The health care industry is having palpitations over Sicko. “I don’t think Michael Moore set out to make a balanced movie,” said Karen Ignagni, president of the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans, regurgitating the industry’s key talking point. But truth is not always found in the balanced middle. (“Now, for the other side of Hitler,” “Cannibalism: the pros and… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (62)Page 1 of 1 pagesWow. I thought Sicko was an autobiography. . . :)
“I don’t think Michael Moore set out to make a balanced movie” - Yeah, he usually is so very careful to be objective. . . hahahahahaha!!!!
(Not that i think the US has perfect health care and that it cannot be improved. I merely think that a hack like Moore could make a similar movie about, say, the Canadian health care system (how many more women have to die of breast cancer before we do something!?!), given how he is so very willing to slant the stories he tells. But hey, this is a free country and if a guy like him can get rich telling his stories, more power to him.)
Posted by wolf on Jul 10, 2007 at 7:37 AM Fuck you wolf, you motherfucking TROLL!!!!!!!!
I know you get your perverted jollies coming on to left-wing websites and make your insulting and disruptive comments. Go to the Free Republic or those loopy Ayn Rand websites, jackass.
Posted by lams712 on Jul 10, 2007 at 2:46 PM Michael Moore (or ANY documentary filmmaker) does NOT have an obligation to be “balanced”. They do have an obligation to tell the truth. I would invite America’s Health Insurance Plans or PhRMA or any other front group to underwrite a documentary and provide their own slant on the truth regarding our healthcare system and see which one your average American relates to. I know which film my money would be on.
Posted by lams712 on Jul 10, 2007 at 2:55 PM Michael Moore “obligated” to tell the truth?
Well, certainly if it is a documentary it must be true. I mean did Al Gore not stick to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in his documentary?
OK, the insurance companies and pharmas are screwing us — that’s not new and not likely to change — but that doesn’t make this guy St.Michael.
I haven’t heard that he’s donating the proceeds to the uninsured yet. Would he go on a crusade merely for the money and notoriety?
Neat tricko! You gotta give him that.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 11, 2007 at 6:57 AM Unless you are trying to be disruptive, why use a personal attack on Michael Moore?
Can you refute any of his assertions?
Have you anything to say about the technical or artistic values of the film?
If we who consider ourselves progressive spend our time attacking each other for what ever small minded reason, how do we expect to move forward?
Posted by mdruss42 on Jul 11, 2007 at 7:46 AM Michael Moore starts conversations that need to be started, nationally.
Why fault him for making a profit? It allows him to keep starting new, important conversations.
I love Sicko. I have a lot of familiarity with the National Health in Britain.
Okay, it is not so perfect as is portrayed in the film, but it is so much better than what we have here. In the UK, one knows one will get outstanding medical attention for a serious problem without questions about ones ability to afford it. Prescriptions are affordable. Yes, sometimes the National Health does limit the availability of certain drugs, but then if there is an outcry, the National Health reconsiders. Right now there is upset about a new macular degeneration drug that National Health wanted to limit. Medical appointments with ones GP are 10 minutes, but if one knows there is something significant that needs discussion, one simply books a double appointment. Sometimes there are tests or treatments that National Health does not easily provide. One can always go private. I have found that there are numerous charities and health organizations through which one can get alternate treatments, quite reasonably priced. My husband, who is British and living in England, is currently undergoing a series of treatments not offered by National Health. I found a charity that offers the treatments at about $12 a visit.
We are the only developed nation that does not offer universal health care..We are the only developed nation where one can lose ones health insurance if one loses ones job or becomes self employed..some countries do have a public-private system...such as Australia, where one is covered under the public system, but one can buy extra private insurance for more upscale accomodations etc.
Why should a person have to live in terror that he might become ill? How conducive is it to healing to have the extra worry that ones health insurance company may deny some necessary treatment? There is the discussion that universal care will raise our taxes. I currently pay $700 a month for health insurance for me and I know that at least 30% of that is insurance company overhead ( how much of that cost is salaries for staff to deny care?). Spread among all of us, the taxes cannot be higher, and no one will be denied health care. We are all in this together. We need to reform the election process so Pharma cannot bribe Congress. We need to throw out the bums and bring in people who have our best interests at heart. Thank you Michael Moore for having made this film.
Posted by Southwind on Jul 11, 2007 at 11:11 AM Yes whattheheck, any documentarian has an obligation to tell the truth. They may inject their own slant on the truth, but they are not allowed to outright lie or defame. I am willing to wait and see if Moore gets sued for any assertions made in his film but I bet he won’t because he did tell the truth (as did Al Gore).
Posted by lams712 on Jul 11, 2007 at 11:39 AM Iams,
re: Obligation to tell the truth — I was being sarcastic.
The problem as I see it is with anyone who deliberately tells only that “truth” which gives a distorted view. Worse yet, (since we should assume people often will do this) so many people are willing to accept the story at face value and run with it.It happens so often in advertising, politics, investing and now with documentaries. It amazes me is that anyone will accept anything being thrown our way as “fact”.
Canadians are coming down here for MRIs, non-emergency surgeries and other treatments with long waiting lists. Our friends in London must get on a pre-waiting list before getting on the waiting list (sort of like our paying less than minimum wages to immigrant workers). Yes, they can go to a private clinic, but they’ve paid all their lives for the “free” care.
In 1996 our city of 150,000 had more MRIs than all of Britain — one of the legitimate reasons our costs are high. (Another is the emergency care which anyone can get — if you don’t die waiting in ER.)
I’m glad Moore is attacking the insurance industry, but his slanted techniques make the legitimate problems look phony and are counter productive.
Both extremes are simply milking the hot topics and making big bucks with books, movies and speaking engagements. Raising awareness is hardly necessary — WE all know prescriptions are over-priced, the economy stinks (not the stock market — the real life cost of living). We know the air is getting thicker each day. We know that Homeland Security is a charade. Getting the damned congress to do anything meaningful by “raising awareness” is not going to happen.
Only a select few in office are concerned beyond staying in their cushy job. The others either don’t care enough to find out, or already know and don’t care.
Short of a revolution lynching the 36,000 lobbyists I see little hope of forcing change.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 12, 2007 at 9:32 AM whattheheck,
In one film it is very difficult to address every nuance. Michael Moore gave a great overview.The MRI machines in Britain are strategically placed around the country.
Your city of 150,000 having several machines does not mean those machines were fully utilized. Hospitals buy all the latest and greatest for competitive advantage and it raises costs astronomically. When all hospitals in a city work together to give you care, having one across town, is workable.Yes, some Canadians do trickle down, but the great majority don’t. I understand the numbers are small and may indicate more a personality trait than actual immediate need. Universal health care is the most popular program in Canada. There are critics who want more funding and each province has some grumble with their specific funding, but find me any issue involving money and there will be people wanting more and more and more.
While I can’t speak to every single queue in England, most waiting lists are for non critical situations like having knee surgery or replacing a hip or getting cataracts dealt with...and the waits are not excessively long in most instances. Two years ago, here in the States, my sister was diagnosed with a brain tumor. She had to wait 8 weeks to start radiation because the machines were all booked up( and this is in a major American city)...and all the while, she was exhibiting worse symptoms. (By the way, she hasn’t died, but she is completely helpless).
Going private in England is an option. You say they have paid all their lives, well, what have we done...we have just done it through a profit making, capricious, cherry picking system that over medicates us, does very little in the way of prevention, and treats symptoms rather than underlying causes. Get real, our system sucks and we need to have a complete revolution in the way care is provided. Everyone deserves to be covered. We are all skin and contents and we should all get care according to our need.
Posted by Southwind on Jul 12, 2007 at 11:41 AM Just as in the case of Moore’s other films (whether or not one chooses to label them documentaries as opposed to political pieces), there has been far more loud accusations than calm listing of any factual errors. I have not worked in the auto industry, political office or suburban high schools but I have retired out of the health care industry. When I saw the film, I felt at least minimally equipped to detect gross error. I didn’t find it that difficult to separate a factually based statistic from Moore’s opinion. If I am not mistaken, he has yet to be successfully sued for calumny, slander or the like. It may benefit the discussion to eschew ad hominem attacks and focus a bit more on the gist of what he is saying.
Posted by paulbulger on Jul 12, 2007 at 11:51 AM WTH,
Your entire POV is succinctly encapsulated in the words “I see little hope...”
Why, then, do you even bother? Why don’t you just roll up into a little ball and die? What do you think is accomplished by spreading your dour message of hopelessness? If we were all to take your inestimable advice and give up all hope of making the world just a little better place and submitting ourselves and our progeny to whatever awful fate lies in store, what satisfaction could you possibly derive?
Or are you discretely advising violent revolution? That may yet happen, but historically only when conditions have deteriorated to the point they are universally intolerable.
Don’t you think it preferable that prescience and foresight brought into the discussion may have some utility in avoiding such severe consequences?
After all, those who are concerned with staying in their cushy jobs must inevitably respond if growing public pressure and consciousness begins to overwhelm their ability to influence opinion by means of distracting and disingenuous PR.
But then again, you seem to believe that public awareness represented by Moore’s distillation of facts we all know to be true should rightfully be canceled out by a presumptive balance of truthiness in what is objectively false and self-serving propaganda.
It is very difficult to make any sense of your reasoning process except to conclude it isn’t really very rational.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 12, 2007 at 11:53 AM Hi, Y’all !
LB, darling, you are wasting you’re time. Right-wing thinking is a mental illness.
Unfortunately the right-wing hu-boons have learned a new trick: fling poo at those who criticize them. Don’t try to fix things, don’t do something that would be worthy of re-election, just fling poo and fawn to the handlers who got them elected or hired as Faux News commentator.
Michael Moore says the machine is broken? Blame him for poinitng that out!
I’ve watched all of his films except this new one( it’s on my to do list) and he never fails to make a valid criticism of what’s wrong. Yet, the right wishes to pick fly specks out of pepper and criticize him as being totally inaccurate.
Yes, he did re-arrange some of the events in Roger And Me, yet, that doesn’t negate his thesis.
Still, the right must always be that.
Let’s just hope they never get really ill.
Ta- Ta!
Posted by Aunty Rightwing on Jul 13, 2007 at 12:00 AM LB,
I hadn’t thought I was giving advice — merely an opinion. I guess you can’t accept that anyone may not agree with you, judging from your (over)reactions.
You’re no fun anymore.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 14, 2007 at 9:06 AM WTH,
Sorry, I’m not feeling in much of a light-hearted mood over health care in this country.
It isn’t a ‘fun’ situation.
I’ll leave the satire to Michael Moore in this case. You want to be amused, see the movie.
Until you do, keep your opinion to yourself.
That’s my advice.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 14, 2007 at 10:32 PM LB,
Last I heard opinions were still a part of free speech.
If you can’t stand the free exchange of different opinions perhaps you should just be content to live in the land of movies and make believe.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 15, 2007 at 6:35 AM WTH,
Free speech also includes the right to call you on your bullshit.
Also to offer unsolicited free advice.
You’re free to take it or leave it.
Still, I think it’s a good idea to actually see a movie before presuming to characterize it.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 15, 2007 at 8:13 AM LB,
I still think 150 years of data is too llittle to base this whole crisis on. That’s my opinion. Call it anything you choose.
We are obviously not going to agree. Why you think we should need to do so is your problem — I really don’t care.
But if you get this stressed out every time someone disagrees with you — I’ll outlast you.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 15, 2007 at 10:16 AM WTH,
“I really don’t care.”
Another epitomization of your opinion. Exactly what I’ve been saying all along.
What makes you believe I am stressed out by your bullshit? Is laughter your idea of stressing out?
Why do you think calling you on your bullshit is ‘(over)reaction’?
How many thousands of years of data on health care do you believe is necessary to make a decision? (We have 400,000+ years of reliable data on CO2 and global temperature. We also have direct empirical observation and multiple source corroboration of causal linkages, not just statistical correlations. Is that enough? If not, why? Please answer on the appropriate thread. Scorpy needs your help. He’s floundering badly. Let us not get side-tracked on this one. I’m sure you don’t mean to be throwing out red herrings, or do you?)
If you have a heart attack, do you expect to be on an ECG machine for a period longer than your lifespan for your doctor to make a diagnosis?
What utter bullshit! Get yourself a brainscan. I think you might be suffering from alzheimer’s.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 15, 2007 at 11:08 AM LB,
Are you deliberatly being obtuse?
When I said I don’t care it was in reference to the two of us agreeing.
A. You can think what you will nd I will think otherwise. OK?
B. Even if we were to agree it would not influence the outcome.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 16, 2007 at 7:19 AM WTH,
“When I said I don’t care it was in reference to the two of us agreeing.”
Oh, really? Like my questioning of your comparison of weather and climate predictability was somehow an hysterical (over)reaction to your comment on Y2K?
In this case, my (admitted) cherry-picking is intended to make a valid point. You obviously care only about muddying the waters, certainly not in engaging in reasonable and principled debate.
Much less what we, as citizens living in a purported democracy, can do to improve our health care system. If one assumes, a priori, that nothing can be done, one ensures only that nothing will be done.
Whether we agree or not, not allowing your bullshit to stand might have some small influence in allowing others to avoid falling into similar mendacious traps.
“No man is an island.”
----John Donne“For want of a nail, the shoe was lost...”
----Ben FranklinI hope you don’t find these quotes too ‘obtuse’.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 16, 2007 at 8:01 AM These detractors would have you believe Moore is the devil for pointing out the problem.
“whattheheck” criticizes Moore for giving a distorted view but does the same thing himself and offers nothing constructive.
“wolf” looks like a roaming disruptive element trolling the Internet. His comments aren’t worthy of a response.
I too prefer balance and think the back door needs to swing the other way for a while. Corporations have grown rich beyond any decent measurement at the expense of the rest of us. “…single-payer government-run system that cuts out private insurance.” Now there is an idea that can replace our current system with something that doesn’t continue the rape of the average citizen.
Posted by inthesetimes nazario on Jul 17, 2007 at 9:51 AM nazario,
I put Moore and Gore in the same class as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh— opportunists who jump in front of a parade and know how to make big bucks by fanning the flames of fear.
The recipe: • a bit of truth • a lack of balance • a lot of emotion • a method of delivery
Moore has picked a great subject this time. We all see and smell the bad air. There is photographic evidence of melting. It has such a long time frame he cannot be proven wrong.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 18, 2007 at 6:38 AM “I put Moore and Gore in the same class as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh— opportunists who jump in front of a parade and know how to make big bucks by fanning the flames of fear.”
I agree, especially in regards to Moore (aka Sicko). I also find it just a bit amusing that partisans of both sides tend to be angered/dismayed by such (obvious) comparisons. Perhaps it is impossible for kettles and pots to see themselves, but they sure seem to be able to see each other. . .
Since i am neither a left wing extremist or a right wing extremist, i suppose that would make me a troll either here or at the conservative websites. The sad thing about this website is that the left wingers are so incapable of defending their pov’s (makes me want to step in for them and help them from time to time). It is truly a sad state of affairs and one wonders if it is due to the lack of rationality of the leftest point of view or if it is that this website simply does not draw the intellectually inclined leftists here.
“Extremist thinking is a mental illness”, on either the left or right is the more accurate phrase. This can be verified, all too often, by the violence espoused and done by extremists.
PS - lams712 send me a photo and i will let you know if i am interested. Kiss kiss :)
Posted by wolf on Jul 18, 2007 at 8:57 AM nazario,
Spot on analysis of WTH and wolfgang.
Wolfgang, your ‘intellectual’ prowess, being as mediocre as it is, does not inspire me with great confidence. I don’t think the left is in much need of your help. The very fact that you make assertions (argumentum ad nauseum) without the slightest hint of a rational argument supported by any evidence whatsoever is quite substantial proof that you have all the scholarly skill of a lump of dogshit.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 18, 2007 at 3:47 PM Wolf,
I guess you don’t need to be an extremist to catch it from both sides. I have been called both a Nazi and a Commie by people who come here to “discuss” — intolerance knows no boundaries.
Take LB for example — It’s his/her (there has been confusion) view, swallowed whole, or else comes the ranting.
Is it any wonder I see little hope from congress? They have the added incentive of trying to keep their cushy jobs, but LB is a mystery. Must be some kind of “savior” self image or some such.
We have another whole year of campaigning and then we will vote for or against someone who got to the top of the list by spending more and judging the wind drift of media driven opinion.
After that will come the battle over whose idiot should have been elected instead.
Ah, the media. They see their job as a contest to see who can stir up the most controversy. The news has become just another game show. Have you noticed how many news stories begin with a question? Will the Dow continue to rise? Will we pull out troops before year’s end? Are we safer now? Should Libby be pardoned?
Well, here’s question for them...Is this how journalism is taught today?
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 19, 2007 at 8:48 AM wth - There used to be a saying “Feminists have no sense of humor”. I think it applies to many (certainly not all) of the leftists who frequent this site. I typically do not respond to posters who make very little sense or to posters who quickly become overtly hostile. Why bother? It just riles them up and inspires them to post rants or attacks. Which really benefits no one (well, unless it serves as some sort of cathartic release for them).
On the other hand, i have had some very nice “conversations” with people here, both those who think very differently from me and those of a similar mind.
I rarely watch TV news, but do occasionally watch the BBC international news. I get the rest from a local paper and the internet.
Back to the topic of this thread, i saw an interesting article that asserted that Sicko was really a comparison of the worst of the US health care system to the best of the other systems it was being compared against. A very cogent analysis.
Posted by wolf on Jul 19, 2007 at 10:15 AM fahrenheit 9/11 is top grossing documentry of all time. Has anybody who put down this film apologize for being wrong. As it turns out everything moore said or predicted was right on the money.
Bush and the neo-cons could not sue moore for slander or anything else, because it was true. So what did the neo-cons do, was put down the messenger, don’t go and see this movie, he is a left wing libral extremist, nut case. Swift boat this bastard.
That is why 2 out of 5 people still think iraq took out the twin towers, and had wmd’s, if you as president say it enought times on tv people will believe it is true.
Sicko is another example for the right wing to put down another moore movie, they won’t even go and see it.
Neo-cons will find so many ways to knit pick the shit out of this or any moore movie, so the message of fixing health care will be lost.
Too many people getting rich off the system we have now, why would they want to change it.
Posted by brian28 on Jul 19, 2007 at 11:25 AM brian28 - Yeah, Moore has become a real money making machine. Making leftist propaganda films has been good to him. Give the people what they want and all that. . .
In any case, i do agree that the US health care system can be improved. However, any fix to the system must NOT make working/middle class health care suffer. After all, we are the ones who actually support such things through our labors. And for many of us, the system is working fairly well.
For an interesting review of this “documentary” see: http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml
(Excerpted from the above review:
A 52-year-old woman in Calgary recalls being in severe need of joint-replacement surgery after the cartilage in her knee wore out. She was put on a wait list and wound up waiting 16 months for the surgery. Her pain was so excruciating, she says, that she was prescribed large doses of Oxycontin, and soon became addicted. After finally getting her operation, she was put on another wait list — this time for drug rehab.
...
Fidel Castro’s island dictatorship, now in its 40th year of being listed as a human-rights violator by Amnesty International, is here depicted as a balmy paradise not unlike the Iraq of Saddam Hussein that Moore showed us in his earlier film, “Fahrenheit 9/11.")Another interesting review: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062802280. .html
(The really sad thing is that some people think either Israel or the US took out the twin towers. Talk about crazy!)
Posted by wolf on Jul 19, 2007 at 11:58 AM brian,
You are so right. WTH and wolf are getting their critical input solely from the right-wing nit-pickers, with out even seeing the movie on which they are making judgment.
WTH seems to think that his ad infinitum strawman and categorically false assertion about all politicians being always untrustworthy and totally out for themselves, and the rather trivial observation that mainstream corporate news outlets are somewhat less than objective nor comprehensively informative is unimpeachable evidence that we as thinking beings must be entirely incapable of discerning fact from propaganda. If I don’t accept his poor reasoning as transcendent wisdom I am unbalanced and immoderate.
Funny guy.
Wolfgang, too, makes such logical boners in his attempts to counter reason that the unintentional irony of his assertions, besides their obvious risibility, clearly reveals his own lack of analytical capability. The dig about ‘feminists’ (what a strawman fallacy that is!) having no sense of humor is shatteringly belied by the fact that Moore is a sublime humorist. It is telling they presume to believe that just because Moore’s ouevre is not one of balancing one point of view against another with the assumption that they are both equally errant, but that of the satirical polemic, revealing at once the absurdity of received conventional wisdom and presenting a reasonable and proven, if less than perfect, solution to the burden of human suffering such cleaving to the given order creates, Moore’s POV is therefore automatically deserving of presumptive dismissal. I reiterate, without even having seen the movie.
Just hysterical.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 19, 2007 at 12:24 PM wolf,--- ann coulter, orielly, hannity, write books for the right wing propaganda neo-cons and make millions of dollars doing it, I don’t see wolf nit-picking the shit out of their books.
Give the people what they want, you have been drinking to much orielly kool-aid.
Posted by brian28 on Jul 19, 2007 at 2:53 PM brian28 writes: “ann coulter, orielly, hannity, write books for the right wing propaganda neo-cons and make millions of dollars doing it, I don’t see wolf nit-picking the shit out of their books”. A pity, i love to poke fun at them as well! I put them in the same category as Moore, successful entertainers that distort the issues to their - very profitable - advantages.
I guess i don’t remember any ITT articles that started out that if you are against ann coulter, orielly, or hannity you must be pro-cannibalism or pro-Hitler!
Posted by wolf on Jul 19, 2007 at 3:48 PM Wolf,
I’m beginning to understand why I have had a problem appreciating Moore’s POV. I’ve been using the wrong approach all along.
From Brian: “fahrenheit 9/11 is top grossing documentry of all time.”
If it makes a bundle it must be true.--------------
And of course if you use the same tactics as Moore you will identify more closely.From LB: “WTH and wolf are getting their critical input solely from the right-wing nit-pickers, with out even seeing the movie on which they are making judgment.”
Joined by: “WTH seems to think that his ad infinitum strawman and categorically false assertion about all politicians being always untrustworthy and totally out for themselves,”
--------------
My actual statements:
• “Is it any wonder I see little hope from congress?”• “ Getting the damned congress to do anything meaningful by “raising awareness” is not going to happen.”
• “Only a select few in office are concerned beyond staying in their cushy job. The others either don’t care enough to find out, or already know and don’t care.”(You would think I spoke out against the tooth fairy or Santa.)
--------------
Like Moore, these folks seem to be intent on convincing others of the “rightness” of their opinions. In fact I have not said that there is no warming problem, only that we should not overreact. (Which, IMO, has received a lot of overreaction.)Examples:
Brian: “Has anybody who put down this film apologize for being wrong. As it turns out everything moore said or predicted was right on the money.”
LB: “Whether we agree or not, not allowing your bullshit to stand might have some small influence in allowing others to avoid falling into similar mendacious traps.”
--------------
What do you suppose they expect to come of convincing US they are right or Moore is right?
Perhaps they should go to those who are in a position to do something as LB seems to have hope for.LB: “After all, those who are concerned with staying in their cushy jobs must inevitably respond if growing public pressure and consciousness begins to overwhelm their ability to influence opinion by means of distracting and disingenuous PR.”
BTW, what was the last great accomplishment of congress brought about by this tactic?
If you are truly intent on “proving” the effectiveness — get congress to stop cutting my Medicare payments. Now that would get my attention and a commendation.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 20, 2007 at 7:28 AM wth - it appears that any criticism of Moore (peace be upon him) on this website is tantamount to walking into a mosque and declaring that Mohammad was not really right about lots of stuff. . . But at least (as far as i know, anyway) no fatwa has been issued for our deaths. :)
Posted by wolf on Jul 20, 2007 at 9:38 AM WTH,
Medicare is a good example of congressional action brought about by public pressure. Did you think it fell from the sky?
I admit that I exaggerated your statement on congressmen by omitting your substanceless qualifier. What difference does it make? The conclusion you imply is that ‘all is hopeless, why even try’, no matter how one parses it.
As to global warming, I appreciate that you admit there might be a problem. From the gist of your arguments I got the impression you were saying that there was no need to address the problem because there was substantial doubt that there was a problem. Or rather, the uncertainty of the future in the general case being sufficient reason to dismiss the relative certainty of future extrapolation in this particular case.
The most reasonable response to a problem cannot begin to be addressed until the problem is recognized to be a problem. Making snarky attacks from a position of ignorance on those who are trying to confront the reality of said problem seems to me entirely unproductive. As I said, mere muddying of the waters. Whether we can expect congress to make an immediate and perfect response to a problem is quite beside the point unless the people (that’s you and me) can get on the same page about the nature of the problem. That’s democracy.
It seems we are making progress. Can you make the next step?
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 20, 2007 at 9:46 AM wolfie,
It is interesting that you cite an anomalous anecdote about excessive wait times for specialized elective surgeries in Canadian hospitals from a right-wing source as support for your assertion that Moore gives a slanted and one-sided presentation of the facts in his movie.
However, the truth is that Moore does address the problem of long wait times in developed nations with universal health care. To wit:
SiCKO: Canadian “wait times” not nearly as long as some try to allege.
* According to Statistics Canada, the official government statistical agency, “In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. Nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 - but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.… 70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable” “Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005),” Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-575-XIE/82-575-
XIE2006002.htm* A recent study of emergency care in Ontario found that overall, “50% of patients triaged as CTAS I [most acute] were seen by a physician within 6 minutes and 86% were seen within 30 minutes of arriving at the [Emergency Department]. In contrast, the 50% of patients triaged as CTAS IV or V who were seen most quickly waited an hour or less, while 1 in 10 waited three hours or more. Understanding Emergency Department Wait Times: How Long Do People Spend in Emergency Departments in Ontario? Canadian Institute for Health Information, January 2007.
http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=reports_
wait_times_bulletins_e* “Gerard Anderson, a Johns Hopkins health policy professor who has spent his career examining the world’s healthcare, said there are delays, but not as many as conservatives state. In Canada, the United Kingdom and France, ‘three percent of hospital discharges had delays in treatment,’ Anderson told The Miami Herald. ‘That’s a relatively small number, and they’re all elective surgeries, such as hip and knee replacement.’ John Dorschner, “‘Sicko’ film is set to spark debate; Reformers are gearing up for ‘Sicko,’ the first major movie to examine America’s often maligned healthcare system,” Miami Herald, June 29, 2007.
If you wish your criticisms of Moore to be taken seriously, then you should know the facts before shooting off your mouth.
Actually seeing the movie rather than relying on contrarian propaganda might help.
You can download it for free on the web if you don’t wish to contribute to Moore nefariously making bucket loads of cash off the suffering of ordinary people. As distinct from the righteous bucket loads of cash made off the suffering of ordinary people by insurance companies and HMOs, that is.
I suppose we can hold off calling for a fatwa on your head for a while on the small dim hope that you may yet come over to the side of reason in the service of human sympathy.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 20, 2007 at 11:13 AM LB,
“Medicare is a good example of congressional action brought about by public pressure. Did you think it fell from the sky?”
No, but it has certainly fallen from what it was in the 1980s when I was handling it for my Dad. Medicare is unsustainable and a far greater problem than Social Security. It is not being ignored due to a lack of awareness — it has been screamed about for years with no quibbling about the numbers. Still no action by either party.
Both of these programs will only continue to worsen because no one wants to commit political suicide by proposing what is needed.
Social Security was a safety net, an emergency action which has assumed the role of a retirement account. Medicare should really be an emergency measure which is income based. Each of these should be paid out to those in need only for as long as there is an unavoidable need.
I don’t expect help from congress — but I fear it!
Congress has been instrumental in giving away our best jobs.
Allowing substandard importation of foods and drugs.
They have neglected oversight of our borders (specifically promised in 1986).
And with regard to the terrorist threat they favor withdrawal from Iraq without a believably better solution. That’s not leadership — that’s poll pandering!
My “snarky attacks” are from experience and observation — they not only are aware of the problems — they are a major contributing factor to many of them.
Moore’s documentaries are as predictable as Bush’s speeches — don’t need to watch and listen, I already know the lyrics.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 20, 2007 at 11:51 AM wolfie,
Don’t you think that if Mr. Loder was really interested in balance and objectivity he might have mentioned that Amnesty International cites Cuba 3190 times in its archives and the United States 7670 times?
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 20, 2007 at 12:00 PM “Moore’s documentaries are as predictable as Bush’s speeches — don’t need to watch and listen, I already know the lyrics.”
Ah, the superior wisdom of ignorance.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 20, 2007 at 12:02 PM LB,
Since you only took issue with the last comment, I guess we agree on the reast of my comments — we ARE progressing, at last.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 21, 2007 at 9:57 AM WTH,
A false assumption. Though congress may have been responsible for the transgressions you impute in recent history, it does not follow that it always has or always will be the case. It seems you are falling into that error of inductive reasoning of which you erroneously and with profound ignorance of the scientific knowledge and methodology assign to climatologists.
See the movie and maybe you will find that you are not so much in disagreement with Moore as you would like to believe.
Or maybe not, but then at least your opinions will be based on evidence and not ignorance.
At the least, you may actually learn something. I was myself greatly impressed by the perceptions of the round table of Americans living in France, and just the visual information from the scenes from Cuba, particularly inside the Havana hospital.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 21, 2007 at 1:47 PM What’s the matter with you people? An artist always presents information and events from his or her own point of view. You have to take everything written, printed, filmed, recorded with a grain of salt—none of it is “true” in any absolute sense. In fact, we live in a society that is complicated by the duality of truth. Everything is both true and a lie, depending on how you look at it. Moore is the greatest propagandist since Goebels but that doesn’t mean he isn’t telling a great deal of the truth. To believe otherwise, you’d have to be living under a rock. We all know (don’t we?) that health care in this country is both good a bad, expensive and cheap, depending on who you are. All Moore is saying is, “Take a look at this system and tell me we can’t improve it, possibly by adopting ideas from other parts of the world.” In other words, he’s TRYING TO MAKE YOU THINK! Here’s the real question prompted by this website and others like it: does thinking about difficult issues need to involve name calling and denigration of others? Why can’t Americans simply have open conversations anymore, without imitating CROSSFIRE (now defunct)? Our lives would be improved immeasurably if people simply exchanged their ideas and worked to understand where others are coming from. Please leave the deep cynicism at home or in the office where it belongs. You’re not a Progressive anything if you don’t show respect.
Posted by babyface on Jul 21, 2007 at 3:07 PM Babyface,
You make some good points. We should be able to exchange ideas.
I am basically in agreement with Moore that the system needs improvement and that insurance companies are a large part of the problem. But I believe Moore is accomplishing very little since those of us for whom health care is a problem have little influence with those who could do something.
IMO (as stated earlier) Moore’s exaggerations and one-sided presentation is counter productive to producing change.
The problem between Luminous Beauty and me is one of experience versus faith — and his refusal to simply let my opinion stand alone — he feels he needs to PROVE his view.
My cynicism comes from outrageous insurance premiums after decades of payment and one claim, from so many futile attempts to communicate with my representatives and watching the American Dream turn into national nightmare for the next generation to deal with.
Question: Why do you assume I am a Progressive? Are they the only people who are expected to come here?
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 22, 2007 at 6:51 AM WTH,
Faith vs. experience?
Hardly. I’d put it more like principled reason in service of humanity and the greater world as opposed to personal and self-referent opinion. You don’t think my experience hasn’t brought my share of loss, disappointment, betrayal, frustration, the end of hopes and dreams, heartbreak and pain? You are an idiot for making that assumption.
Why do you think spreading your antagonist opinion on a Progressive site gives you some right to have that opinion left uncontested?
It is sad that your experience has led you to such a cynical pass. It is a shame that your experience hasn’t brought you the spiritual strength to rise above your own private suffering. It is perverse that you feel the need to undermine those who do seek to keep open the possibilities of a better world.
I’m not attacking you as a person, but the poverty of your ideas.
Get over yourself.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 22, 2007 at 8:28 AM P.S.
See the fucking movie. Until you do, your opinion of Moore’s presentation being worthless is just ignorant opinion. Of less worth than a stinking pile of pigshit.
I don’t believe you even read this article, beyond scanning the headline.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 22, 2007 at 8:44 AM LB,
Wow! Talk about intolerance!
My expectations of the likelihood of congress doing anything worthwhile still stand. I expect little from them other than more of what we’ve already seen. And in many cases or issues I think we’re better off without their meddling.
If you choose to be a Pollyanna or to have a conniption over my views — be my guest.
I’ll get along just fine without your blessings or your evaluation.
Get a grip.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 22, 2007 at 3:33 PM WTH,
What? I’m supposed to tolerate your sniveling bullshit? Please!
If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Your concern over congress is a red herring. A dissembling distraction from the topic at hand.
Be a nihilist if you wish, but don’t expect to find adulation or respect.
See the fucking movie. Coward!
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 22, 2007 at 6:10 PM LB,
By “the topic at hand” I assume you mean the warming article and/or its author. Michael has his opinion, I have mine and you have… well visions of saving the world from the dangers of divergent ideas.
the article to:
• Whether congress is competent
• If people can be respectful of a different opinion
• Don’t confuse realism with nihilism (talk about a red herring)Pretty safe to be insulting from a thousand miles away — I’ll bet you were equally obnoxious as a child. (Oh, there I go assuming you are an adult. Sorry.)
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 23, 2007 at 7:12 AM wth - just out of curiosity, why do you even bother responding to LB? While he makes claims of being so very enlightened, at the same time he reacts in much the way a spoiled child might (his last few posts being excellent examples).
I am sure that LB is a fine person, but his, um,*style* of communication makes it so very difficult to discuss anything meaningful with him (unless you happen to be in complete agreement, in which case he undoubtedly would imagine you to be very intelligent and perceptive).
Posted by wolf on Jul 23, 2007 at 9:46 AM Realism is seeking to identify and implement a practical solution to a real and pressing problem, no matter how intractable it may appear on it’s face. Saying, a priori, it is useless to even contemplate solutions because the opposition is too powerful and Congress too corrupt is nihilism.
I don’t think the confusion is on my side.
My ‘vision’ is seeking to making life in this country a little better by advocating single-payer universal health insurance. Your ‘opinion’ seems to be throwing poo at anyone who would dare make an effort.
If you actually had a competing and divergent idea, I might find it deserving of respect, but all you are doing is attacking the messenger without bothering in the slightest to hear the message.
See the movie.
If you do see it, I think you will find that your opinion and Moore’s are not as divergent as you think. You might even gain some new insight into the issue.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 23, 2007 at 10:08 AM Correction: ...following “divergent ideas.”
We’ve moved on to:
• Whether congress is competent
etc.---------------------------------------------
Wolf,I must admit to just killing time here. I’ve said all I have to about the film and Moore in the first couple of posts. I guess I am just toying with LB as I might with a kitten. (At age19 our cat is not playful anymore.)
It is also an experiment to see if LB really ever even reads what is in opposition to his views. On another thread I recently explained that I was able to get another excitable character to reply in multiple postings (4 x 4000 words or 16,000 words ‚ my record). When I said LB was no fun anymore I thought that would be the end of the game — not so.
Since I’m still getting replies it seems apparent there has been little care given to what anyone really writes. Too busy composing the next rant, I suppose.
I often told my advertising clients that subtlety in the headlines or text of their ads was wasted on many in their audience. The current style, especially in TV ads is probably a waste of the ad budget, since it is often difficult to tell just what they are trying to sell.
While the shouting cars salesman is repulsive, there is a middle ground approach. Get their attention — give the salient facts and benefits — and let them decide. If LB really wants to influence my thinking the method being used is the very worst. Rule Number One: Never piss off your audience.
I think everyone else has had their say. It is encouraging to see that many, while presenting differing views, are at least still civil in any objections.
Maybe this one will get through the diatribe.
:-)
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 23, 2007 at 10:16 AM wolf,
Say something meaningful and we’ll see how it goes. Ad hominum seem about the limit of your capabilities.
Have you seen the movie, yet? If you do, you may discover just how completely wrong your poorly informed characterizations of it are.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 23, 2007 at 10:17 AM WTH,
Cut the smug self-congratulation and see the movie.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 23, 2007 at 10:22 AM WTH, wolf,
The opening sentences of the article we are presumably discussing are:
“The health care industry is having palpitations over Sicko. “I don’t think Michael Moore set out to make a balanced movie,” said Karen Ignagni, president of the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans, regurgitating the industry’s key talking point. But truth is not always found in the balanced middle.”
Please tell me how either of you are not just regurgitating that same key talking point?
What meaningful response have you made to the idea behind the high-lighted theme?
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 23, 2007 at 10:42 AM WTH,
You want to diverge from a discussion of Moore’s movie and it’s examination of other nations’ universal health-care systems in comparison to the private insurance scam in this country and instead whine about how your Congressman is not responsive to your opinion, how I am disrespectful and insulting of your opinion, how incompetent Congress is; any non-sequitor distraction from the primary subject.
That is what is meant by ‘red-herring’.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jul 23, 2007 at 11:05 AM LB,
The subject was exhausted long ago.
I’m sure your congressman would enjoy hearing from you.
You could borrow from the old SNL show and slightly modify, “Jane, you ignorant slut...”
I’m sure he’ll guess who it’s from.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 23, 2007 at 6:02 PM When hilary makes president and more seats are won by democrates in the house and the senate, then you will see progress. Now the neo-cons block all bills being passed. If they are not blocked by neo-cons the president will veto them and there is noway to over ride the veto,so hang in there people help is on it’s way. Jan. 2009 we can get out of the mess bush-ites have put us in. People who voted for bush must live with your mistakes.
With bush approval rate so low nation wide people finally have come to their senses, to bad it took so long.
Posted by brian28 on Jul 24, 2007 at 10:50 AM I don’t get what’s so hard about Universal Health Care. It’s so desparately needed. Pass it already. It’s a classic no brainer move.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jul 25, 2007 at 7:40 AM cabdriverinchicago,
“I don’t get what’s so hard about Universal Health Care. It’s so desperately needed. Pass it already. It’s a classic no brainer move.”
It would seem so — We have universal roads, universal libraries, and from the look of many drivers and people next to me at the supermarket, universal telephone service. So why not health care?
My father started working for a company just before WW2 which had just instituted a unique management system. It was called a Corporate Partnership. Instead of employees they were “members” of the corporation.
They had excellent health care — spouses and dependent children fully covered — no deductible. (for life)
Company rules were fully explained prior to hiring and a lengthy probation period was a time to decide if the rules were acceptable to the worker and if the worker’s performance indicated he/she was a good prospect for membership.
The Benefits to all members:
• An excellent cafeteria with at least three entrees, beverage and a wide choice of desserts. (priced at cost)
• A barber shop, bowling alley, doctor and dentist on the premises.
• There was an active social program — sports, picnics, parties.
• There were spring and fall bonuses based on the company’s performance.People who didn’t work there knew all the disadvantages:
• No unions (They tried to get in, but had nothing to offer that was better.)
• Lower starting pay
• There was a strict dress codeHere’s where the “no brainer” meets a challenge — the cost.
At semi-annual meetings worker members and manager members discussed and voted on benefits. They were kept informed of company performance and encouraged to make suggestions to improve production and cut waste.
The bonuses amounted to about 30 percent of each one’s income and came from profits. They all realized nothing is without cost. Lower profits less to go around.
-------------------------------
They have had foreign operations for over four decades, but not for the cheaper labor, rather for improved efficiency and cost of shipping. With the coming of globalization the squeeze was on. Their competition had no such employee benefit burden. As the founding family died off things gradually evolved into the sameness of other corporations. They went public with shares and had to meet analysts’ expectations. They hired managers from outside the system.
In 1990 they had their first layoff in their 113 year history. Since then they have cut payroll many times and recently moved the headquarters out of town (to where the new CEO lives).
The dress code is gone, as are the bowling alley and lifetime health care. I doubt if anyone is left who would favor the bonus over immediate gratification. They no longer have any vote anyway. Even retirees have seen their benefits diminish drastically in recent years.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 29, 2007 at 6:57 AM cabie, sorry I had to leave —(continued)
I suggest there is a parallel between the members of the “Corporate Partnership” and their employers and between the average citizen and those in leadership positions.
The original owners of the company realized THEIR welfare was dependent on the welfare of their workers. They knew a worker not only needed to earn a decent income, but would be more efficient, effective and productive if he gained directly from the success of the company. And...he would be able to perform better if his family were also well taken care of as well.
A look at the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution indicates the leaders of this nation also realized this as true for the “members” of the new nation. They pledged their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor” to building and maintaining a country which would “Promote the General Welfare” of the people.
We have lost much of that attitude. Patriotism is denigrated. Nationalism has become a dirty word. And making a fortune means more than honor and the lives of other people.(Raising the standard of living in emerging countries is often sighted as a gain from globalization, but a closer look denies that for most of those people.)
Yesterday I had a discussion with a long time friend about the U.S. economy and globalization. I mentioned that recently Bill Gates announced he is moving a substantial part of his company to Canada. The reason for the move? There he can import far more foreign workers at lower wages than he is permitted in the U.S.My friend’s response was a typical Wall St. one, “Well, he can’t stay here out of altruism. He must continue to grow the company in order to keep the investors buying in.”
----------------------------------------In my view, a rising Dow Jones is NOT synonymous with a healthy economy.
I believe our country cannot long maintain a high standard of living, if the American consumers continue to lose jobs, benefits and confidence in the future. About 75 percent of our economy is consumer dependent. The world economy has depended on the U.S. economy for decades and we are still their best customers.
Economic theory has it that we are replacing the lost manufacturing jobs with better ones. Tell that to the middle income, middle aged person who just lost his health care and has kids of college age. Tell that to my cousin’s 42-year-old son whose job just went to India. Tell that to the college grad whose first job has been filled by one of those new hires by Bill Gates.
Transnational corporatism has filled the gap left by the absence of caring about our fellow citizens and the increasing greed and allegiance to the stock market.
We “can’t” do what needs doing because too many show more concern with making money than for our own people.
Posted by whattheheck on Jul 30, 2007 at 7:20 AM Heh heh. Guess LB misses Mike so much he decided to take over his role here. Pale comparison, to be sure, but still it seems Mike was such an excellent example of the futility of resorting to insults in debate it was out there as a constant reminder to the rest of us.
This said, the quality of the discussion has definitely improved. I figure Mike must be dead if he didn’t reply to this thread. Maybe he made the mistake of getting a cab at O’Hare? You know anything about that Cabbie? Will keep up with this discussion from here on-some good insights. And LB, stop being so churlish. Mike is gone. Get over it!
Re-read this page for places where you at least elevated if not initiated the ad homs. You need David to provide an example. He’s in the process of settling in upper Canuckistan right now, but plans to be back soon. Glad to see most of the old timers still gathered at the digital woodstove.
Ps-I haven’t seen Moore’s latest LB, but I’ve read about it. Does the fact I haven’t seen it mean I’d be remiss in praising it-which I do-and recommending it to those I think still just dont get it? Sure we should have national health care, but in my opinion whats even more needed is a really comprehensive hospice system. We spend 85% of our healthcare dollars maintaining a very low quality last year of life when should be encouraging assisted suicide for seniors who are ready, not making it impossible. If we just did THAT it would likely cut current health insurance rates in half.
On the up side, a growing number of states are expanding their medical marijuana programs, which is why you havent heard from me lately. :)
Posted by recursive prophet on Aug 2, 2007 at 3:37 PM Dozens of advanced countries with better average living standards for workers than ours and comparable rates of GDP growth also have universal health care as a given with no negative effects of any kind whatsoever!! Our current system is so filled with waste, financial delinquency, CEO extravagence, and instability anyhow that we might just as well go to a new system. There is little to lose and much to gain. Our current system already gives out tons of free medical care and sliding scale based services and medications. I am a diabetic with high average daily bloodsugars well over 200. My dangerous situation will get me free or cheap insulin and medical attention through Cook County Hospital.
Our current system is inhumane and wasteful. Let’s have reform now. It is possible to do. Only big corporate profits stand in the way of progress on this particular issue.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Aug 3, 2007 at 3:31 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Terry J. Allen
- Cancer: Cause and Defects
- Regulating Good Government
- Paving the Road to Hell
- High Court May Immunize Big Pharma
The FDA's new "preemption" doctrine jeopardizes consumers' right to sue for drug-caused injuries - Change We Can Reasonably Assess
- McCain’s Aches and Pains
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
