‘Sicko’ an eye-opener
See the Michael Moore movie Sicko. It is a real eye-opener. Clearly we need to join the civilized world with preventive and other health care for all. Now!
We need to stop giving the insurance companies 30 percent overhead and profit on health care. Drugs need to be reasonably priced. Record profits for pharmaceutical companies are not right when they come from the poor and middle class.
Dr. Joel Leventhal, Denver
what type of a dr. are you? social worker?
did the moron moore compare any of the socialized health care to ours or just make his all up?
While I was working in Caracas Venezuela, go ole hugo put up a brand new health clinic for the poor just before last decembers election. there were lines for blocks to get in to see a medical person and at the end of the day hundreds were always still in line. all of the poor who were standing in these lines said what a guy and voted for hugo again becasue he is such a man of the people and wants to help the poor. The clinic was closed the 1st of Feb. as it had served it purpose of getting hugo elected.
and BTW joel please spare us your wore out tune of everything comes off the backs of the poor and middle class. if you really feel that way take some of your wealth as a DR and send in everything you make over 50k to help out. call it a donation to the IRS in addition to your taxes, it will make you feel better.
4:38
Haven't seen the movie have you?
Posted by conservative media on August 6, 2007 06:56 AMCON Media,
Why would the 4:38 anonymous poster need see the movie? To line Moore's pockets even more? If there were any "Conservative"conspiracy crocumentary made by Rupert Murdoch would you go to see that? I suspect not.
Hey doc, stick to your boob jobs and male enhancements. If you were an economist or businessman, then you would be found guilty of financial malpratice.
Doc, do you actually charge money to heal the elderly, the terminally ill, young children and those on their death beds? Do you charge for office visits? Did you ever cash a check from an insurance company? Did you ever cash a medicare check? Did you ever accept any "free samples" from a drug company? Well, did you, doc? Or do you do it all pro bono?
Those damn insurance companies, those rotten drug companies...how dare they?
Posted by Hank on August 6, 2007 07:48 AMThere's nothing wrong with our health care system. Insurance companies and drug companies raping the general population is nothing but good old capitalism and good for the economy. Of course I haven't had anyone in the family get sick yet.
Posted by GOP Stooge on August 6, 2007 08:07 AMThe question posed by conservative media needs to be asked again, this time to all who have followed:
Have you seen the movie?
If not, please disregard all kneejerk Moore-hating flamers until they do so. Until then, their opinions have no relevance.
Posted by Tom on August 6, 2007 08:11 AMGOP Stooge: Drug companies foot the bill for most R & D in the healthcare industry? How many lives have been saved or enhanced because they are allowed to make a profit? answer: uncountable. SO your and Dr Joel's answer is to have the government (meaning all people but his definition of poor and middle class) pay not only for all health care but also for all Drug R & D. And you really think that would make everyone's health care better and provide for medical break throughs?
Get real.
AF
"Haven't seen the movie have you?"
I wouldn't go see a movie for factual info on socialized medicine. Doesn't matter who made it.
I don't go to Al Gore for climate change info nor do I ask Rosie O for details about 9/11.
What's your point?
Posted by KW on August 6, 2007 08:46 AMDr. Joel
The real sick thing about the movie "Sicko" is that we have people in our society (they actually walk among us) who are so gullible that they accept what a flamboyant, over rated, self serving con man puts on a piece of film or disc and calls truth. It's even sicker that someone who ostensibly earned the title of "Doctor" of anything falls into that category.
Our health system needs a lot of repair without question. But after living for over 18 years in three different countries that have that wonderful concept of universal health care, I assure you that is not the way to go.
Posted by on August 6, 2007 08:51 AM8:22am
Spoke like a true right wing nut job. The doc is doing nothing but trying to help the less fortunate people that can't afford healthcare in this country and all you want to protect is a bunch of greedy billoinares. You make me sick. You are the true scum of the earth.
Here we go again...a bunch of name calling without serious discussion and legitimate offers towards solutions. I think the Rocky posts certain letters to get such a reaction. Come on guys...raise the intelligence quotient and keep posts legit and thoughtful
Posted by cheryl on August 6, 2007 08:54 AMI would never open my mind. What's your point?
Posted by The real K-Dum on August 6, 2007 09:04 AMWhy would I want to go to socialized medicine ? I can go to MY doctor when I need to, pay the $20.00 co-pay and be done with it. Moore has more money than he know what to do with.
Posted by Rick on August 6, 2007 09:13 AMAhh yes the old R&D mantra. You really are a stooge Af
Posted by on August 6, 2007 09:22 AMJack BONEHEAD
"If there were any "Conservative"conspiracy crocumentary made by Rupert Murdoch would you go to see that?"
Of course I would and I do. He owns FauxNews.
KW said:
"What's your point?"
How can you criticize something you haven't seen?
Posted by conservative media on August 6, 2007 09:54 AMHow could any one be dumb enough to go see m,moore's movie? People who believe his garbage are the same idiots who vote for democrats.
Posted by bart on August 6, 2007 09:59 AMbart
Hi Keith
Posted by conservative media on August 6, 2007 10:07 AMCM - Where did I criticize the movie?
I will critique socialized medicine. I don't need to see a movie to get the most accurate info on that subject.
You seem to think everyone must line MM's pockets at the cinema before they can be considered knowledgable on this subject. That's like saying I can't talk about Disneyland unless I've seen Bambi.
Movies are for entertainment my friend, nothing more.
I haven't see Moore's movie but I did listen to Mike Rosen's radio show one day and one of his listeners (who did not have insurance and who was opposed to any government managed system). Who do you think is going to pay for this guy's care if a car crosses into his lane and he winds up in a hospital? You do! Like it or not. In one way or another we all pay for the misfortunes of others. The only issue is whether some people should make a profit on the misery of others.
Posted by on August 6, 2007 10:31 AMOne issue I don't see anyone address is how to pay for those who are chronically ill through no fault of their own, Type 1 diabetes, Parkinson's, cancer (especially in children). Insurance is costly, copays high, and denials for coverage frequent. These people need to be risk pooled with healthy people. Anyone have ideas? Also, preventative care (mammograms, prostate screenings etc) are mandated by law. Would insurance cover these things if they were not mandated. Insurance companies tried to get rid of the mandates through Congress. Come on, this is preventative care. Again, any ideas?
Posted by cheryl on August 6, 2007 11:07 AMMedicare is government run healthcare. They reduce the allowable payment to virtually nil. Healthcare providers will all go broke once Medicare controls all the medical business.
When REAL ID, and National healthcare, are with us, how long will it be before Big Brother prevents you from buying that pepperoni and sausage pizza? Where will we scan our ID card at the icecream store to show our cholesterol score is suitable for that double dip?
Posted by Holy Reality on August 6, 2007 11:13 AMNot only that HR, what if you're someone who engages in dangerous activities for sport like skiing, motorcycles, quads, mountain climbing, sky diving, etc...
Will you be penalized or maybe forbidden to partake in these activities when the gov decides you cost the medical system too much?
What's next? Do we start wearing monitored anklets so the gov can trace our movements and keep us from our desired activity?
I know these scenarios are rather far fetched but our beloved gov never seems to know where the rational line should be drawn.
I sure as heck don't trust them with another mandated participation program.
Posted by KW on August 6, 2007 11:38 AMA comment above stated the drug companies do most of the research on diseases, this may be true however they do research on treating the symptoms. There will be no cures for major diseases as long as the research is done by profit driven companies. These companies would lose Billions if there were cures for cancer, aids, diabetes etc. The money is in the treatment not the cures. If you believe these companies would take cures the market place and lose billions in treating the symptoms you are naive. We will see no cures for major diseases anytime soon because there is no money in it!!!
Posted by Mike D. on August 6, 2007 12:02 PMHave not seen the movie and really don't need to see it to know that our healthcare is in a mess. But Bart, KW, & the unnamed coward they won't buy into MM's movie but they buy everything that Bush, Fox news and the GOP tell them. And that there is no problem.
Posted by larry on August 6, 2007 12:28 PMMike D 12:02 PM
It's refreshing to see the truth spoken on the subject of health care. Outside of antibiotics, diagnostics, emergency surgeries and trauma care, we have a very feeble approach to health care in this country.
Rather than work for cures, organizations such as the American Cancer Society are growing rich and powerful supporting the treating of symptoms of the diseases which are making them rich -- cures are the last thing they want. A healthy society is not a profitable society.
Drug companies spent over $24 billion last year promoting their oft times ineffective chemicals, and only $5.3 billion (even that figure is questionable due to the accounting practices applied) on drug research. Meanwhile, they all had record profits.
The AMA and FDA in concert have a choke hold on "medical care" in this country. They routinely deny anything that does not have a readily identifiable profit margin built in.
Posted by Trinity on August 6, 2007 01:17 PM9:22:
So I am a stooge for alluding to how R & D are done efficiently. And How is it a Mantra? I do not understand your paradigm leap. Please explain to me how R & D would get done. R&D needs reward or crisis ( the reward being life or freedom) History proves that.
AF
larry - Did you have a point to make or you just throwing talking point spitwads to try and get a rise out of someone?
Posted by KW on August 6, 2007 01:52 PMfrom msnbc.com
When health care is rationed, the results can be heartrending.
Such a story makes for one of the most compelling episodes in "Sicko," Michael Moore's documentary about the dysfunctional U.S. health care system. In the film a Kansas woman named Julie Pierce tells of the death of her husband, Tracy, after their insurance company refused to approve a bone marrow transplant to treat his advanced kidney cancer.
While the tale is enormously sad, it conveys a totally inaccurate impression of what we need to fix health care in America.
Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t get me wrong. As I’ve written before, I think America should have national health care just like every other industrialized nation. We are paying way too much for an irrational system that leaves huge parts of our society unprotected. Access to decent health care should be a right, not determined by whether a person has a certain job or a huge bank balance. So, I agree with the premise of Moore’s movie. I hope it provokes even more discussion about our health care crisis.
But Julie Pierce’s story does not help the argument. Her husband suffered kidney cancer that had spread throughout his body before his death at age 36 in 2004. In recent years a few experimental drugs have shown some promise for treating advanced kidney cancer, but even now the diagnosis is nearly a death sentence.
Tough choices
The bone marrow transplant that the Pierce family sought has never been shown to help. A few doctors have suggested it might. The National Institutes of Health is now running two clinical trials to try to find out. Still, it is an experimental concept with little scientific basis.
Pierce implies in the movie that her insurance company and the group that runs it — the board of directors of the hospital where she works — refused to pay for the treatment because she is white and her husband was black. Of course, we know nothing of the insurance company or board's motives. In the movie, neither speaks.
Almost any insurance plan would have turned down the request for an experimental treatment, with no proven value, costing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is critical to note that the national health plans in Canada, Great Britain, France and Cuba that are featured in "Sicko" would also have turned down such treatment. No matter where he was getting his care, Tracy Pierce almost certainly would have died at a young age.
Even in the wealthiest countries, health resources are limited. Everyone cannot get every treatment they believe might help them.
Click for related content
Share stories, views about medical rationing
Little defense for U.S. health care in "Sicko"
Nothing funny about "Sicko" or state of health care
Medicare bills pile up when care delayed
The problem is, the rationing we have now in the United States is immoral. It's based on job status, wealth, luck, and all too often, profit for doctors, hospitals or health insurance companies. We must ration health care, but we should do it morally.
Science vs. status
A big step toward moral rationing is to base treatment options on good science, not status.
A horrifying example of what happens when treatments are based on anecdotes rather than science occurred in the 1980s. A few oncologists became convinced, on the basis of a handful of cases, that the best treatment for advanced breast cancer was a combination of bone marrow transplants and very high doses of chemotherapy. Insurance companies at first refused to pay, saying correctly that the treatment was experimental, unproven. As a result, the oncologists encouraged their patients to sue.
What jury could say no to a woman, often a young mother, when a doctor would testify that the treatment costing tens of thousands of dollars was her best chance for life?
When clinical trials of the bone marrow procedure were ultimately completed a decade later, they proved the procedure was actually killing the women faster than the breast cancer. More than 100,000 women underwent the marrow transplants involving untold suffering and billions of dollars in expenditures — money that could have been put to so many truly life-saving uses.
A sad story of a young person dying may make for a compelling scene before a jury or in a documentary, but it doesn’t help us know what needs to be done to fix our broken health care system.
© 2007 MSNBC Interactive
from msnbc.com
When health care is rationed, the results can be heartrending.
Such a story makes for one of the most compelling episodes in "Sicko," Michael Moore's documentary about the dysfunctional U.S. health care system. In the film a Kansas woman named Julie Pierce tells of the death of her husband, Tracy, after their insurance company refused to approve a bone marrow transplant to treat his advanced kidney cancer.
While the tale is enormously sad, it conveys a totally inaccurate impression of what we need to fix health care in America.
Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t get me wrong. As I’ve written before, I think America should have national health care just like every other industrialized nation. We are paying way too much for an irrational system that leaves huge parts of our society unprotected. Access to decent health care should be a right, not determined by whether a person has a certain job or a huge bank balance. So, I agree with the premise of Moore’s movie. I hope it provokes even more discussion about our health care crisis.
But Julie Pierce’s story does not help the argument. Her husband suffered kidney cancer that had spread throughout his body before his death at age 36 in 2004. In recent years a few experimental drugs have shown some promise for treating advanced kidney cancer, but even now the diagnosis is nearly a death sentence.
Tough choices
The bone marrow transplant that the Pierce family sought has never been shown to help. A few doctors have suggested it might. The National Institutes of Health is now running two clinical trials to try to find out. Still, it is an experimental concept with little scientific basis.
Pierce implies in the movie that her insurance company and the group that runs it — the board of directors of the hospital where she works — refused to pay for the treatment because she is white and her husband was black. Of course, we know nothing of the insurance company or board's motives. In the movie, neither speaks.
Almost any insurance plan would have turned down the request for an experimental treatment, with no proven value, costing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is critical to note that the national health plans in Canada, Great Britain, France and Cuba that are featured in "Sicko" would also have turned down such treatment. No matter where he was getting his care, Tracy Pierce almost certainly would have died at a young age.
Even in the wealthiest countries, health resources are limited. Everyone cannot get every treatment they believe might help them.
Click for related content
Share stories, views about medical rationing
Little defense for U.S. health care in "Sicko"
Nothing funny about "Sicko" or state of health care
Medicare bills pile up when care delayed
The problem is, the rationing we have now in the United States is immoral. It's based on job status, wealth, luck, and all too often, profit for doctors, hospitals or health insurance companies. We must ration health care, but we should do it morally.
Science vs. status
A big step toward moral rationing is to base treatment options on good science, not status.
A horrifying example of what happens when treatments are based on anecdotes rather than science occurred in the 1980s. A few oncologists became convinced, on the basis of a handful of cases, that the best treatment for advanced breast cancer was a combination of bone marrow transplants and very high doses of chemotherapy. Insurance companies at first refused to pay, saying correctly that the treatment was experimental, unproven. As a result, the oncologists encouraged their patients to sue.
What jury could say no to a woman, often a young mother, when a doctor would testify that the treatment costing tens of thousands of dollars was her best chance for life?
When clinical trials of the bone marrow procedure were ultimately completed a decade later, they proved the procedure was actually killing the women faster than the breast cancer. More than 100,000 women underwent the marrow transplants involving untold suffering and billions of dollars in expenditures — money that could have been put to so many truly life-saving uses.
A sad story of a young person dying may make for a compelling scene before a jury or in a documentary, but it doesn’t help us know what needs to be done to fix our broken health care system.
© 2007 MSNBC Interactive
KW
Anyone on the left who makes one or more points is spewing "talking points" from MSNBS, DailyKos, etc - to get a "rise" out of someone.
KW's arguments, however, are always beautiful, insightful & original masterpieces that stream from KW's razor-sharp intellect. He must be some kind of savant!
And if we "socialize" medicine, KW's going to have to stop his annual expedition up Mt Everest - as well as his sky-diving, skiing, dog-sledding,etc. - what a shame!
Oh, brother!
Posted by drew on August 6, 2007 02:05 PMKW ” know these scenarios are rather far fetched but our beloved gov never seems to know where the rational line should be drawn.”
Farfetched? No! .. really?
Get a grip KW.
The current system spends 95% of healthcare dollars on clinical response to morbidity, and 5% on prevention. It also hands huge profits to the supply side, really huge.
So huge that they invest more money in marketing and lobbying than into R&D.
The government is already involved by subsidizing industries and products that then lower our health, does not allow itself to bargain for better prices on drugs, gives generous grants for R&D that do not have to be paid back, and allows monopolistic behaviour with how patents are extended.
Healthcare involves more than just clinical care and response, and government must play its part and play it properly.
As for paying for other peoples bad behaviour, you already do to a large extent since the fully-burdened risk is only partially paid by the individual subscriber, the rest is spread across all subscribers covered by that company, and across all other subscribers due to the practice of reinsurance. It is perhaps a good idea to carry a loading over into a single-payer HC system, but there is a limit as to how far that can be pushed without making it discriminatory.
Bango
Don't expect KW to respond to your well educated posting he is going to have to call fox news or W to come up with a rebuttal.
Thanks larry, we can always count on you for... well, what is it you offer again?
Bango - Your argument doesn't take three very important things into consideration:
1) Socialized medicine isn't practiced anywhere in the world with a population even close to ours. Any attempt by the US to install such huge operation would be monumental to say the least.
2) Our government has shown itself on numerous levels that efficienlty running any bureaucracy is beyond their grasp.
Social Security
Medicare
Medicade
FEMA
Welfare
Food stamps
These are but only a few examples fo total inefficiency when it comes to providing benefits to citizens. The only explination anyone here as offered thus far is more of a "trust us this time we'll get it right" mentality which is the biggest head-in-the-sand approach you can take.
3) Forced participation in any additional programs smacks in the face of what the US is suppose to be, a free country.
Why don't you try backing a plan with voluntary participation for those who need the coverage and let the rest of us continue with the private insurance.
My premiums are low for someone my age. This year I had emergency surgery without delay and have seen 4 doctors for other issues to be diagnosed and/or treated with very little out of pocket expense.
The reason for this has zero to do with luck. I searched for an employer I not only desired to work for, I selected them also based on the benefits offered and it's direct effect on my expenses and well being.
In other words, I took responsibility for my own situation and planned accordingly.
Posted by KW on August 6, 2007 03:23 PMCheryl: Please summarize and provide a url for those who want to scan the source document. I had to set my alarm clock twice while plowing through your article. I know, old age is a bitch; but, have some compassion for the old and infirm!
Posted by on August 6, 2007 03:39 PMKW said ”1) Socialized medicine isn't practiced anywhere in the world with a population even close to ours”
Non sequitor really.
You also have a strong infrastructure, established medical delivery systems, educated public, and all the other components that are needed. The existing infrastructure is already serving the population, it’s not like you are going to do this in sub-Saharan Africa or delivering to a larger population than before.
”Our government has shown itself on numerous levels that efficienlty running any bureaucracy is beyond their grasp.”
Odd argument, since they are run and funded by the people you elect, and draw from the same resource pool as private industry. You are welcome to argue that an American worker instantly becomes a useless idiot as soon as they are paid by the government, but I doubt the argument has much merit.
Secondly, we know for a fact that many government agencies have been burdened with objectives that are unreasonable, rules that are overly restrictive, and underfunded, all intentionally done to sabotage them so that they serve as examples of ineptitude that you can then list.
This is a well documented Grover Norquist-style plan.
Look at FEMA that went from a world-class institution that led the world in disaster planning and management. Crippled by political appointees to prove that government is useless.
So no dice Mr.KW, your government is as efficient as you let it be.
”3) Forced participation in any additional programs smacks in the face of what the US is suppose to be, a free country.”
What does “freedom” have to do with having an equitable distribution of risk?
Actually the lower the inequality of healthcare becomes, the more free you are in a real sense because every individual’s life expectancy and security is improved.
You are already forced to participate in driving on the right, having a military and police force, obeying laws, and being a good citizen, yet this doesn’t seem to bug you.
You are however again missing the point.
We spend 95% on clinical provision – which is all the stuff you list, and only 5% on prevention, which is where the biggest costs of noncompliance and benefits are.
Because we subsidize corn production we not only destabilize neighbouring countries by selling corn below cost and thus causing illegal immigration which impacts the cost of healthcare, but it also results in cheap sugary soda that leads to obesity in children, diabetes and cardio-vascular problems which are expensive to treat. It also lowers productivity and loss of social security.
That was but one example of how the system currently produces high costs and low outcomes.
Take some of the healthcare dollar, knock off the subsidy for corn, hike a tax on sugary drinks, and invest the savings into preventative programs and subsidizing healthy choices.
Bingo bango.
Yep, M. Moore should have named his latest propaganda film Slicko!!!!
Posted by A on August 6, 2007 04:20 PMMany of the posts here slam Michael Moore for his movie and have not seen it, they also state he has more money than he knows what to do with which seems to bother them. However it doesn't seem to bother them at all that the pharma companies they defend are making record profits. The basic goal of a corporation is to make a profit, that is the function of a corporation make as much of a profit as possible. this does not bode well for the health and welfare of people at the mercy of private corporations for meds and insurance. They do whatever it takes to make as much $ as possible including refusing people care and looking for loopholes in their insurance claims. We have a problem and most of it stems from for profit health care. We need a balance and people need to realize no corporation cares one bit about you however they do care about your money!
Posted by Mike D. on August 6, 2007 05:52 PMTo all above-
I haven't had time to read all the comments in depth, but I would like to make a few points.
First, I have to say that all of the cases in which the American system has failed are lamentable. No friend of humanity wants to see people be unable to get the health care they need. Certainly, our American system does need fixing. For one, I think we would greatly benefit if we saw an emergence of smaller insurance providers, which might reasonably occur if the governmental regulations on insurance companies were relaxed. I would like to see the big insurance companies taken down once and for all because they use their market power to push people around, and I wish this weren't the case.
However, I don't think a government-controlled system would benefit our country in the long run. You see, I have a personal problem with the idea that the government could control which procedures I may get and when I may get them. You see, I recently had an abortion. I can't imagine how much more difficult my life would have been if I had allowed my government to make this choice for me. Some legislators would like to deny me the right to seek this treatment. Others would like to place a time limit on the period when I might receive this treatment. If I had had to surrender the control of my body to the dictates of some legislator, I might very well be preparing to have a baby in several months.
You see, it's all good and well when your party is in power, but you have to consider what might happen if the opposing party happened to get control.
Posted by Katherine on August 6, 2007 08:40 PMThaks Bango. But my freedom doesn't need changing in the form of socialized medicine.
Your example of my "already being forced to drive on the right" pales in comparison to universal health coverage. You see, I still have the choice of whether or not I drive on a public road. With your healthcare plan, I don't.
And the reality of the poor track record of our government bureaucracies is not an "odd argument." But you are about the 20th poster to gloss over the problems associated with creating another huge redtape boondoggle.
If you can show me marked improvement in running of the current bureaucracies then maybe we can discuss adding more. Your just saying things won't be as bad doesn't make them true. Nice optimistic outlook though.
How about the idea of a voluntary participation program? I noticed you never addressed that part.
Posted by KW on August 7, 2007 09:59 AMYea and let's just all believe everything Michael Moore has to say.......
Posted by Heather on August 7, 2007 04:38 PMYea and let's just all believe everything Michael Moore has to say.......
Posted by Heather on August 7, 2007 04:38 PMKW said: If you can show me marked improvement in running of the current bureaucracies then maybe we can discuss adding more. Your just saying things won't be as bad doesn't make them true. Nice optimistic outlook though.
That's not what Bango inferred at all. In fact, I think you're deliberately ignoring his real points: that the current Administration you admire and support has purposely crippled many of the agencies you derided in your list.
Quite candidly, that took some real audacity on your part, KW.
Posted by mytwosense on August 7, 2007 09:24 PMMany Doctors say they want a single payor health system. That single payor would of course be the government. But we already have two such systems, Medicare and Medicaid. And these same doctors hate those systems. But they want to make the rest of the system just like Medicare and Medicaid.
I thought you had be smart to be doctor.
Posted by Flash Gordon on August 7, 2007 11:01 PMFlash, where are you getting your information that doctors who support a single payer system hate Medicaid and Medicare?
Posted by mytwosense on August 8, 2007 09:25 AMsicko is a eye opener for the Cuban people.They want to know which country has a health care system like that,because they know they don't.To the Cuban people moore is like castro.A self serving liar.
Posted by bart on August 8, 2007 10:39 AMBart
Haven't seen the movie have you?
Posted by GK on August 8, 2007 10:51 AM"Haven't seen the movie have you?"
Was this statement made at moveon or daily kos?
Seems to get repeated a lot by the people who think moores films are documentaries and factual.
I don't feel any need to line the pockets of this movie maker. Movies are for entertainment.
If someone one is looking for factual info regarding healthcare in the US they should research credible information.
But as a generalization, I can usually assume that those in favor of socialized medicine have seen the movie. And they buy into most anything MM will tell them.
Posted by KW on August 8, 2007 12:13 PM"But as a generalization, I can usually assume that those in favor of socialized medicine have seen the movie. And they buy into most anything MM will tell them."
Was this statement made on Fox News or Free Republic?
Posted by GK on August 8, 2007 12:51 PM