Michael Moore and "Sicko"

[TexasLidig8r]

So, on June 29, Michael Moore releases, in the US, his new movie Sicko.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JjPBwHDhLA

This time, a supposed "documentary" on health care in the United States. The damnable thing is... there is little doubt the health care industry in the United States is in desparate need of a major overhaul.. we now have lower level insurance adjusters making medical decisions! His message about needing a system overhaul is one of merit.

The unfortunate thing is... he is such a repugnant, quivering tub of goo who is incapable of looking at things objectively, that the movie will undoubtedly be more of an attempted indictment of the Bush Administration than a good faith attempt to get an important message out. In this case, the messenger overshadows the message.

[GrapevineSooner]

No doubt, like in his previous pieces of crap, he'll distort and manipulate to his cholesterol-laden hear's content.

[royalfan5]

It just goes to show never to trust anyone from Michigan.

[Jerk]

When people start risking their lives by airing-up ding boats and floating south from Miami to Havanah, then maybe I'll be convinced that something is up. Until then, I say to anyone who thinks communist-sytle healthcare in Cuba is better than ours....move there. Please.

[JohnnyMack]

When people start risking their lives by airing-up ding boats and floating south from Miami to Havanah, then maybe I'll be convinced that something is up. Until then, I say to anyone who thinks communist-sytle healthcare in Cuba is better than ours....move there. Please.

They were trying to get treated at the base at Guantanamo Bay, not in Cuba.

[jk the sooner fan]

could he have picked an easier target?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Like Rosy and Pelosi, MM knows how to get attention.

[OklahomaTuba]

Don't ask Castro how good Cuba's medical system is, since he doesn't use it.

[BU BEAR]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8029495293276651129&q=michael+moore+fred+thompson&total=391&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Fred Thompson's net video response to Michael Moore's invitation to debate

[Spray]

Supposedly he's gone to great lengths to try and present this as a non-partisan issue; one that both sides of the aisle should come together to solve.

Of course, we won't know if he succeeded until we see the flick. I'll give it a look-see.

[JohnnyMack]

Don't ask Castro how good Cuba's medical system is, since he doesn't use it.

Again, for those of you who AREN'T paying attention. He wasn't exploring Cuba's healthcare system. He was trying to get treatment for people at Guantanamo Bay.

I'm not picking a side here, I'm just trying to keep the Republican parrots in line.

[SoonerStormchaser]

Michael Moore needs to be **** on...then shot!

[OklahomaTuba]

Again, for those of you who AREN'T paying attention. He wasn't exploring Cuba's healthcare system.

No, I am sure he knows Cuba's healthcare system very very well.

BTW, if MM is so concerned about health care & soldiers, why wouldn't he give our soldiers the care that his comrad Castro demands and gets?

[OklahomaTuba]

He was trying to get treatment for people at Guantanamo Bay.

I'm not picking a side here, I'm just trying to keep the Republican parrots in line.

Sounds like you have your facts in line, as usual.


The documentary features footage of Moore travelling to Cuba with September 11 aid workers.http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Guardian/0,,2100972,00.html

Opps.

[BU BEAR]

Wikpedia seyz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko

"Sicko (sometimes rendered as SiCKO) is the title of a film by Michael Moore, scheduled for release on June 29, 2007.[1] It will investigate health care with a focus on large American pharmaceutical companies and of corruption in the Food and Drug Administration."

Wiki says nothing about Gitmo being a subject of the film.

[Petro-Sooner]

I'm just trying to keep the Republican parrots in line.

HA Whats that suppose to mean? ;) :D

[JohnnyMack]

Sounds like you have your facts in line, as usual.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Guardian/0,,2100972,00.html

Opps.

Are you that obtuse?

[Big Red Ron]

I wish someone would do a documentary on how MM distorts facts and outright lies to make his liberal, borderline socialist points.

[Mjcpr]

Are you that obtuse?

JohnnyMack, meet Tuba.....Tuba, JohnnyMack.

[Big Red Ron]

opps.

[royalfan5]

I wish someone would do a documentary on how MM distorts facts and outright lies to make his liberal, borderline socialist points.
I thought somebody already did that. I think they were Canucks.

[Big Red Ron]

JohnnyMack, meet Tuba.....Tuba, JohnnyMack.Or, Kettle, meet pot.....Pot, Kettle.




:D
:D

[Big Red Ron]

I thought somebody already did that. I think they were Canucks.Seriously?

[royalfan5]

Seriously?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Dissent

[1stTimeCaller]

mmmmmmm pot. I always like to eat at the Kettle after blazing a few fatties.

[JohnnyMack]

All I'm saying is that Moore's efforts were NOT to try and get healthcare for these people via the Cuban healthcare system. His effort was to try and get the same healthcare treatment for people who worked cleaning up the Twin Towers after 09/11 at Guantanamo Bay. He felt that the 09/11 workers deserved the same level of care given to the detainees at Gitmo.

[Big Red Ron]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_DissentCool! Thanks.

[Big Red Ron]

All I'm saying is that Moore's efforts were NOT to try and get healthcare for these people via the Cuban healthcare system. His effort was to try and get the same healthcare treatment for people who worked cleaning up the Twin Towers after 09/11 at Guantanamo Bay. He felt that the 09/11 workers deserved the same level of care given to the detainees at Gitmo.So, are his contentions based on facts or conjecture? Serious question, I have no idea.

[SCOUT]

Cool! Thanks.

I was looking on wikipedia to remember the name of Fahrenhype 9/11 and found that there are several others too.


These include the films Michael Moore Hates America, Celsius 41.11, Michael & Me, FahrenHYPE 9/11, and most recently, Manufacturing Dissent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore_controversies

[JohnnyMack]

So, are his contentions based on facts or conjecture? Serious question, I have no idea.

I'm assuming that these were people who worked at the site that got ill and had no insurance to cover medical expenses. I guess Moore's contention is "how in the hell can we allow people to work cleaning up that mess and not have healthcare in place for them when we give free healthcare to the terrorists we're detaining because of it?"

[Big Red Ron]

I'm assuming that these were people who worked at the site that got ill and had no insurance to cover medical expenses. I guess Moore's contention is "how in the hell can we allow people to work cleaning up that mess and not have healthcare in place for them when we give free healthcare to the terrorists we're detaining because of it?"Ah, while I can see his point to some degree. The question is too simply asked. The situation is more complex than 1+1=2. I would answer in more detail but I think even the most moderately educated could make some healthy stabs at answering this question.

[BU BEAR]

I'm assuming that these were people who worked at the site that got ill and had no insurance to cover medical expenses. I guess Moore's contention is "how in the hell can we allow people to work cleaning up that mess and not have healthcare in place for them when we give free healthcare to the terrorists we're detaining because of it?"

Umm, just a gander here, but the Worker's Comp law should be taking care of those legitimate work related injuries and illnesses. They are not without coverage for work related illness and injury even if they have no personal coverage.

[JohnnyMack]

Umm, just a gander here, but the Worker's Comp law should be taking care of those legitimate work related injuries and illnesses. They are not without coverage for work related illness and injury even if they have no personal coverage.

I wasn't asking the question. Just trying to point out what the question was.

[ultimatesooner1]

I'm assuming that these were people who worked at the site that got ill and had no insurance to cover medical expenses. I guess Moore's contention is "how in the hell can we allow people to work cleaning up that mess and not have healthcare in place for them when we give free healthcare to the terrorists we're detaining because of it?"

they were paramedics, etc who volunteered to work at ground zero and their workers comp insurance is denying their claims because their injuries didn't occur while they were "officially" working

[BU BEAR]

I wasn't asking the question. Just trying to point out what the question was.

I am only saying that if the premise of the movie is that the workers got sick at the site and had no health care coverage; the movie's premise then would not be taking into account that NY has a Worker's Comp system that makes coverage available for work related injuries and illnesses. Therefore, based on that fact; the premise would be flawed at best and false at worst.

I am not trying to get personal with you. Please do not misconstrue my comments.

Ahh, I see now, we are talking about volunteers. Different kettle of fish.

[Petro-Sooner]

I am only saying that if the premise of the movie is that the workers got sick at the site and had no health care coverage; the movie's premise then would not be taking into account that NY has a Worker's Comp system that makes coverage available for work related injuries and illnesses. Therefore, based on that fact; the premise would be flawed at best and false at worst.

I am not trying to get personal with you. Please do not misconstrue my comments.

Ahh, I see now, we are talking about volunteers. Different kettle of fish.

Racist

[Big Red Ron]

Yeah, the volunteers that don't have insurance made a decision to help, probably not knowing their comp. insurance wouldn't cover them. This is a special circumstance that the Gov., Mayor and Legislature should act on.

The prisoner's health care is vital to ensure we are setting the right example on human rights.

It's my opinion that MM is making this movie, knowing why, to make a few more $$$ from the suckers that watch his drivel.

[GrapevineSooner]

I wish someone would do a documentary on how MM distorts facts and outright lies to make his liberal, borderline socialist points.

After F911 came out, a little known filmmaker made a documentary called Michael Moore Hates America.

[KABOOKIE]

Why should anyone in this country have to pay for anything?

[TexasLidig8r]

The prisoner's health care is vital to ensure we are setting the right example on human rights.



ah.. but under what basis?

They are not protected under the United States Constitution since they are not US citizens.

They are not protected under the Geneva Convention since there has been no formal declaration of war on Al Queda or persons suspected of being Al Queda.

The UN general charter? Well, we have seen how nations routinely ignore UN resolutions and the enforcement of resolution.

[Octavian]

SIA for the thread jack ;)



They are not protected under the Geneva Convention since there has been no formal declaration of war on Al Queda or persons suspected of being Al Queda.


There hasn't been a formal declaration of war since 1941...but we've been in combat operations around the globe constantly since 1947. During that 50+ year span, the the US followed the Geneva Convention (at least in principle) and in doing so, was able to preserve the moral high ground...because it was the right thing to do. Largely because of this adherence to a rule of law, the United States was (rightly) viewed by the the industrialized nations and the periphery as the better choice in the Cold War....the good guys. The popular opinions of America were pretty high.


America didn't have a policy of torture. We had higher standards for ourselves.


The Nazis didn't. Imperial Japan didn't. The VC didn't. The Soviet Union didn't. But we did because we were America and that wasn't consistent with our commitment to human rights and democratic values.



Then...the current administration coined the term "enemy combatant" and stated that because Congress hadn't technically declared war (just like it hadn't in any other instance since the end of WWII) against aQ, the US could now detain and imprison anyone they labeled as an "enemy combatant." And as you said, Lid, these people needn't be proven members of aQ or any other terrorist group, just suspected members....the only oversight came from closed-door military tribunals.


These people could then be held indefinitely and denied basic human rights as established by the Geneva Convention. The administration spoke endlessly of a War on Terror, embarked upon two liberation wars, but then pretended like the prisoners of those wars weren't really prisoners.


So now, America has a policy that allows torture. That's a tidal shift in American foreign policy.



The UN general charter? Well, we have seen how nations routinely ignore UN resolutions and the enforcement of resolution.



That's simply acknowledging the fact that you're breaking international law but don't care because other nations have previously broken international law. Our case for invading Iraq in the first place was based on the premise that the Baathists were in violation of.....err, international law. So now, the global perception is that the US can selectively enforce international law through brute force....but can disregard them when it likes. That breeds resentment and anger.


The rationales for disregarding the Geneva Convention and denying human rights to "enemy combatants" --putting that in quotes because they don't have to actually be enemy combatants...just suspected enemy combatants...as many of those who've been held captive at Gitmo and elsewhere have been released without charges being filed --have made the US government look hypocritical (simultaneously promoting democracy, freedom, and the rule of law) and cruel to the rest of the world. Largely due to this issue, we've lost respect and good will at a time (the outset of the GWOT) that we couldn't afford to squander the moral high ground.



The prisoner's health care is vital to ensure we are setting the right example on human rights.


agreed.

[TexasLidig8r]

Octavian.. interesting points,.. but, wasn't the invasion of Iraq premised on the belief that Iraq had defied the UN, had failed to comply with various resolutions enacted after the first Gulf War and its refusal to allow UN inspectors to perform their duties? We also know that France and Russia, on the UN Security Council, failed to support military action against Iraq because of their widespread abuse of the "oil for food" resolutions passed by the UN against Iraq.

It would seem that, like most nations, the members of the Security Council selectively enforce and support those resolutions that benefit them.. and ignore those that don't. Where is the moral outcry about this conduct?

As for the "combatants" or suspected "combatants".. first, let's call them what they really are... terrorists or suspected terrorists. This crap the media has deemed appropriate to refer to them.. "insurgents" is a load of horse manure.

So.. what to do with the terrorists or suspected terrorists at Gitmo? Do we try to organize a special court under the auspices of the World Court at Hague to conduct trials? Whose laws are to be applied? Whose rules of evidence? Do we basically re-enact Nurenburg? Would there ever be a consensus on this?

[Octavian]

Octavian.. interesting points,.. but, wasn't the invasion of Iraq premised on the belief that Iraq had defied the UN, had failed to comply with various resolutions enacted after the first Gulf War and its refusal to allow UN inspectors to perform their duties? We also know that France and Russia, on the UN Security Council, failed to support military action against Iraq because of their widespread abuse of the "oil for food" resolutions passed by the UN against Iraq.


all true.


France and Russia also objected to the invasion and supported the lifting of sanctions...this would allow their state-run and private corporations to go into Iraq, as Sadaam had switched his trading currency from the dollar to the euro. There were major implications if that would've happened.



It would seem that, like most nations, the members of the Security Council selectively enforce and support those resolutions that benefit them.. and ignore those that don't. Where is the moral outcry about this conduct?


All nations act on self interest. The outcry isn't there for them because they aren't the global superpower and don't promote an ideology. There is no Russianism or Frenchism. Americanism is a set of ideals we promote and encourage. When we don't follow them ourselves, we lose support and credibility.


In contrast to acting as the enforcer of international law in the Baathist situation...denying human rights as established by international law makes us appear worse than the others because we act arbitrarily as both enforcer and code breaker. There is a different standard for us...largely because we nobly took up that cause several generations ago.



As for the "combatants" or suspected "combatants".. first, let's call them what they really are... terrorists or suspected terrorists. This crap the media has deemed appropriate to refer to them.. "insurgents" is a load of horse manure.

don't disagree there either.

The problem is the term "combatant" has been applied in a legal sense to justify things we previously didn't condone abroad.

Also...the term is loosely defined. It could conceivably incorporate various other groups of domestic society...gun owners, pro-life activists, etc... Basically any group that the government deemed as potentially harmful to itself. As an example, there was a movement in California several years ago (it failed) after the implementation of the Patriot Act to categorize certain firearms as weapons of mass destruction.

The point is when the government starts bending their own laws...we're in trouble.



So.. what to do with the terrorists or suspected terrorists at Gitmo? Do we try to organize a special court under the auspices of the World Court at Hague to conduct trials? Whose laws are to be applied? Whose rules of evidence? Do we basically re-enact Nurenburg? Would there ever be a consensus on this?


That's really the question and I don't know the answer.


It would take some time, but if the GWOT is going to be a decades-long conflict like most military and geopolitical analysts project, then the US needs some code of uniformity and transparency. We can't continue operating in shadows and allowing a steady stream of dehumanizing images of abuse broadcast to the rest of the world. It undermines the long-term security of our domestic society and our troops abroad. It feeds the radical notion in other countries that we're no better than the elements with which we're fighting.


I know that's vague but continuing on our present course isn't consistent with our core set of democratic principles. The notion that it's not harmful to us is false. It corrodes our stature abroad and it numbs our domestic public to corruption and the circumvention of the rule of law. History is filled with examples of governments that eventually treat their citizens the way they treat non-citizens....and that's what really makes this much more scary and potentially disastrous for us than the Cold War.


If we give up who we are or what we say we are....it could eventually lead American society to awful places --maybe it'll take 20 or 30 years, maybe 50 --that are only the stuff of scary science fiction in our minds today.

[yermom]

tinfoil hats are comfy, aren't they? ;)

the only thing i disagree with is "insurgents"

i don't see why someone with a rifle that doesn't want Americans running their country is a "terrorist"

[TexasLidig8r]

i don't see why someone with a rifle that doesn't want Americans running their country is a "terrorist"

Because those persons with a rifle also blow up mosques, assassinate elected officials, murder civilians, both Iraqi and American, attempt to overthrow the elected form of government through murder and oppression, explode bombs in public places....

those little things.

[JohnnyMack]

Because those persons with a rifle also blow up mosques, assassinate elected officials, murder civilians, both Iraqi and American, attempt to overthrow the elected form of government through murder and oppression, explode bombs in public places....

those little things.

Are you talking about us or them?


<ducks>

[Big Red Ron]

ah.. but under what basis?

They are not protected under the United States Constitution since they are not US citizens.

They are not protected under the Geneva Convention since there has been no formal declaration of war on Al Queda or persons suspected of being Al Queda.

The UN general charter? Well, we have seen how nations routinely ignore UN resolutions and the enforcement of resolution.Exactly why we need to set the example. We don't HAVE to be cool but we should be.

[Big Red Ron]

Are you talking about us or them?


<ducks>lame.

[1stTimeCaller]

if you think that we have just torturing folks via waterboarding etc. you would be wrong.

[Rogue]

Habeus


Corpus

[Rogue]

Oh, and back to the original thread.


MM may be right, but since he's MM I really can't stand it. He's prolly a pinko commie that should go to jail for something or another. :confused:

[critical_phil]

Supposedly he's gone to great lengths to try and present this as a non-partisan issue; one that both sides of the aisle should come together to solve....

or perhaps he's just trying to influence another election.


“Millions of people are going to see this movie, and they’re going to demand that the candidates take a strong position for universal health care that removes profit and the private insurance companies from the equation,” Moore said

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=1008024


i posted the link to the movie in the other MM thread. i watched it, and it's about what you'd imagine it would be.

the gitmo deal was as hokie as anything i've ever seen on film, and imo, anyone who shells out their hard earned money to see this is retarded.

[def_lazer_fc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Dissent
wow, a cool play on words off an old noam chomsky book. yawn.

[def_lazer_fc]

The prisoner's health care is vital to ensure we are setting the right example on human rights.

surely you're joking.

[Big Red Ron]

surely you're joking.Not. At. All.

[usmc-sooner]

I'm not picking a side here, I'm just trying to keep the Republican parrots in line.

when you get the Democrat chickens lined out then come worry about the Republican parrots

[KABOOKIE]

Get a job. Stop spending your money on rimz for your ride, stereo surround sound, whatever the newest NBA style Nike shoes, fart car attachments, big screen TVs, cell phone, iPods and put it towards Health Insurance.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Get a job. Stop spending your money on rimz for your ride, stereo surround sound, whatever the newest NBA style Nike shoes, fart car attachments, big screen TVs, cell phone, iPods and put it towards Health Insurance.
Werd

[thenotman]

Get a job. Stop spending your money on rimz for your ride, stereo surround sound, whatever the newest NBA style Nike shoes, fart car attachments, big screen TVs, cell phone, iPods and put it towards Health Insurance.

I don't have any of that but a cell phone and still Health Insurance is outrageous. And as the ladies tell me "I'm strong like bull". When I worked for OU they wanted $1200 a month to insure a HEALTHY family of 4.

Here is your fear


Hating on Michael Moore is a worn-out cliche
Published by Amanda Marcotte June 24th, 2007 in Movies

So, Michael Moore’s got a new movie coming out, which means it’s time for another round of “Naturally, I generally abhor Moore’s methods, but this time he made a really good movie.” I have no idea why it’s mandatory to condemn Moore to praise him, but at this point in time, it’s pretty much the cliche when reviewing his movies. Which is why I liked Ezra’s review of Sicko—he doesn’t play the usually-Moore-annoys-me card in order to gain some credibility to give the movie a good review. He also has a stellar read on Moore’s role in the national discourse:

In this, it fits well with the Michael Moore oeuvre, which has always been more complex and incisive than either critics or supporters gave him credit for. Moore has routinely explored the dark edges of the country that don’t fit with his, or our, conception of what America is. Roger and Me, his breakthrough film on the decline of American manufacturing and the abandonment of Rust Belt economies, asked how we could allow a once-proud city like Flint, Michigan, to collapse in on itself, and how we could permit those most culpable to blithely ignore its demise. Bowling for Columbine was about our casual acceptance of violence and fear as permanent residents in our towns and neighborhoods. And Fahrenheit 9/11 was about our peculiar willingness to tacitly accept our leaders’ relentless dishonesty.

One of the sadder examples of how anti-Michael Moore revisionism has taken hold in the common wisdom has got to be the way people misremember Bowling for Columbine. Example:

And while “Sicko” is, in my view, the most persuasive and least aggravating of all of Moore’s movies, it still bears many of the frustrating Moore earmarks — most notably, a deliberately simplistic desire to render everything in black-and-white terms, as if he didn’t trust his audience enough to follow him into some of the far more complex gray areas.

Reading that sentence made my eyebrow shoot up. Sure, Fahrenheit 9/11 was pretty black-and-white in the way that it painted the Shrub as an irredeemable villain, but that’s a fair assessment of the man. But the idea that Moore doesn’t paint in gray is more a product of conservative-fueled revisionism than of remembering Moore’s movies accurately, because Bowling for Columbine was a rather complex look at the place of violence in the American character. It’s remembered as an anti-gun control screed, but seriously, watch it again. It’s anything but—if you’ll remember, he even noted that Canada has lax gun control like the U.S., but nowhere near the violence. The movie ended up gently condemning the liberal affection for gun control a a solution to our violence problems. And in a short period of time, he managed to point to a large number of factors that feed our violence-driven culture. It’s been a couple years since I’ve seen it, but off the top of my head, I remember:

* American imperialism and the military fetishizing that has erupted in the wake of much government and Hollywood propaganda to support imperialism.
* The history of American racism and the way that white people project our own violent history onto black people and assume they are dangerous.
* Alienation. I was particularly impressed with Matt Stone’s interview about the Columbine killings and his observation about how high school is romanticized in our culture, when it’s actually kind of hellish, and how this feeds teenage alienation to the point it can become murderous.
* Media sensationalism. It’s deeply amusing to me that people treat Moore like he’s some kind of alarmist when he’s actually an astute critic of media alarmism, the real kind, where the media makes a big fuss over issues that aren’t actually that important in the grand scheme of things. Surely I’m not the only one who recalls the part of Bowling where Moore pointed out that the media makes crime in America seem much more rampant than it is, which perversely feeds the paranoia that leads to so much unnecessary violence.

I got the impression watching the movie that Moore probably did set out to make a movie promoting gun control and then ended up, in the course of his research, realizing that gun control was a band-aid solution to a much deeper problem. While he still gave gun nuts hell—which they totally deserve for their resistance to even common sense measures that fall far short of interfering with legitimate gun trade—he also skewered the black-and-white thinking that posits that gun control is the solution to the problem. And for his efforts, he gets slurred as a black-and-white thinker, by the very black-and-white thinkers who can’t even handle a tiny bit of criticism of the NRA for engaging in sleazy tactics like holding conventions in cities that have experienced mass shootings recently.

But I do think liberals who dislike Moore so strongly are genuine in their distaste and not just trotting it out to appear fair’n'balanced. And I think that Ezra’s review points to why—the overarching theme of Moore’s career has been an attack on American exceptionalism, a disease that infects both the left and the right in this country. Granted, the right suffers from the disease far more, but the belief that America is somehow better or at least different and can’t be held up to the same standards as other countries is endemic. It’s why so many usually intelligent liberal types fell into the trap of supporting the invasion of Iraq, when it should have been clear from the beginning what a bad idea it was—they just believed, in their heart of hearts, that America could succeed at this task that would be impossible for anyone else. Maybe the Marshall Plan’s effectiveness has deluded us into believing we have powers we don’t, or maybe it’s just that exceptionalism is drilled into our heads from the first day we crack open a history book in school. But Moore’s repetitive refrain that Americans would overcome a lot of our problems by learning a little humility grates on a fundamental and widely shared belief, which goes a long way towards explaining why critics particularly don’t like the way Moore sandbags people and takes them down a few notches. It’s a representation of what he’s doing to our cherished belief in our superiority.

The problem is Moore’s right. American exceptionalism is our nation’s tragic flaw and until we set out to fix it, we’re going to continue to make one avoidable blunder (like the Iraq war) after another

http://pandagon.net/2007/06/24/hating-on-michael-moore-is-a-worn-out-cliche/

[usmc-sooner]

I got insurance for a healthy family of 5 and it aint even close to $1200 a month. If you're going to be a dumbass and not find the best plan for you, don't expect the government to tow you along.

[Big Red Ron]

I don't have any of that but a cell phone and still Health Insurance is outrageous. And as the ladies tell me "I'm strong like bull". When I worked for OU they wanted $1200 a month to insure a HEALTHY family of 4.

Try paying for one emergency room/ambulatory situation or God forbid a week in the Hospital by just one of the four without insurance and tell me how that works out for ya.

[picasso]

Are you that obtuse?
http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive/april2003/timrobbins2.jpg


there's plenty to fix but let me tell you folks the gubment does not need to stick it's hand too far in.
if you've ever been to Indian Health Care (I have many a time) you would understand what I is sayin.

[SCOUT]

Sure, Fahrenheit 9/11 was pretty black-and-white in the way that it painted the Shrub as an irredeemable villain, but that’s a fair assessment of the man.

It sure is surprising that a guy who would write this quote agrees with Michael Moore.:rolleyes:

As for the health insurance complaint, it generally comes down to a misunderstanding. Health insurance isn't meant to get you something for free. The premium you pay doesn't literally cover you for that month. It is to cover you when you incur some large expense.

Healthcare costs are indeed high but you get what you pay for. Look at the level of care provided in these other countries that some like to hold up as a standard.

[thenotman]

I got insurance for a healthy family of 5 and it aint even close to $1200 a month. If you're going to be a dumbass and not find the best plan for you, don't expect the government to tow you along.

Obviously I didn't take what they offered. The point is as I think Goulhiani or Romney said its that Health Insurance is geared toward companies and government paying for it. I liked their idea of more affordable individual plans.

[stoopified]

I wish someone would do a documentary on how MM distorts facts and outright lies to make his liberal, borderline socialist points.
You da man.Couldn't have made the point better myself.

[StoopTroup]

Finally watched this one the other night.

Our Healthcare system is a difficult mess.

Cash is King and if you don't have any...you'll be sent in a cab to skid row.

That part kind of cracked me up as I believe those folks who got sent away like that have had more than a few problems for quite a while. It's pretty sad though.

[soonerboomer93]

um, I paid around 800 for 1 year of health insurance that covers me in the states and internationally

there is a high deductable, but I've needed to see a doctor (other then the optomitrist, and vacinations for travel) 1 time the last decade

[soonerboomer93]

Oh, I have seen a doctor over here 2 times this year due to nasty sinus infections. Out of pocket cost for me even worrying about my insurance.

less then $50 for meds and doc visit

[StoopTroup]

I've got more than one Doctor and my primary care Doc is tired of seeing me in his waiting room I think.