the Canadian system. In them, I found this quote to be very telling -

According to an Ipsos Reid survey among the general public, a majority of Canadian adults rank a patient wait times guarantee as more important than any other of the Government’s priorities. Of the five policy promises made by the Government of Canada during the last federal election, 42% of Canadians said that “a patient wait time guarantee that would reduce wait times for key health services” was the most important to them personally.

That is from this article (http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3287) on this list (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1690316/posts)of articles.

And as someone who has a father in law who waited too long (his choice) to get knee replacements....trust me. Long wait lists for knee and hip replacements are a big deal. Much pain involved.

[scaeagles]

I think we spend waaaaayyyyy too much time on arguing against socailized medicine and not enough time looking for ways to fix our VERY broken healthcare system.

I see it as arguing against moving from one system with flaws to another system that I beleve has more flaws. It goes along with the quote I posted earlier.

[wendybeth]

Well, then. Obviously we mustn't do anything at all, and just hope for the best.

[scaeagles]

I'm not seeing where I said any such thing, WB, I'm just arguing against government run health care. Perhaps those that want socialized health care and all the known problems associated with it are the ones "hoping for the best" in ignoring the flaws. The just try anything approach doesn't work for me.

[Alex]

he's simply assuming that's what Moore is recommending.

As blueerica pointed out, the assumption I am making is that mousepod correctly stated the position of the movie.

Whether or not that would stifle innovation, it's blatently immoral to make health decisions for individual people based on profit motive.

I disagree, and that is why no justification I could offer for my views will be seen by you as reasonable. We are simply beginning from completely different axiomatic points of view.

However, even if you remove "the profit motive" (oh that evil thing) from the equation you are still not removing "mak[ing] health decisions for individual people based on" financial considerations. Removing the profit motive is simply price caps and rationing. Instead of an HMO telling you that they "won't pay for some very expensive procedure but you an go do it yourself" you'll have the government telling you that they "won't pay for some very expensive procedure and feel free to go to Thailand if you want it anyway."

Now, there are many things I think could be done to improve our "health system" in this country. But they don't remove the profit motive. But I was just responding to the range of things I've seen in Moore's discussions and particularly to mousepod's summary of the movie's.

[wendybeth]

Just wondering where the ideas are, Scaeagles. Profit motive doesn't cut it. It was profit motive that cost my kid her hearing. Capitalism is not the answer to everything. (For the record, I don't necessarily believe socialism is either). Btw, it was my understanding that everyone in Canada actually pays for their healthcare- it's not free. I'm guessing the English pay through taxes as well. From what I understand, doctors are held in high regard in both countries and there are still plenty of people going into medicine. I'd rather be treated by someone who is in the field to help people rather than someone who is in it for profit.

Also, were you father-in-law living here in Spokane, he'd still have a long wait. We have a serious shortage of orthopedic surgeons- most people either suffer or travel to obtain surgical relief.

[scaeagles]

My ideas are a little to lengthy to go into now.

However, the premise that pointing out the problems with a suggested solution requires providing a solution of ones own is one I do not accept.

[wendybeth]

Oh, I thought this had become something of a discussion, with the give and take of ideas and criticisms and so on. Silly me.

[Jughead P. Jones]

To tell you the truth, I have to agree with all of you who criticize our Canadian health care system due to the insanely long waiting times. Sure, in Canada, our health coverage is quite good, and we don't have to pay for operations and other medical procedures and hospital stays. (In the province of Ontario, those procedures are covered by a program called OHIP, and I'm sure that each province has its own version of it) But, the trade-off is that when you go into an emergency room, be prepared to wait at least 4 or more hours before you get in there to see a doctor. Because in Canada, we are experiencing one of the largest shortages of doctors in years. I'm not sure what the situation is like in the U.S.A. as far as the numbers go for doctors and nurses, but I assume that it is comparable between the two nations. There has been talk about the privatization of hospitals here in Canada for the last few years now, and personally, I hope it doesn't come down to that, because a poor family like mine would be driven into near-bankruptcy due to the hospital bills that we would have to pay. But, unless we get more people to train to become doctors and nurses in this country (and possibly North America), then our health care systems will continue to be in crisis.

[wendybeth]

Uhm , Jughead- the average wait in pretty much any urban ER is at least as long as you described. Then, even if you have insurance, you usually wind up with a fairly substantial bill. (Insurance ER co-pays tend to be high).

[Mrs. Nesbitt]

In most of the countries that offer socialized medicine many citizens have now gone to private insurance to supplement the coverage the government offers so they can get those needed procedures quicker and in some cases in other countries.

If we are to go to socialized health care are you prepared to pay the costs?
Your income tax rate would be about 50% even at the lower tax brackets, your property tax would double, you would pay 18% for every good or service you purchase and how about $5.00, $6.00 or $7.00 per gallon for gasoline with 70% of that being tax? Are you willing to pay these costs and let a government run another program? We have seen how they have done during natural disasters, with our road system, avaition system and many other functions.

And what part do we ourselves play in the cost of healthcare? Americans are fatter now than ever before, we put in more hours at work than any other industrialized nation, we stress about our employment, family life, government issues, etc. Look at the proliferation of quick serve meals and fast food restuarants.

We will wash our car weekly, change the oil regularly and perform maintenance on it as it is our very means (especially in SoCal) of going about our daily routine. Yet when it comes to our health, we wait until something dramatic happens, before we seek help. When was the last time you had a regular check up?

[Alex]

I didn't even go to a doctor when I literally cooked my eyeballs and the last time I did go to a doctor (2003) it was because I was in so much pain I literally couldn't walk upright (kidney stone).

If all goes well the next time I see a doctor it will be so he can tell me I have only a few seconds to live so he has to talk fast.

[Alex]

Just got this press release which I thought some here might find of interest.



NEW YORK, NEW YORK (June 24, 2007) - The trailer for “SiCKO,” Michael Moore’s expose of the American health care system, will be projected with full sound and subtitles on the outside of buildings near the headquarters of leading HMOs, insurance companies and hospitals in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and Oakland on Monday, June 25th beginning at sundown through 1:00am.

This innovative campaign will enable millions of Americans including employees at leading HMOs, insurance companies and hospitals to see a sneak peak of Michael Moore’s acclaimed documentary that explores and examines their industry’s role in our nation’s troubled health care system.

SiCKO is written, directed and produced by Michael Moore. The film is produced by Meghan O'Hara and co-produced by Anne Moore. Kathleen Glynn, Bob Weinstein and Harvey Weinstein serve as executive producers.

SiCKO opened exclusively at the AMC- Loews Lincoln Square Theater, Friday, June 22nd and is opening nationwide on Friday, June 29th.

The trailer will be simultaneously projected at the following locations from sundown to 1am.

Bay Area Locations:

SAN FRANCISCO
Projection Site: Intersection of Broadway & Montgomery St.
Locations of interest nearby:
E-surance
Kaiser Permanente
Sutter Health
Saint Francis Memorial Hospital
Chinese Hospital
Ocadian Hospitals & Care Centers

OAKLAND
Projection Site: 1950 Franklin St.
Locations of interest nearby:
Kaiser Permanente
Kaiser Permanente
Kaiser Center
Kaiser Foundation Hospital

Additional Locations:

LOS ANGELES
Projection Site: 4343 W. Sunset Blvd.
Locations of interest nearby:
Kaiser Permanente Medical Center
Hollywood Community Hospital
Health Net
Guardian Rehabilitation Hospital
Childrens Hospital Los Angeles
Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center

NEW YORK
Projection Site: Times Square, 625 8th Ave. & 40th St.
Locations of interest nearby:
Benefits Quest, Inc.
Empire BlueCross BlueShield
Group Health Inc.
The Guardian
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York St. Clare’s Family Health Center St. Vincent’s Midtown Roosevelt Hospital Beth Israel Hospital NYU Medical Center NY Presbyterian Hospital National Jewish

CHICAGO
Projection Site: 525 N. Michigan Ave.
Locations of interest nearby:
Blue Cross/Blue Shield
Wells Fargo
Northwestern Memorial Hospital

[Ponine]

No I have not yet seen Sicko. Unless there were previews this weekend I don't think anybody in this country has yet seen it legally though I know it is readily available on the internet now.

Just because I didnt see this addressed anywhere.. yes, there were sneak previews this past weekend.
Mind you I knew they were this past weekend the 23rd in San Diego. I dont know when they were in other cities.
I know the sneaks were in response to the fact that the film was on the web.
I just couldnt find anyone else who wanted to attend.

[Kevy Baby]

If we are to go to socialized health care are you prepared to pay the costs?The opinions provided are interesting. However, they are mostly worthless (beyond basic opinion) without some facts/links/etc. to back it up.

Don't get me wrong - I would love to see something that corroborates this info. Do you have anything? I agree with the basic premise but find much of this hard to swallow.

[Alex]

Thank you Ponine. At the time I posted I was unaware of the screenings (should have looked first, though) and thought the only way to see the movie was by downloading it from any of the many online sources (it was at YouTube in 10 minute chunks and Google Video for a while even).

So my apologies to mousepod for making that assumption.

[mousepod]

No need to apologize. I just figured you were being a jerk for fun.

[Alex]

Fair enough. Though I prefer the term prick.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Sometimes I can be a jerk for prick.

I mean, if that's what it takes.

[Ponine]

Thank you Ponine. At the time I posted I was unaware of the screenings (should have looked first, though) and thought the only way to see the movie was by downloading it from any of the many online sources (it was at YouTube in 10 minute chunks and Google Video for a while even).

So my apologies to mousepod for making that assumption.

Well, to be truthfull Alex, the only reason I myself knew?
My union sent out an email to everyone stating there were sneak previews and how to get tickets.
Seems the union feels he is in the right.

(I personally hate the in your face attitude of my union, and was totally offended that they sent me an email after I asked to be removed from all union emails)

Though I didnt think you were being a prick about it, I just assumed you didnt know. Had they not told me, I'd ahve had no idea when the sneaks were.
I had read on CNN or in EW that they were going to happen, but I dont think I knew more than that.

[cirquelover]

I didn't even go to a doctor when I literally cooked my eyeballs and the last time I did go to a doctor (2003) it was because I was in so much pain I literally couldn't walk upright (kidney stone).

If all goes well the next time I see a doctor it will be so he can tell me I have only a few seconds to live so he has to talk fast.

OT- Alex this post is a perfect example of how first you make me shake my head, then you make me laugh out loud! Visible mojo for you my friend.

Anyway, my aunt was/is Canadian and I know she had to wait many months for surgery to remove cancer and the chemo that followed. It was also more than once. They finally moved to the US for better health care and schools.

If you ask me Australia's health care system seemed just as bad. They appeared to be 20 years behind in medical technology. My mom had some horror stories from the 12 years she lived there.

I don't know what the answer is but we need to figure something out. Between the cost of drugs, Dr bills, let alone hospital costs it is outrageous and can sink a family very quickly.

[Ponine]

I went through my deleted email.. it appears the information about the sneaks came from Michael Moore's blog. Not that its important now, but I wanted to throw it out there.

From: maillist@michaelmoore.com [mailto:maillist@michaelmoore.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 02:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: ******
Subject: 'SiCKO' Sneaks Across America This Saturday!

Friends,

Would you like to go to a sneak preview of my new film, "Sicko," before
it opens on June 29th? Well, if you live anywhere near the 32 cities
listed below, this Saturday night, June 23rd, our movie studio is going
to hold sneak screenings of "Sicko" in 43 theaters across the country.

<snip>

Last night we screened "Sicko" for the members of Congress and the
Senate in Washington, D.C. Earlier in the day we testified during a
briefing in Congress called by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
Rep. John Conyers, Jr. I brought with me some of the people who appear
in the film to tell their stories -- and it was a powerful moment.




None the less, still offended the union felt the need to send it to me

[€uroMeinke]

Fair enough. Though I prefer the term prick.

Prick, jerk - I find the terms go hand in hand.

[Mrs. Nesbitt]

The opinions provided are interesting. However, they are mostly worthless (beyond basic opinion) without some facts/links/etc. to back it up.

Don't get me wrong - I would love to see something that corroborates this info. Do you have anything? I agree with the basic premise but find much of this hard to swallow.

Sorry my I assumed most here had a basic understanding of world politics and high school history.

Across Europe VAT tax, (sales tax) is anywhere from 18 to 22%. The European Union has set rates for VAT while some Scandanavian and other countries charge more.

The top tax rates for Spain is 45%, for France is it 48% and Germany 45%. This generally starts at top incomes anywhere from $37,000 to $50,000 per year. (Do Google search, there are many entries for this)

Gas Prices

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/


Drivers in some European cities, like Amsterdam and Oslo, are paying nearly 3 times more than those in the U.S.The main factor in price disparities between countries is government policy, according to AirInc, a company that tracks the cost of living in various places around the world. Many European nations tax gasoline heavily, with taxes making up as much as 75 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline, said a spokesperson for AirInc.

Tax rates for income in Canada:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/taxrates-e.html

Now add in the GST and the tax most provinces charge and now you are at 11 to 15% sales tax.

I also have Canadian relatives, one that works in healthcare.

It is fairly common knowledge the U.S. has some of the lowest tax rates in the world. Government programs have to be paid somehow, and generally that is through taxes. Since we already have a large number of government programs operating in the red, to add socialized medicine would require adding to the tax base to generate the revenues to pay for this.

See economics 101.

As for the health statistics, look at the rates of heart disease, cancer, hypertension, etc. The U.S. has some of the highest rates of these diseases of any industralized nation.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death for both women and men in the United States.

In 2006, heart disease is projected to cost more than $258 billion, including health care services, medications, and lost productivity.


Since this disease can be linked to lifestyle, mainly fatty foods, trans fats, (which everyone is trying to eliminate) I would be safe to say our lifestyle contributes to our poor health. Our emergency rooms are often filled, (and not just with illegals) but with others who only see their doctor when there is a problem, not as a preventive measure. Want stats, ask a group of ten that you know when was the last time they went for a regular checkup and how many do it on an annual basis, especially if they have risk factors such as family history. I would assume the number will be fairly low.

As for the opinion being worthless, that could be said just about anything posted here. I never quoted it as fact, but as opinion used to stimulate discussion. For further corroborating evidence, you are welcome to do a Google search. I don't post often, but generally when I do, it is because I have enough knowledge to state an informed opinion. Since I use multiple sources, from newspapers, the Internet, books, reports, news and other sources I did not know I needed to post all that info also. Being new to the way Internet forums work, I will make sure to do a more thorough job next time.:D

[Mrs. Nesbitt]

In most of the countries that offer socialized medicine many citizens have now gone to private insurance to supplement the coverage the government offers so they can get those needed procedures quicker and in some cases in other countries.


Table 1. The role of private health insurance in western European health systems

Role Coverage Examples
Substitutive for people excluded from or allowed to opt out of statutory health insurance excluded: families with annual incomes over €30 700 in the Netherlands allowed to opt out: families with annual earnings over €45 900 in Germany

Complementary services excluded or only partially covered by the state such as dental care or user charges excluded services: France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom cost sharing: Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden

Supplementary increased choice of provider and faster access all countries; the main role of private health insurance in Finland, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom


http://www.euro.who.int/HEN/Syntheses/hcfunding/20040630_3

[wendybeth]

There are some who would argue that our standard of care is the culprit, Mrs. Nesbitt, not our standard of living. I know a lot of people who don't go to the doctor for well-checks because they cannot afford it. I know a lot of people who live very healthy lifestyles, and yet they still get sick. My best friend died at 37 of lung cancer, and she did not smoke. She also did not have insurance, so she waited until she had not choice before she went to the doctor. She couldn't even afford the visit where she was told she would probably die.

I think I will wait to post anymore until I've actually seen the movie.

[blueerica]

While affordability is certainly a problem for many, I have concerns over a government-run healthcare system, especially in light of the direction that the political pendulum is swinging. I certainly wouldn't want the right, particularly the religious right, controlling my health decisions, on top of the other potential costs that are absorbed by us as a whole.

I'm uneasy about so much these days. I'd feel better (though still probably not 100%, because that's just who I am) about a socialistic turn in healthcare if we had a more open-minded government, in terms of scientific research. Unfortunately, this is not the case at the moment, so I remain uneasy about any significant change in health care. As it stands, voters on the religious right are too busy arguing about whether Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is of Satan... because... you know... Mormons don't believe in Christ or anything - how can I rely on them to know what's right for me or my body, if so many of their proponents don't know the difference between their various cults. (For those not in the know... Mormons really aren't all *that* different from regular old Christians) Thus, at this time, I don't want the government involved with my healthcare decisions until I can feel more secure in what choices I have available.

[Mrs. Nesbitt]

I agree our healthcare system is not perfect and changes need to be made. There are always exceptions to the rule and while living a healthy lifestyle does not mean you won't contract a disease, it is always better to try and prevent it.

As with all of Moore's movies, while classified as a documentary, he does find examples to fit his theme for the movie. It is not an objective piece. None of his movies have been. It if helps move this country along in changing its health policies that is great, but I think using the rest of the world is an an example and saying they have it right when they have many issues also is just onesided.

No one has the perfect system and I do not believe socialized medicine, with the history our government has in running programs, would solve the problems.

As for costs, a general visit once a year to a doctor for a physical probably would be about $150.00. $3.00 a week. One less latte, lower your cell phone bill, cut back on the Internet, there are always ways to save money. Often we take for granted things that are luxuries and call them necessities and then say we cannot afford the basics.

[blueerica]

Mrs. Nesbitt - Thank you.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Addendum: Yes, I will watch the movie, and evaluate my opinions, while keeping certain propagandistic tendencies in mind.

[Chernabog]

It is rather nasty though when routine procedures cost obscene amounts. I have a Blue Cross PPO (cost: $3000/yr). I have a $500 deductible on health visits and $500 deductible on named prescriptions.

In any case, I'm *still* paying off the "routine" colonoscopy I got last year. I had to get a blood test first due to the anesthesia that they were giving me.

So, AFTER insurance (these are all approximations):

Gastro Doctor (1 visit + procedure): $300

Regular Doctor (Exam + Blood Test + EKG heart check): $800 (expensive because he got my deductible $$)

Hospital for colonoscopy: $250

Biopsy: $50

Other lab work: $50

I can't remember if there was a separate bill for the anesthesiologist.

So it was around a $1450+ bill, out of pocket, AFTER INSURANCE for a "routine" test (and from what I've been told, that's on the "incredibly good" plan that I have!).

[Scrooge McSam]

As we discuss this, can we keep in mind that involving the government in improving our health care system does not automatically mean we have to give it to them to run?

That is all.

[Tref]

Holy crap! Michael Moore Rips Wolf Blitzer on CNN: "Why Don't You Tell the American People the Truth"

To see complete clip, click here (http://alternet.org/blogs/video/56446/)

To see only moore's reaction to the film that preceded
interview, click here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=7RfBq9P3TeM)

[scaeagles]

Why is the news story that preceded Moore's reaction so horrid? Why should that provoke such a reaction of anger?

I'm not trying to ask rhetorical questions, I'm serious.

I've never quite understood the angry reaction to debate, whether that be on Iraq, health care, gun control, or global warming. For example (and I haven't seen the movie), apparently Moore cites the WHO ranking of the US as 37th in health care. He praises Cuba's system. Cuba is ranked 39th on the same list. What's the problem in pointing that out? It's as if he doesn't want to engage in debate, he wants his position accepted without question.

[mousepod]

...apparently Moore cites the WHO ranking of the US as 37th in health care. He praises Cuba's system. Cuba is ranked 39th on the same list. What's the problem in pointing that out? It's as if he doesn't want to engage in debate, he wants his position accepted without question.

If I remember correctly, Moore shows the list in the movie. I'm fairly certain it shows Cuba ranked below the US.

[Alex]

And, not that I support the Cuban style of just about anything, but criticizing Cuba for being 39th is kind of like scoffing at the talking dog because it can only say five words because your teenaged son can say six.

Considering all the disadvantages it operates under, Cuba being 39th is quite an accomplishment where the United States being 37th is somewhat embarrassing.

[JWBear]

In case anyone is curious, here is the complete list oh WHO's rankings:

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland
51 Dominican Republic
52 Tunisia
53 Jamaica
54 Venezuela
55 Albania
56 Seychelles
57 Paraguay
58 South Korea
59 Senegal
60 Philippines
61 Mexico
62 Slovakia
63 Egypt
64 Kazakhstan
65 Uruguay
66 Hungary
67 Trinidad and Tobago
68 Saint Lucia
69 Belize
70 Turkey
71 Nicaragua
72 Belarus
73 Lithuania
74 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
75 Argentina
76 Sri Lanka
77 Estonia
78 Guatemala
79 Ukraine
80 Solomon Islands
81 Algeria
82 Palau
83 Jordan
84 Mauritius
85 Grenada
86 Antigua and Barbuda
87 Libya
88 Bangladesh
89 Macedonia
90 Bosnia-Herzegovina
91 Lebanon
92 Indonesia
93 Iran
94 Bahamas
95 Panama
96 Fiji
97 Benin
98 Nauru
99 Romania
100 Saint Kitts and Nevis
101 Moldova
102 Bulgaria
103 Iraq
104 Armenia
105 Latvia
106 Yugoslavia
107 Cook Islands
108 Syria
109 Azerbaijan
110 Suriname
111 Ecuador
112 India
113 Cape Verde
114 Georgia
115 El Salvador
116 Tonga
117 Uzbekistan
118 Comoros
119 Samoa
120 Yemen
121 Niue
122 Pakistan
123 Micronesia
124 Bhutan
125 Brazil
126 Bolivia
127 Vanuatu
128 Guyana
129 Peru
130 Russia
131 Honduras
132 Burkina Faso
133 Sao Tome and Principe
134 Sudan
135 Ghana
136 Tuvalu
137 Ivory Coast
138 Haiti
139 Gabon
140 Kenya
141 Marshall Islands
142 Kiribati
143 Burundi
144 China
145 Mongolia
146 Gambia
147 Maldives
148 Papua New Guinea
149 Uganda
150 Nepal
151 Kyrgystan
152 Togo
153 Turkmenistan
154 Tajikistan
155 Zimbabwe
156 Tanzania
157 Djibouti
158 Eritrea
159 Madagascar
160 Vietnam
161 Guinea
162 Mauritania
163 Mali
164 Cameroon
165 Laos
166 Congo
167 North Korea
168 Namibia
169 Botswana
170 Niger
171 Equatorial Guinea
172 Rwanda
173 Afghanistan
174 Cambodia
175 South Africa
176 Guinea-Bissau
177 Swaziland
178 Chad
179 Somalia
180 Ethiopia
181 Angola
182 Zambia
183 Lesotho
184 Mozambique
185 Malawi
186 Liberia
187 Nigeria
188 Democratic Republic of the Congo
189 Central African Republic
190 Myanmar

[Tref]

When is the last time you watched an interview that was preceded by a short film essentially disputing everything the interviewee was about to discuss? (Short of that person being a neo-Nazi.) It was a dirty trick.

But I guess it backfired.

As so far as Cuba being 39th ... well, the news channels like to make a big deal of this, as if it would somehow prove Moore's claims wrong. How could free healthcare be so great is Cuba is 39 overall! Well, we're 37th. What that says to me is that Cuba has the same quality healthcare as we do but it is FREE.

Lord, if only our politicans were as bloodthirsty, things could change for the better.

Go get 'em Moore.

[Alex]

Part of the debate I see but don't care for is viewing "health care" as a standalone, societally isolated subject.

Living the fancy life in Paris would be great, but I would not want to try and live the life I now live in France. They have better health care but they have a working environment that I'd not enjoy (and that many successful Parisians apparently don't enjoy based on the number I've worked with who escape as soon as they can).

Castro's healthcare might be great, but I don't want to live in his country for many other reasons.

I still haven't seen the movie but I have seen several lengthy segments. And Michael Moore definitely raises many good points. Insurance companies dodging out of coverage they've agreed to is not a good thing and should be stopped.

But I also don't agree with his solutions. I'd quibble with some stuff but I overwhelmingly agree with this guy's (http://www.slate.com/id/2169454/) view of things. It isn't just a matter of changing an isolated black box that is health care it is changing a whole social fabric and that is both more difficult to do and causes in me more trepidation than if it were possible to just unplug the current system and put in a new one.

[Alex]

What that says to me is that Cuba has the same quality healthcare as we do but it is FREE.

This is the phrase that drives me batty. It is not free. Nowhere in the world is there free health care. Cubans pay for their system of healthcare in many myriad ways.

And the health care is rationed just as under the American system. All that is different is who does the rationing.

[Tref]

This is the phrase that drives me batty. It is not free. Nowhere in the world is there free health care. Cubans pay for their system of healthcare in many myriad ways.

And the health care is rationed just as under the American system. All that is different is who does the rationing.

Does it drive you batty, Alex? Poor Alex.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, we get it, Alex. Nothing is 'free,' by your definition. Stop getting hung up on that one (admitedly dominant) meaning of the word.

"Free" when applied to healthcare is meant to mean the "free" as in police services, fire services, public schools, etc. Meaning, no money shelled out of your pocket one instance at a time. Everyone knows "free" healthcare is paid through taxes.

Please try and get over it. It's a shortcut phrase. Language is like that sometimes.


Often.

[Alex]

The idea that "free" is now a synonym for "government service" is scary all on its own.

[JWBear]

I have to ask you Alex, is healthcare the only public service that you don’t want to see paid for by the government? Do you also object to the government providing police and fire protection free to all who need it? Did you pay them for their services the last time you had to call them? If not, why not?

I presume your stance include public schools, what about “free” hospitals and clinics? Museums? Public parks? Historic monuments? Should all of these be privatized; sold off to the highest bidder in the name of Capitalism? Everyone has to pay, and if you can’t afford it… SOL! Sorry poor Americans, you can’t educate your children, visit Yellowstone, Gettysburg, or the Smithsonian. These are only for those who can pay. Your house is on fire? Your credit’s not good? You gotta hand over the cash first before the firefighters arrive! You’re sick? No money, no medication, no free lunches.

Don’t get me wrong… I’m as fond of Capitalism as the next guy. But Capitalism taken to extremes is as evil as any other system taken to the extreme. There are just some things that shouldn’t be subject to the profit motive. I (and a growing number of my fellow Americans, it would seem) believe that health care is one of those things.

[mousepod]

Thanks for the link, Alex. Some interesting points. I wonder how pooling would work here considering the vast geographic space the US occupies. Who'd draw the lines? What I found frustrating about Sicko was that Moore basically indicts all Washington politicians (including HRC) as being in the pocket of big industry and then posits a vague solution that would have to have Washington oversight.

[Alex]

Yes, there are services the government should provide.

But going to a single payer, government controlled system does not remove the "profit motive" it just turns it around. You can always justify adding more police or more fire stations to an environment? So why don't we have a firetruck for every block? Because it would cost too much so you try to create a balance between too few firemen and too expensive firemen. It is a political profit motive. "What is the most we can take from the taxpayers before they vote for somebody else" is just the same thing as "what is the most we can charge the customers before they stop buying."

Instead of a drone in a cubical in a suburban Minneapolis industrial park deciding that Treatment X is too expensive for you, a drone in a cubical in a suburban Washington, D.C., will make that decision. "Free" health care is not going to mean that you can go into your local hospital and get a "free" full body MRI every day just for prevention.

I am also interested in what would happen to the idea of malpractice since these rationers would generally be indemnified by official immunity from the choices they make (same reason you can't sue Rumsfeld for his poor decisions in managing the war). I have no idea how other countries handle that question so I'd be pleased to see an answer.

Also, police and fire are "emergency services." Not the sole source. We already privatize these services in non-emergency situations. The All-Star Game in San Francisco tonight will be billed for the police services they use in security and local traffic control. You need a fire inspection for your new building? That isn't free.

I have no problem with the idea that parts of the health care entirety are most appropriate for governmental provision (though I do balk at the idea that if Bill Gates has a car accident I not only pay for the firemen who extract him from the car but would also have to pay for the hospital setting his broken leg) and that there need to be certain social safety nets for those unable to provide for themselves.

I'm certainly not saying the current system is perfect and I would certainly agree that there is an incentive for insurance companies to rip off the insured and there are things that can and should be done to diminish those incentives.

But one root problem is that we want "insurance" that isn't actually insurance and get really upset when the insurance companies behave as if what they are selling is actually insurance.

But if you're going to compare health care to police services you need to compare it to the whole thing, in my opinion. We pay for the policeman who arrests the shoplifter but not the security guards who caught him.

In the very long term, earlier in this thread, I also mentioned some societal problems I have with giving complete control of our personal health to the government, the biggest of which is that the government will then eventually take control of anything that can be argued as impacting that health.

[Kevy Baby]

Yeah, we get it, Alex. Nothing is 'free,' by your definition. Stop getting hung up on that one (admitedly dominant) meaning of the word.

"Free" when applied to healthcare is meant to mean the "free" as in police services, fire services, public schools, etc. Meaning, no money shelled out of your pocket one instance at a time. Everyone knows "free" healthcare is paid through taxes.

Please try and get over it. It's a shortcut phrase. Language is like that sometimes.The problem is that many people DON'T know that "free" health care is paid via taxes. While all involved in this discussion and even most all on this board in general may know how things would work, I don't believe the masses do. I see a MAJOR fallacy in continuing to call this "free" health care - it is misleading and deceptive.

I firmly believe that individuals are generally fairly smart, but that the masses are generally pretty stupid.

Don’t get me wrong… I’m as fond of Capitalism as the next guy. But Capitalism taken to extremes is as evil as any other system taken to the extreme. There are just some things that shouldn’t be subject to the profit motive. I (and a growing number of my fellow Americans, it would seem) believe that health care is one of those things.Why is the term "taken to the extremes" coming up? This isn't about any extreme. It is simply a question of whether health care should be brought under the wings of the US Government. And I have yet to see anything that would indicate that the government could do even as good as what we have now. Most indicators point in the other direction.

And darn it - Alex already addressed the police/fire example far better than I could imagine. However, I will add one more tidbit: I don't know of any city that isn't constantly in need of additional police - there always seem to be a shortage.

[Tref]

I firmly believe that individuals are generally fairly smart, but that the masses are generally pretty stupid.


Speaking for the masses, I just want to personally thank you for showing us the way!

Say, KB, did you know we (the stupid masses) also pay 12 billion dollars a month for war?

Of course, we can pay for war, but God help those who would like us to pay for health, right Alex?

Thank you both for setting us straight!

[Chernabog]

I could become a Mexican citizen, then cross the border back into the US, and then I'd get free healthcare. That's FREE FREE as in, no taxes or anything.

[JWBear]

The problem is that many people DON'T know that "free" health care is paid via taxes. While all involved in this discussion and even most all on this board in general may know how things would work, I don't believe the masses do. I see a MAJOR fallacy in continuing to call this "free" health care - it is misleading and deceptive.

I firmly believe that individuals are generally fairly smart, but that the masses are generally pretty stupid.

Why is the term "taken to the extremes" coming up? This isn't about any extreme. It is simply a question of whether health care should be brought under the wings of the US Government. And I have yet to see anything that would indicate that the government could do even as good as what we have now. Most indicators point in the other direction.

And darn it - Alex already addressed the police/fire example far better than I could imagine. However, I will add one more tidbit: I don't know of any city that isn't constantly in need of additional police - there always seem to be a shortage.

Many of the arguments I hear against nationalized health care (or any health care reform period) come down to “Why should my taxes pay for someone else’s health care?” I was trying to point out that this argument, taken to the extremes, could create an America where only the “haves” can access basic government services.

Most will agree that some services should be provided to all Americans for free (or “without direct user fees”, if you prefer). The main argument is where to draw the line in the sand. Some of us believe health care is on one side of the line, some argue that it is on the other. All we’re really accomplishing here is pushing little piles of sand around.

[JWBear]

I could become a Mexican citizen, then cross the border back into the US, and then I'd get free healthcare. That's FREE FREE as in, no taxes or anything.

Not true. If you are here without documentation you are ineligible to Medicare, and the only thing Medi-Cal (Medicaid in other states) will pay for is emergency room services or pregnancy related services.

Under Medi-Cal regulations, if you have income, you may have to pay a portion of your medical expenses yourself. It's called "Share of Cost" and it works like a deductible.

And don't forget... undocumented aliens do pay sales tax on things they buy here. And if they are working "above the table" they are paying income tax as well.

[Kevy Baby]

Speaking for the masses, I just want to personally thank you for showing us the way!

Say, KB, did you know we (the stupid masses) also pay 12 billion dollars a month for war?

Of course, we can pay for war, but God help those who would like us to pay for health, right Alex?

Thank you both for setting us straight!Nothing like taking a statement and blowing it completely out of context.

But I stand by my words. Individuals usually make pretty good judgments. An individual is not capable of speaking for the masses - that is the basis of the statement. It is easier for the "masses" to make blanket statements and believe Utopian dreams. This is not a political statement on one side or the other (and could be used by either side of the aisle). It is just a truism that I happen to believe.

[Kevy Baby]

All we’re really accomplishing here is pushing little piles of sand around.One of the best comments posted yet in this thread.

[Tref]

Nothing like taking a statement and blowing it completely out of context.

But I stand by my words. Individuals usually make pretty good judgments. An individual is not capable of speaking for the masses - that is the basis of the statement. It is easier for the "masses" to make blanket statements and believe Utopian dreams. This is not a political statement on one side or the other (and could be used by either side of the aisle). It is just a truism that I happen to believe.

Well, hmm, masses do a democracy make ... but I am not sure if that is what you mean. Your masses are made up of individuals, correct? And these individuals can make "pretty good judgments, right? Or, maybe you are suggesting these masses are a separate entity, that dream of utopia and "make blanket statements" as one. Wow. Hmm. Methinks, KB, ye watch too much Star Trek.

But at any rate, FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL*

[innerSpaceman]

One of the best comments posted yet in this thread.
But with all due respect to JW Bear, whose comments in this thread I wholeheartedly agree with, we're not even accomplishing the sandmovement. We're not accomplishing anything, and that's not the point of talking about this.

If, by the sand comment, he meant no one is changing anyone else's mind, that's usually the case ... but not a cause to stop shooting the sh!t with one another.

[scaeagles]

There is a vast difference in decisions made by and for individuals which by and large can meet the needs of those whom they are making decisions for, and a mass of individuals making decisions for those that they do not understand nor are capable of meeting the needs of.

So, the intelligence of individuals gathered together does not necessarily equal something intelligent. This is not uncommon thought.

I opt out of the public school system, and I get a dollar for dollar tax credit for contributing to charitible organizations that assist in private school tuition. Why is this offered? Because the public school system (while certainly not underfunded) is over burdened and there needs to be a way to alleviate it. Social security is a forced contribution that I will likely never see a penny of and I know I could do better investing my money elsewhere, but that's not permitted (and even fought against). There is such gross mismanagement of medicare and foodstamps and you name it by government that I have no desire to see them involved whatsoever in health care decisions I make for me or my family. Need an abortion? There's a 10 month waiting period. Something tells me that's not going to fly.

[€uroMeinke]

I volunteer to move to Paris as part of a grand social experiment on health care (and to found the LoT Paris Commune)

[Tref]

So, the intelligence of individuals gathered together does not necessarily equal something intelligent. This is not uncommon thought.


Well, you may have a point there, I suppose it was these so-called "stupid masses" who elected Bush into office.

Need an abortion? There's a 10 month waiting period. Something tells me that's not going to fly.

No, I don't thank you. But, to paraphrase Huckleberry Finn, that is one whopper of a "stretcher."

[scaeagles]

And the collective intelligence of the masses depends on the perspective of the individual.

[Gemini Cricket]

All I can say is that I'm glad I don't live in Myanmar.

[Alex]

Of course, we can pay for war, but God help those who would like us to pay for health, right Alex?

Yes, to a degree (though since I don't pay directly out of pocket for it, per the definition offered in this thread I would like to point out that our nation offers free warfare). War is most certainly a government function, one of the few specific ones written into the constitution for our government.

Now, whether this war is a good use of money is an altogether different this.

But I really don't see the argument you're making. Just because I like something better than war is not a justification for the government paying for it. I like Snickers bars and blow jobs better than war too but so far I still pay for those out of my own pocket.

We won't change anybody's minds. I am essentially a liberal libertarian and see as a net bad thing the exact same thing you likely see as a net good thing. There is no common ground on which to build a consensus other than to either just all shut up or just enjoy the process of explaining ourselves.

But that is mostly moot. If I though Moore's suggestions would actually result in a massive improvement I might support it anyway. But I don't think that, in fact I think if the choice is that or the status quo then the status quo is preferable.

That's just me, though. I don't think the people who disagree with me are stupid, evil, immoral, ignorant, fascists, communists, etc. (though they might be any of these things). I just think we disagree. And that is what makes talking about it interesting.

[scaeagles]

And this is where you, Alex, vary from a lot of people.

Too often the rhetoric is that if you don't agree with someone then you are by default stupid, evil, immoral, ignorant, fascists, communists, etc.

There is some point at which passion about a subject becomes a desire for totalitarianism.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, I think Alex's variety is a staple of the people who post on the LoT.

I don't know why it came up sour in the Transformers thread, but one of the things I particularly like about this place is the tacit understanding that those with differences of opinion are not rendering wholesale judgments on the persons who differ with them.



At least, that's the assumption I'm going on.

[scaeagles]

I agree with that wholeheartedly. That's why I like it here.

And now I guess I have to go read the transformers thread.....

[innerSpaceman]

An Open Letter to CNN from Michael Moore

7/14/07

Dear CNN,

Well, the week is over -- and still no apology, no retraction, no correction of your glaring mistakes.

I bet you thought my dust-up with Wolf Blitzer was just a cool ratings coup, that you really wouldn't have to correct the false statements you made about "Sicko." I bet you thought I was just going to go quietly away.

Think again. I'm about to become your worst nightmare. 'Cause I ain't ever going away. Not until you set the record straight, and apologize to your viewers. "The Most Trusted Name in News?" I think it's safe to say you can retire that slogan.

You have an occasional segment called "Keeping Them Honest." But who keeps you honest? After what the public saw with your report on "Sicko," and how many inaccuracies that report contained, how can anyone believe anything you say on your network? In the old days, before the Internet, you could get away with it. Your victims had no way to set the record straight, to show the viewers how you had misrepresented the truth. But now, we can post the truth -- and back it up with evidence and facts -- on the web, for all to see. And boy, judging from the mail both you and I have been receiving, the evidence I have posted on my site about your "Sicko" piece has led millions now to question your honesty.

I won't waste your time rehashing your errors. You know what they are (javascript:ol('http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/setting-the-record-straight/');). What I want to do is help you come clean. Admit you were wrong. What is the shame in that? We all make mistakes. I know it's hard to admit it when you've screwed up, but it's also liberating and cathartic. It not only makes you a better person, it helps prevent you from screwing up again. Imagine how many people will be drawn to a network that says, "We made a mistake. We're human. We're sorry. We will make mistakes in the future -- but we will always correct them so that you know you can trust us." Now, how hard would that really be?

As you know, I hold no personal animosity against you or any of your staff. You and your parent company have been very good to me over the years. You distributed my first film, "Roger & Me" and you published "Dude, Where's My Country?" Larry King has had me on twice in the last two weeks. I couldn't ask for better treatment.

That's why I was so stunned when you let a doctor who knows a lot about brain surgery -- but apparently very little about public policy -- do a "fact check" story, not on the medical issues in "Sicko," but rather on the economic and political information in the film. Is this why there has been a delay in your apology, because you are trying to get a DOCTOR to say he was wrong? Please tell him not to worry, no one is filing a malpractice claim against him. Dr. Gupta does excellent and compassionate stories on CNN about people's health and how we can take better care of ourselves. But when it came time to discuss universal health care, he rushed together a bunch of sloppy -- and old -- research. When his producer called us about his report the day before it aired, we sent to her, in an email (javascript:ol('http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/07/10/email-shows-cnn-gupta-g_n_55697.html');), all the evidence so that he wouldn't make any mistakes on air. He chose to ignore ALL the evidence, and ran with all his falsehoods -- even though he had been given the facts a full day before! How could that happen? And now, for 5 days, I have posted on my website, for all to see, every mistake and error he made.

You, on the other hand, in the face of this overwhelming evidence and a huge public backlash, have chosen to remain silent, probably praying and hoping this will all go away.

Well it isn't. We are now going to start looking into the veracity of other reports you have aired on other topics. Nothing you say now can be believed. In 2002, the New York Times busted you for bringing celebrities on your shows and not telling your viewers they were paid spokespeople for the pharmaceutical companies. You promised never to do it again. But there you were, in 2005, talking to Joe Theismann, on air, as he pushed some drug company-sponsored website on prostate health. You said nothing about about his affiliation with GlaxoSmithKline.

Clearly, no one is keeping you honest, so I guess I'm going to have to do that job, too. $1.5 billion is spent each year by the drug companies on ads on CNN and the other four networks. I'm sure that has nothing to do with any of this. After all, if someone gave me $1.5 billion, I have to admit, I might say a kind word or two about them. Who wouldn't?!

I expect CNN to put this matter to rest. Say you're sorry and correct your story -- like any good journalist would.

Then we can get back to more important things. Like a REAL discussion about our broken health care system. Everything else is a distraction from what really matters.

Yours,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com (http://by102fd.bay102.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/compose?mailto=1&msg=179BF711-9EE1-45B5-BF9E-24D07020C5BC&start=0&len=17322&src=&type=x&to=mmflint@aol.com&cc=&bcc=&subject=&body=&curmbox=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&a=7c4408512372fd925325ab5e9d95d0d198bd313b45ea0cea 60aa1e27b4bc0187)
www.michaelmoore.com (javascript:ol('http://www.michaelmoore.com/');)

P.S. If you also want to apologize for not doing your job at the start of the Iraq War, I'm sure most Americans would be very happy to accept your apology. You and the other networks were willing partners with Bush, flying flags all over the TV screens and never asking the hard questions that you should have asked. You might have prevented a war. You might have saved the lives of those 3,610 soldiers who are no longer with us. Instead, you blew air kisses at a commander in chief who clearly was making it all up. Millions of us knew that -- why didn't you? I think you did. And, in my opinion, that makes you responsible for this war. Instead of doing the job the founding fathers wanted you to do -- keeping those in power honest (that's why they made it the FIRST amendment) -- you and much of the media went on the attack against the few public figures like myself who dared to question the nightmare we were about to enter. You've never thanked me or the Dixie Chicks or Al Gore for doing your job for you. That's OK. Just tell the truth from this point on.


TeeHee. I love Michael Moore.

[wendybeth]

Good for him. I despise CNN. It's the last internet 'news' source I check, and I never watch it on TV.

[sleepyjeff]

I despise CNN. It's the last internet 'news' source I check, and I never watch it on TV.

Ditto.

[Sub la Goon]

I saw SiCKO over the weekend and was - sickened?

Sure, it's got a lot of grandstanding and Moore-isms but the general message comes through loud and clear: Healthcare in the USA is broken and making huge profits by denying people the life saving treatments they need is an abomination.

I know that many people are SOO butt-hurt by the idea of paying for someone else's catastrophe or lifestyle choices or whatever. But we are talking about people's lives and health here. Who doesn't drive? And who wants to worry about being sent to the Wrong hospital (not in-network) in case of emergency?

Heathcare should not be decided by people in cubicles anywhere but by doctors and their patients. I thought Moore did a pretty convincing job of showing the French system and how non-involved the government is in healthcare decisions. And I found it interesting the whole concept that the Government is dictated by the wishes of the people rather than scaring the populace into submission.

A poor country like Cuba can have healthcare for all and be 39th in the world's rankings. We are one of the richest nations (or maybe the richest?) and we come in 37th? That is disgrace of the highest magnitude and shows that greed run amok does not have pretty results.