SiCKO

[JPPT1974]

Don't have any desire to see it. As I can't stand Michael Moore!

[ramsanddodgers]

Varg, maybe it is simply another case of shooting the messenger because we didn't want to hear the message?

Yes, health care is a mess. IMHO probably the biggest reason for the high cost is the bureaucracy. Factor in the litigious society and the excessive awards given to those actually or seemingly wronged by a medical professional, the need for pharmaceutical companies to reclaim their costs of creating their medications (the costs of which need to be recovered in a relatively short period of time I understand. Something like 7 years before generics can be created for said medication?) but at the same time these pharmaceutical companies treat thousands of medical professionals to exorbitant meals and various perks along with "free" samples to dispense among patients (or staff) in order to get these professionals to prescribe their product.

I live in an area which is becoming grayer every year because housing is less affordable every year except to those retiring from other cities and settling here because of our temperate weather but doctors are supposedly moving away because they cannot afford the "quality of life" they can achieve elsewhere due to the low reimbursement rates set by the insurance companies as "reasonable and customary".

Yes, something need be done but it will take a long time and a lot of effort to turn this huge boat around.

[HUbison]

Can you provide a list of those inaccuracies? Since I haven't seen the movie, I'd like to know what I should be looking for when I watch it. And since I'm packing to return home from vacation, I don't have the 0.001 seconds to search Google at the moment.

Check out the link I provided on post #6. That's a good place to start.

I'm curious as to why Moore is so vehemently hated

I can't speak for the rest of America, but #1, I hate being lied to. And that goes for both liberal and conservatives. #2, Moore is trying to turn this country into something it was never intended to be, a socialistic, Marxist nation........but make no mistakes he will line his wallet with as many of those capitalistic greenbacks as movie-goers will give him.

And as I have run right past that "no politics" line in the sand that has been drawn, I will do two things:

1. apologize for getting political......sorry
2. move on

[Varg6]

Health care definitely has problems that need to be addressed, but I certainly don't need to see a Michael Moore film to tell me that

Fair enough.

Good discussion regardless.

Indeed!

I respect all of your opinions, and me being young I can definitely learn something from you guys, so I like reading this thread

[Fat Pang]

The free market isn't something that should be entirely trusted with state provision of services to it's populace in my view. If the market is perfect, even perfectly American then presumably it would be okay to trust it with Defence,Justice and Education. The fact it hasn't been trusted with these things indicates that there is a realisation amongst even the most inverterate capitalists that there are some things that the free market cannot be trusted to provide to all of its citizens equally or be trusted to provide in the best interests of the state itself. There is a requirement in my view for the state to provide a basic level of subsistence,justice, defence and care for those it considers worthy of placing the burden of taxation on. It's a basic social contract.

My own politics are centre-right, what a poltical scientist would define as 'Classical liberalism'. Liberal of course is a dirty word in some parts of the United States, but to me it implies a belief in the individual as a consistuent unit of politics, a belief in the free market and in free trade as a vehicle for social equality and prosperity but also a belief in the role of the state in providing some essential services that economic self-interest cannot be trusted to provide.

It's not marxist to argue for free universal health-care, unless the United Kingdom has been particularly marxist and I've missed it all of these years, but it's a very big step and it commits the state to a welfare bill of a size that demands a sizeable tax burden of its population. It's also inefficient and unable in many areas to deliver a service that is acceptable. Personally I've come to believe that the most sensible way of getting things done health-wise is to have a mix of the public sector and private sector provision where the state offers tax incentives to taxpayers for engaging a private health insurer. It reduces the burden of taxation, it reduces the demands made on the public sector and it should enable the public sector to provide a better standard of care to those who need it.

Public sector health care shouldn't be a catch-all but it should provide a safety net for those, who for whatever reason have failed in life a little more than the rest of us. If that's what Moore is arguing for then I'm all for it, if he's arguing for cradle to grave free unqualified universal healthcare, then I'm not, because it doesn't work.

I won't be seeing the film because I go to the movies to escape for a while and if I want to inform myself of the healthcare debate I'll read Newsweek or Time or even come to the Clan Ram and hang around in the Lounge.

It's a difficult question to which no country has the right answer right now and I doubt any country ever will but it's not a question to which any answer can be painted as un-British or un-American as there isn't an approach to these things that is inherently redolent of a particularly national approach.

Just my 2 cents.......................:imho:

((And if HUb ran past the no politics line, I'm pirouetting naked whilst humming the Marsellaise as I saunter past it...........so apologies, but I like this stuff))

[Varg6]

The free market isn't something that should be entirely trusted with state provision of services to it's populace in my view. If the market is perfect, even perfectly American then presumably it would be okay to trust it with Defence,Justice and Education. The fact it hasn't been trusted with these things indicates that there is a realisation amongst even the most inverterate capitalists that there are some things that the free market cannot be trusted to provide to all of its citizens equally or be trusted to provide in the best interests of the state itself. There is a requirement in my view for the state to provide a basic level of subsistence,justice, defence and care for those it considers worthy of placing the burden of taxation on. It's a basic social contract.

My own politics are centre-right, what a poltical scientist would define as 'Classical liberalism'. Liberal of course is a dirty word in some parts of the United States, but to me it implies a belief in the individual as a consistuent unit of politics, a belief in the free market and in free trade as a vehicle for social equality and prosperity but also a belief in the role of the state in providing some essential services that economic self-interest cannot be trusted to provide.

It's not marxist to argue for free universal health-care, unless the United Kingdom has been particularly marxist and I've missed it all of these years, but it's a very big step and it commits the state to a welfare bill of a size that demands a sizeable tax burden of its population. It's also inefficient and unable in many areas to deliver a service that is acceptable. Personally I've come to believe that the most sensible way of getting things done health-wise is to have a mix of the public sector and private sector provision where the state offers tax incentives to taxpayers for engaging a private health insurer. It reduces the burden of taxation, it reduces the demands made on the public sector and it should enable the public sector to provide a better standard of care to those who need it.

Public sector health care shouldn't be a catch-all but it should provide a safety net for those, who for whatever reason have failed in life a little more than the rest of us. If that's what Moore is arguing for then I'm all for it, if he's arguing for cradle to grave free unqualified universal healthcare, then I'm not, because it doesn't work.

I won't be seeing the film because I go to the movies to escape for a while and if I want to inform myself of the healthcare debate I'll read Newsweek or Time or even come to the Clan Ram and hang around in the Lounge.

It's a difficult question to which no country has the right answer right now and I doubt any country ever will but it's not a question to which any answer can be painted as un-British or un-American as there isn't an approach to these things that is inherently redolent of a particularly national approach.

Just my 2 cents.......................:imho:

((And if HUb ran past the no politics line, I'm pirouetting naked whilst humming the Marsellaise as I saunter past it...........so apologies, but I like this stuff))

...So what you're saying is each state should provide free healthcare at the expense of paying for it from a tax added onto what they're already paying monthly/yearly. With that, people also being able to decide if they want their own healthcare service instead of the state's?

[Nick]

Are you asking me this question or just making a general statement?

The post was more of a general statement, anyone who would like to respond can feel free.

Check out the link I provided on post #6. That's a good place to start.

I did, and I honestly didn't see a whole lot there. The claim being made by some is that Moore flat out lies - you said exactly that in the response I'm quoting. Yet it seemed to me that the handful of challenges made by the article seem to be more about omissions or him not telling both sides of the story.

But Moore is a filmmaker with a specific viewpoint to express; it's not his goal to give both sides equal time and let you be the judge. The point of the movie, as I understand it, is to define the problem and offer a solution (his opinion). If he's trying to convince you why he thinks the country should do something, obviously he's going to focus on the positives. I think most people making a persuasive case, dare I say activists, would follow that formula.

But yeah, I'd still be interested in a list of the actual lies that Moore tells in this film, so hopefully you're not moving on before that.

[r8rh8rmike]

The post was more of a general statement, anyone who would like to respond can feel free.

And I did! Just to set the record straight.

How was the vacation by the way?

[HUbison]

the article seem to be more about omissions

Nick, my man, you know a lie of omission is still a lie.

If he's trying to convince you why he thinks the country should do something, obviously he's going to focus on the positives. I think most people making a persuasive case, dare I say activists, would follow that formula.

So shaping an argument to display only one side of a story while suppressing known negatives of that argument as well as the positives of any opposing argument in order to arrive at a conclusive answer is not untruthful? I guess all these "Bush lied, people died" folks got it wrong.

Okay, seriously now. I said I wasn't getting back into a political discussion, but when people take Moore seriously, I just can't help myself. Does this country need healthcare reform? You bet. Does EVERY country on the planet (including Cuba, GB, and France) need healthcare reform? You bet. Even with it's problems, would I trade our healthcare system for those of other countries? Nope.

And now I'm done. You've been a beautiful audience. Good night, ClanRam!

[AvengerRam]

Actually, he can. He's a filmmaker making a film. So really, he can do whatever he wants to do, as long as it's okay with his production company. Maybe that sucks for the people working at Blockbuster who have concerns about what shelf to stick this movie on, but ultimately filmmakers do what they (and the studio) want. He can have it however many ways they'll allow.

You misunderstood me. When I say "you can't have both," I was referring to the reason why you can't pay me to go see his films. If he did a true documentary, I might be inclined to see his film. If he did an acknowledged work of semi-comical "mockumentary" (if you will), again, I might go see it.

What I personally cannot tolerate, is one who conveniently tries to play both sides. I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to make his movies. I'm just saying he can't have any of my money or my time.

[Nick]

How was the vacation by the way?

Pretty good actually. We ended up seeing quite a bit of wildlife. Helped a baby sea turtle get to the ocean. It was nice, thanks.

When I say "you can't have both," I was referring to the reason why you can't pay me to go see his films.

Fair enough.

I guess all these "Bush lied, people died" folks got it wrong.

I really don't see how that's a viable comparison at all, since the lies those critics are referring to aren't simple omissions (ala Moore) but actual false statements. But so as to keep this conversation from getting too political, that's all I'm going to say on that.

Nick, my man, you know a lie of omission is still a lie.

Not according to the article which you linked to: "What? Waiting for me to point out where Moore lied? Well as strange as this might sound… he hasn’t lied. Not directly."

Again, the fact that he omits some things to make his side sound better is pretty simple politics, and in that respect, Moore is not alone by a long shot in the use of this strategy. I wouldn't consider it lying or say that he's a liar, but I also wouldn't call him completely honest or fair. And before you go wild, I certainly think that's a distinction that can be made.

On another note, look at the way the first author ends his piece though: "A film that I hoped to be fair and full of information has come up far short of its goal. But then again, I didn’t expect anything less from a Michael Moore film."

Quickly though, I don't think it was the film's goal to be fair and full of info. So for the author to say it fell short of its goal is inaccurate, IMO. Rather, the film fell short of the goal the author thought it should have. And that's exactly the problem I see with a number of people, this expectation of a fair balanced look from Moore and the anger that ensues when that's not what's on the screen.

This isn't the Discovery Channel or TLC. This isn't a filmmaker who is reserving his personal take so that he can present both sides and let the audience decide. Moore has an opinion, he wants to express it and convince you. He's putting his personal take out there on the front line. He wants to tell you why he thinks his idea is right. He's not going to spend his movie time and money telling you why he's wrong. He has limited money and resources, so he's going to spend his time telling you why he's right and making a convincing movie. That's his choice.

Maybe it's not what you wanted, maybe its not the most honest approach in terms of telling a balanced story, but I think people expecting something else are only setting themselves up to be angry.

I don't really like Michael Moore, and I don't really dislike him. I've seen two of his movies, and only watched each once. I don't believe everything he says as fact, just as I listen to most politicians and political commentators with a grain of salt. I think when it comes to people who distort or omit facts to persuade an audience, there are bigger fish to fry in this country than a filmmaker who thus far has only grossed around $12 million in 700 theaters.

But whatever you think of Moore, this movie could certainly be a stepping stone towards an actual discussion about the health care system, its flaws, our experiences, and what we can do to right the ship. Hopefully, if this thread lives on, that's the kind of direction it takes rather than continuing to be a discussion about the legitimacy and merits of the filmmaker, a discussion which I certainly have played a role in as well but one that ultimately serves little purpose and has little usefulness.

[HUbison]

Nope, you're not going to get me to bite again. I said I wasn't going to get political, and I've already failed at that; I'm not going to make it worse. So, my absolute final word on this is.......if Moore's movie has the effect of focusing discussion to better our healthcare system, then all the better.

[Fat Pang]

...So what you're saying is each state should provide free healthcare at the expense of paying for it from a tax added onto what they're already paying monthly/yearly. With that, people also being able to decide if they want their own healthcare service instead of the state's?

In an ideal world, yes. The difficulty with this however ,would lie in the rebate applied to those who exercise their right to opt out in terms of the mechanics used to apply it. There is also the argument used by welfarists (A bad term but I can't think of a better one) where they insist that a duty of care persists on the part of those who can afford private health provision. My claim would be that costs to the state would be reduced and benefits in service would follow from allowing people to opt out.

One thing is certain and agreed by all parties in the UK; the NHS in its current directly funded form is not a model that can be sustained indefinitely given the aging of the population.

Every country has to start thinking outside the box on this question and if that's what Moore provokes in people (I've never seen one of his films) then I think it's no bad thing.

[HUbison]

There is also the argument used by welfarists (A bad term but I can't think of a better one) where they insist that a duty of care persists on the part of those who can afford private health provision.

Would Marxist be the appropriate term....from those according to their abilities, to those according to their need?

[Fat Pang]

Would Marxist be the appropriate term....from those according to their abilities, to those according to their need?

Not for me. A welfarist wouldn't have to believe in the state appropriation of the means of production and distribution of resources to believe that a graduated system of taxation is the most appropriate way of achieving their personal vision of social justice or a working welfare system.

They would disagree with me however if I were to argue, as I do, that the most efficient way of providing state services is through low taxation to enourage individual aspiration and achievment that would reduce welfare dependency. They would definitely flatly reject any notion of a flat taxation system and the option of private sector service provision with rebates, which I have come more and more to consider as being suitable for a modern democracy with a large welfare system.

They are more social democrats of the European model where the necessary evil of the market has been accepted with the proviso that it requires a large dose of state intervention. 'Nanny state' if you will (a perjorative to them I suppose, accurate to me), so maybe social democrats would be a better term for them. France would be a good example of this perhaps and maybe even post-Aznar Spain.

The trouble with Marxism is that it decided for people what their abilities were and what their needs were in defiance of thier own wishes.

Complicated subject this and all of the above is just my own take on it of course. My own feeling is that Michael Moore can be controversial for the sake of it but then that might be the best way of drawing attention to causes he believes need it.