Take ‘Sicko’ seriously
In his letter of Aug. 8, Chris Hotz decries Michael Moore’s movie Sicko, saying it shouldn’t be taken seriously, and goes on to say that Spider Man 3 was an eye-opener for him as to how the country should battle giant sand-monsters.
Without having seen Spider Man 3, and using the same logic and lack of knowledge as Hotz, I would have to say Spider Man 3 was nothing more than entertainment. So it occurs to me that Hotz must not have seen Sicko and was braying about something he knows nothing about.
I saw Sicko and believe that every American, regardless of political affiliation or religion, should go to the movie and judge for himself whether it is just entertainment or exposes the increasing health-care crisis in this country.
Andrew J. Patt, Lakewood
If Michael Moore is involved, then it is propoganda and lies. MM is in this to fleece the idiots that believe him. Obviously Mr. Patt is another of the sheep.
Posted by clyde on August 17, 2007 12:54 AMClyde, Did you see the movie? I didn't think so. I hated this book I once saw the cover of , the cover was so bland iI knew it was lies and propoganda so I told everyone I knew everything about it. Hey Clyde, MM will pay you $1000.00 if you can prove anything not a fact in his movie..... And Yes I would see any movie produced by Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity etc. I also watch Fox news. Sometimes seeing something helps you to form an opinion made up of actual knowledge about the subject...
Posted by Mike D. on August 17, 2007 01:07 AMClyde
Ever heard of an ad hominem logical fallacy?
Posted by Kyle on August 17, 2007 02:37 AMTo say or imply even that watching Michael Moores movie will open ones eyes as to the state of health care in this nation is plain silly. MM is a propagandist and liar. His past record on so alled documentries is far from questionable but is laughable. Time and again his propaganda has been proven to be a twisted spun version of the truth.
If you want to see the state of health care just go visit the emergency rooms at some hospitols, or look at the clinics. Take a look at your insurance policy and bill. Do some compariosons on what policies are out there and what they offer. Then if this does not help you make a decision I say take a trip out of country and visit some of these socalled better health care systems. Look without a red carpet treatment provided by governments to visitors. Then you may just be a litle appreciative of what we have and they don't.
Posted by on August 17, 2007 05:46 AMHey: NONAME at 5:46. Can you be more specific as to WHICH countries you suggest in your post? I have travelled, fairly extensively outside the US, and I have seen horrifying conditions in some places. However, in SOME countries with less 'power and wealth' than the US, the conditions are superior. (and this wasn't with a government sponsored tour, either)
So, please: Be specific about which countries you reference. Thank you.
Posted by Sheila on August 17, 2007 05:56 AMMy my, you say the movie will open my eyes? How in the world would a documentary of lies open my eyes? Just to prove they are lies? I allready know that based on the fact the Micheal Moore produced it.
To know the sea is made of salt, I need only one gulp. I love the scenes in the "Cuban Hospital". I have seen the real Cuban hospitals, where they beg strangers for their dental floss for suture material. Talk about propaganda.
I have also visited health care providers in other countries, including asian and third world, including France and wealthier nations. I work in this business.
Even in the socialist countries, if you have money, you get health care. If you don't, it's time to get in line and hope you don't die. That is universal amongst the socialist countries. Do you honestly think Obama or the Hildabeast will be accept care like they are proposing? They won't stand in line for health care. That is for the serfs.
Posted by Dravur on August 17, 2007 07:21 AMAndrew,
As soon as they are showing it for free, I'll go watch it.
I don't know why all you lefties feel those who have disagreed with this man's work in the past should have to shell out their hard earned dollars to a man that is known for "distorting" the truth.
You would never go to see a "documentary" made by Rush Limbaugh on this same subject now would you?
Mr. Moore is a die hard socialist and the "documentary" (read:Agenda) is probably a sing along to the great deeds socialism would provide if we had this type of governement system - no thank you.
At least Spiderman 3 was entertaining!
MM should have named his newest propaganda movie Slicko!
Posted by A on August 17, 2007 07:41 AMCan anybody give any examples of what Moore has lied about?
Posted by Larry on August 17, 2007 07:54 AMLarry
There are a lot of articles about MM and his lies on Sicko and others. Hell there is even a book coming out on it. Articles are coming from all sources and backgrounds from very liberal leaning to conservative. Take your pick and then track it back to the real sources.
I would throw out some examples, but would be called a liar because of the sources I used. It would not matter if the data was correct, I would be labeled a liar because it was little used. This exact scenario happened on another MM thread.
Personally I dont understand the Socialized medicine crowd joining up with this guy and using them as their poster boy. There are a hell of a lot better people to use and reference than MM
But hey it is done with Global Warming issue also. Ed Begely Jr is much better versed on GW, conservation and application of conservation ideas than Gore, but Gore is the poster child and carries all the baggage he has.
Oh well. Sure as hell would not use either for my Marketing or political endeavors
That's what I figured.
Posted by Larry on August 17, 2007 08:18 AMWhat did you figure?
Posted by bwr on August 17, 2007 08:25 AMThat someone who calls him a liar would say something like "I would use examples but I would be called a liar". It's too easy to call somebody a liar when you don't have to be called out on it.
Posted by Larry on August 17, 2007 08:30 AMReminds me of the turd sandwich, "You know, my opponent would not even know how to answer that question. He would just yak on and on about something irrelivent until he was saved by the buzze"...bbzzzz
Posted by Larry on August 17, 2007 08:33 AMWhere the hell did I call him a Liar? Please show me. MY MISTAKE I thought you were asking as a true question, rather than a rhetorical smart ass way.
The specific example is that a poster(not I) referenced a Lie by MM. Him using 50 Million Uninsured and the need for all to be insured. What was identified was the fact that there are different groups within that 48M - NOT 50 Million ARE NOT insured because they CHOOSE NOT to have Health insurance.
To be exactly precise LARRY it was TRUTH calling another Poster a liar not because the poster was incorrect, but because the poster was using data not used much by the MEDIA. That was very nice for the poster to be called a liar because he used the accurate data.
Do YOU want me to go into more for you? I can.
I have asked you multiple times your views on it and you chose to ignore. That is fine but when calling me liar and telling me I called MM a liar here is downright rude and uncalled for.
Posted by bwr on August 17, 2007 08:47 AMWhat wasn't mentioned in the article is that Chris Hotz is eight and was blogging without his Mom's permission...
Posted by on August 17, 2007 08:59 AMMM got all the cons panties in a bunch when he nailed their hero Bush years ago so their postings don't carry no punch with me. Now I have not seen the movie myself yet but I can tell you I don't need to see the movie to tell you we may have the best care available in the world but getting it at an afordable price is another story. Now most of the cons have it ( for now ) but they are still cons and cons could give a rats a** about the little guy that don't.
Posted by larrymc on August 17, 2007 09:05 AMAlso Larry I told you that there were many articles out there by liberal and conservative groups identifying what they view as issues with MM. Do we have to regurgitate all of that information on here or can we use data space more efficiently?
Asked before Larry but will do so again.
What is your view of how a Socialized Healthcare system should look. I am referring to Administration, Audit, Patient Care, and Innovation of Medicine. How do you see that all fitting?
True dialogue Larry or would you rather us just talk smack back and forth?
Posted by bwr on August 17, 2007 09:05 AM"There are a lot of articles about MM and his lies on Sicko and others."
I guess I took that out of context then?
I was asking a true question. And the answer I got was that he is a liar and that's pretty much all there is to that. So he said that there are 50 million people without insurance. Is that a lie?
I never once called you a liar, but you seem to want to think I did. I would say that what I did was expose the thinking that one person can be called a liar, and then asked what it was they lied about, and then somehow being turned into calling you a liar because you couldn't use any examples for making that statement true. If you feel you can actually give an answer to my question, by all means continue, I want to hear what you have to say.
Since this is the first time you have asked me anything about anything, I don't understand how you could have asked me multiple times about my views on it. Even though I'm not sure what it is that you want my views on. I guess I can be labeled as the guy that didn't know what the definition of "it" is. Is "it" the health care situation? Is "it" the movie? Is "it" the guy himself? So please, ask me a question about something.
Posted by on August 17, 2007 09:07 AMSince none of those lies have ever been mentioned or exposed, then yes please, regurgitate for me.
To answer your question, I have no idea. I am not in the health care industry and have no knowledge of the inner workings of health care or medicine.
But what does it matter, the issue here is that MM is a "liar". I asked what he lied about and got back "he's a liar".
Posted by Larry on August 17, 2007 09:13 AMSorry, 9:07 was me.
Posted by Larry on August 17, 2007 09:15 AMNo matter how you look at it, the health care system in America is going down downhill. When my wife was giving birth, the baby was starting to come out and they lost the pulse. Nurses were panicking, making bunch of phone calls, and my wife was the one who was calm and trying to get the nurses to do their jobs. Apparently the hospital didn't have a doctor on staff for their dedicated maternity ward but was on call, and was running 15 minutes late. This happened at 3pm on a Friday so there was no excuse for it and this was a major hospital in Las Vegas and was deemed as one of the best, but we almost lost our baby because there were no doctors in a HOSPITAL!!! No wonder we almost at the bottom of industrial nations in terms of infant deaths.
Another time my friend had to wait 12 hours in the emergency room to have his hand re-attached -- it was cut off in an industrial accident, again no doctor, Thursday afternoon, different city, different major hospital.
I could go on and on with personal examples, but it does illustrate a point. When people think that we have the best health care system in the world, they should visit some other countries firsthand, I have, and see their systems, like Germany, Austria, France, etc...
Finally, you have to be careful on what you say to your doctor if you have insurance because it WILL be used AGAINST YOU when you apply for new coverage, or when the insurance needs to pay something out. I know, I used to work for an insurance company.
Posted by on August 17, 2007 09:16 AMLarry - The letter this writer refers to was here a few days ago. We covered all your questions then (I'm pretty sure you had a few posts in that thread as well) but I'll dig up a few of the answers again and do a little cut and paste for you.
False Point 1) “There are nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance,” as stated on Moore's web site.
Reality 1) The Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.
Of these, the same report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Moore should have paid attention to that fact, since he agrees that being “an American” matters to get health insurance.
According to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326.
So the actual numbers should read:
47 mil uninsured
Less 9.5 mil here illegally
Less 17 mil who can afford insurance but choose not to buy
This leaves 20.5 mil uninsured. Alhough the Congressional Budget Office report estimates 45% of the uninsured will obtain health coverage with in the next 4 months due to job transitioning, we won't deduct that huge number at this time.
MM defends himself by citing other reports and argues he didn't take the time to subtract the people I've mentioned above.
But this begs the question, if MM was trying to give Americans an accurate portrayal of the health coverage conditions in the US today, why would he not deem information verification important?
Key word here would be "accurate."
Posted by KW on August 13, 2007 12:03 PM
Posted by KW on August 17, 2007 09:20 AMLarry lets be specific. Sure will do for you. What is your problem with using google? WWW.GOOGLE.com My billable rate is $135, but since we are buds Larry will do so for free.
Have given you the 50 Million mis-information. Do you accept or deny?
Will send others shortly
Posted by bwr on August 17, 2007 09:22 AMHere's another one Larry...
False Point 2) On his Web site, Moore claimed the Census Bureau had “underreported” the number of people without health insurance.
Reality 2) Cheryl Hill Lee, a co-author of the Census Bureau study Moore was citing reported the Census “underreported” the number of people covered by health insurance – meaning that more people have insurance than the report suggests. The Census also underreported the number of people covered by Medicare and Medicaid.
For another viewpoint I'd like to quote The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media and considered accurate, who puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million.
Again, why would MM argue the report was under reporting the uninsured when it was actually under reporting the insured if he wanted portray accurate information.
Key word here again would be "accurate."
This now begs the final and most important question, why would I (or anyone else) need to go see a movie from a professional propagandist when we have so many credible sources to get accurate information from regarding this subject?
Posted by KW on August 13, 2007 12:08 PM
Posted by KW on August 17, 2007 09:23 AMMoore: Man dies of kidney cancer because insurance company won't pay for bone marrow transplant.
Reality: No insurer - including the governments in Canada, Britain, France and Cuba pays for the procedure. Reason: Clinical trials show it doesn't work.
Moore presents medical care received from the French health care system as not only "free of charge", but also more responsive to patient needs than the American system. Indeed, with one phone call, a doctor will jump into a specially equipped medical van and drive to your house, saving sick patients the trouble of visiting a physician's office.
Moore must have an awfully short memory. In August of 2003, a heat wave swept across Europe killing an estimated 15,000 people in France alone. In a country where residential air conditioning is uncommon, many elderly people could not cope with two weeks of temperatures reaching 100 degrees or more. Worse yet, the health care system could not cope with the medical problems caused by excessive heat.
The public health authorities were too slow to grasp the serious nature of problems in emergency rooms and hospitals. Both were swamped. Staffing levels were critically short and many patients needing care had to be turned away. It is unknown how many people died because they could not get care in a hospital. What is known is that 42 percent of the heat-related deaths actually occurred in the hospitals, while another 15 percent occurred in nursing homes.
A French government report partly blamed the health care system for contributing to the deaths by allowing doctors and nurses to leave for the long August vacations (referenced in the movie) during a critical period.
This is just a couple on 1 Site! Other sites include:
Read Kurt Loders article on Sicko
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/07/06/2007-07-06_more_lies_from_moore.html
Using just Michael Moore and Sicko and Lies I came up with 490,000 hits Did not look at the counts on other searches for him. What would you like to discuss in a gentlemanly dialogue as it pertains to MM? Will gladly do so. Hell will even buy you a cup of coffee if you would like to discuss that way.
Posted by on August 17, 2007 09:35 AMMoore: Man dies of kidney cancer because insurance company won't pay for bone marrow transplant.
Reality: No insurer - including the governments in Canada, Britain, France and Cuba pays for the procedure. Reason: Clinical trials show it doesn't work.
Moore presents medical care received from the French health care system as not only "free of charge", but also more responsive to patient needs than the American system. Indeed, with one phone call, a doctor will jump into a specially equipped medical van and drive to your house, saving sick patients the trouble of visiting a physician's office.
Moore must have an awfully short memory. In August of 2003, a heat wave swept across Europe killing an estimated 15,000 people in France alone. In a country where residential air conditioning is uncommon, many elderly people could not cope with two weeks of temperatures reaching 100 degrees or more. Worse yet, the health care system could not cope with the medical problems caused by excessive heat.
The public health authorities were too slow to grasp the serious nature of problems in emergency rooms and hospitals. Both were swamped. Staffing levels were critically short and many patients needing care had to be turned away. It is unknown how many people died because they could not get care in a hospital. What is known is that 42 percent of the heat-related deaths actually occurred in the hospitals, while another 15 percent occurred in nursing homes.
A French government report partly blamed the health care system for contributing to the deaths by allowing doctors and nurses to leave for the long August vacations (referenced in the movie) during a critical period.
This is just a couple on 1 Site! Other sites include:
Read Kurt Loders article on Sicko
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/07/06/2007-07-06_more_lies_from_moore.html
Using just Michael Moore and Sicko and Lies I came up with 490,000 hits Did not look at the counts on other searches for him. What would you like to discuss in a gentlemanly dialogue as it pertains to MM? Will gladly do so. Hell will even buy you a cup of coffee if you would like to discuss that way.
Posted by bwr on August 17, 2007 09:35 AMKW:
What the hell differance does it make about the real numbers Pull your head out. This is the most richest country in the world not one single american should have to worry about getting good care and not have to worry about how to pay for it. Now I'm not saying socialize med is the answer but something has to be done about these greedy damn capitalist. You had best stop worrying about MM and worry about our children and their children haveing any Insurance. I have a damn good job but when insurance rates increases are taking more then half of my annual raise there is a big problem.
larrymc that was not the question posed of Larry. Not sure if same fellow or not. So now we get blasted for answering the damn question asked to answer. Sh*^%
LARRY Please refer to my first response to you! See
larrymc if you are different than Larry then please let us know your views on getting control of the greedy damn capitalist. Here is what I wrote LARRY. Again apologize if same person. (Are you?)
"What is your view of how a Socialized Healthcare system should look. I am referring to Administration, Audit, Patient Care, and Innovation of Medicine. How do you see that all fitting?"
Posted by bwr on August 17, 2007 09:48 AMMichael Moores' reputation preceeds him. He has gained a reputation of producing slanted "documenteries." Why take this one seriously?
GG
Larry have asked you the question on other HC threads. Sorry I should have clarified that fact. My apologies. Again thousands of sites out there and many articles defining the misinformation of MM.
Posted by bwr on August 17, 2007 09:57 AMThat Michal Moore is surely the mother of all propagandists. He has convinced the vast majority of the adult world that global warming is for real and that man contributes significantly to it.
"BERLIN: Chancellor Angela Merkel headed to Greenland on Thursday with her environment minister for talks with local counterparts on global warming, in an area where some of its greatest effects are being felt.
Merkel and Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel were to meet with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Greenland Premier Hans Enoksen in the town of Ilulissat, where the nearby Sermeq Kujalleq glacier, a U.N. heritage site, has thinned in recent years in what scientists say is one of the most glaring signs of global warming.
Scientists worry that the melting Greenland ice sheet will cause the global sea level to rise, with potentially disastrous effects on low-lying areas.
"At the German-hosted G-8 summit in Heiligendamm in June, leaders agreed to "seriously consider" proposals to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 50 percent by 2050 — nonbinding language that was a compromise between the EU, which wants mandatory cuts, and the United States, which opposes them."
Posted by on August 17, 2007 10:02 AMThat Michal Moore is surely the mother of all propagandists. He has convinced the vast majority of the adult world that global warming is for real and that man contributes significantly to it.
"JOHANNESBURG, South Africa -- China, the world's second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, has announced it has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, bringing the environmental treaty one step closer to implementation. "
Posted by Truth on August 17, 2007 10:06 AMThat Michal Moore is surely the mother of all propagandists. He has convinced the vast majority of the adult world that global warming is for real and that man contributes significantly to it.
"BEIJING, Dec 27 (Reuters) - Global warming threatens to intensify natural disasters and water shortages across China, driving down the country's food output, the Chinese government has warned, even as its seeks to tame energy consumption."
Posted by Truth on August 17, 2007 10:11 AMlarrymc:
"What the hell differance does it make about the real numbers"
Because that's the evidence offered by all the proponents of a universal health insurance. The decry the fact, as they put it, that 50 million people are in "dire need" of health insurance.
If you want people to listen and respond in kind you should at least start out with being honest. Without accurate information how can we have any meaningful discussion on solutions?
"This the most richest country in the world not one single american should have to worry about getting good care and not have to worry about how to pay for it."
That's a noble goal. Impossible to obtain, but noble.
Do you really believe that if we get our federal government to run the mountainous bureacracy needed to provide health care or coverage to 300 million people that no one will ever fall through the cracks, be misdiagnosed or die for lack of going to see a Dr?
There will always be a few million people who don't get the care they need to servive. Some through government incompetence and some for refusing the care.
Even the 17 million making over $50000 a year who can afford insurance but don't buy it account for 5.7% of the US population without coverage.
Posted by KW on August 17, 2007 10:13 AMI would guess for the same reasons the government doesn't find the need to have important information verification.
One thing that cencus also didn't account for was that some of those 17 million who make more than 75K a year buy their own health insurance and don't fall into the employee purchaced health care plans that are highlighted. So 45% of those uninsured will be covered within the next four months due to job transitioning according to the Congressional budget office. Wow, sounds pretty good. Guess we can turn our heads and not have to worry about that anymore huh? Somebody will make it happen won't they?
I'm not sure if I will answer your question the way you are looking for since I don't really understand this "Have given you the 50 Million mis-information. Do you accept or deny?" I don't think that the 50 million number is accurate, but come to think of it, nothing has been even close to accurate in the past 10 years.
Medicare and Medicade don't even fall into "health insurance" as you and I know it.
If you want to believe what Kaiser tells you then go ahead, maybe they'll tell you how many unreported cases where they treat somebody with a bullet wound and never ask how they got it.
So why would you need to go see a movie from a propogandist? You don't! that's the beauty of it. But always keep in mind where this accurate portrayal is coming from. I can't even imagine the kind of slime that would be flung your way if bush made a movie about how great things in Iraq are now.
So Frances' health care system was not well equipped or prepared for the heat wave that hit, now we're back to "if you think I'm bad, look at how bad he is" that has been the corner stone for every election since the late 80's.
Just to show you how profficient I am with using a computer, not trying to compare myself to almost every 6 year old who can write their own computer programs, I typed in bush and lies into google and got over 11 million hits. Does that make my case any more real than yours? Of course not. With that kind of thinking I could type in foot fetish to prove to you how wonderful it is by how many links I got.
Hell we can all come up with things that MM truthfully stated. That wasnt the question however.
So are trying to prove that if MM tells more truths than lies then he is a good guy? Who is keeping score here
That Michal Moore is surely the mother of all propagandists. He has convinced the vast majority of the adult world that global warming is for real and that man contributes significantly to it.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, God has told George Bush that global warming and man's contribution to it are true:
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush unveiled plans on Friday for global warming talks next month that will bring together the world's biggest polluters to seek agreement on reducing greenhouse gases."
Posted by Truth on August 17, 2007 10:17 AMYour welcome Larry. So YOU are saying that none of the information that was put up was not mis information or lies? None of it?
You asked for proof of misinformation and you were given it and links to others.
In the case of Kaiser you did not disprove the information but discredited it based on other bad information Kaiser used. To prove that the information that Kaiser used to show MM mislead would take proving THAT information was untrue.
I knew I should have left your question alone as any information given you either Liberal or not you are going to contend just for the hell of it.
NOW do you want to discuss the points on a fact based ideal or not?
Also are you larrymc????
Posted by bwr on August 17, 2007 10:23 AM"That Michal Moore is surely the mother of all propagandists. He has convinced the vast majority of the adult world that global warming is for real and that man contributes significantly to it."
"The United States and Australia, which accepted the 1992 treaty but not the Kyoto accord, will continue to promote voluntary programs to slow growth in emissions.
Europe and Japan lead a group of industrial nations that have pledged to meet the Kyoto limits. At the Nairobi conference, those nations will try to set a timetable for determining new emissions targets for the five years that begin in 2012.
In the meantime, developing countries, focused on economic advancement, have rejected binding limits while demanding aid from industrial nations to limit damage from warming that is already inevitable."
Posted by Truth on August 17, 2007 10:26 AM"That Michal Moore is surely the mother of all propagandists. He has convinced the vast majority of the adult world that global warming is for real and that man contributes significantly to it."
"Corporate America, which once regarded cries of "global warming" about as favorably as The Communist Manifesto, increasingly is embracing the need for reducing human contributions to the planet's rising temperatures. Forty companies — including Boeing, IBM, John Hancock and Whirlpool — have publicly endorsed the notion that climate change is real by joining a business council organized by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Electric power companies are the single largest industrial emitter of carbon dioxide, the chief chemical culprit in "global warming." But Duke Energy on the East Coast, California's PG&E on the West Coast, and other utilities see mandatory federal emission caps as preferable to the current patchwork of state regulations they confront. A uniform national standard would eliminate costly uncertainties hanging over investment decisions on new multibillion-dollar power plants, they say.
It's not just power companies that are agitating for action. Institutional investors are demanding that companies disclose their financial exposure to future climate changes. Insurers are abandoning underwriting in coastal areas threatened by costly Hurricane Katrina clones, and companies such as General Electric and DuPont are gearing up to prosper from the transition to a carbon-constrained world. Last year, Goldman Sachs Chairman Henry Paulson, now Treasury secretary-designate, warned that the time needed to address climate change was running out."
Posted by Truth on August 17, 2007 10:29 AMThat Michal Moore is surely the mother of all propagandists. He has convinced the vast majority of the adult world that global warming is for real and that man contributes significantly to it.
"The
BELC [The Pew Center's Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC)] is now the largest U.S.-based association of corporations focused on addressing the challenges of climate change, with 44 members representing $2.8 trillion in market capitalization and over 3.8 million employees. Many different sectors are represented, from high technology to diversified
manufacturing; from oil and gas to transportation;
from utilities to chemicals."
Truth,
Where are you quoting from?
Posted by sources on August 17, 2007 10:39 AMThere is a difference between misinformation and lies. Misinformation is the act of not telling the entire side of a story, and lies are the flat out, well, lies. I don't think MM told the entire story of the health care industry, but neither has anybody else when discussing health care. That also doesn't equate to him telling nothing but lies. You are absolutely right, I did discredit Kaiser and dismiss what they said. Just like how if I was a convicted criminal of oh let's say 7 times, and then I said I was done killing people for the, let's say 5th time, would you believe me then?
Sure, I would love to have a debate based on facts instead of what you came away from the movie with, but I doubt that will really happen.
No, I'm not larrymc, but I like the cut of his jib.
Posted by Larry on August 17, 2007 10:47 AMShiela,
i ve been to over 40 countries in my travels. Not all your first world nations either. That has put me on 5 out of 7 continents. Does your travel tAke you any where other then europe and mexico?
One question for all those who want government to socialize medicine. If you all have so much money, why do you not dig into your own pockets and help the people who you say can't get medical aid?
STAY OUT OF MY POCKETS!!!!! My coverage is good and works for me and my family.
Posted by on August 17, 2007 10:53 AMBrain damage should be taken seriously. "Sicko" is more in the intellectual category of "Mad Magazine," Alfred E. Neuman and Soupy Sales.
Posted by Hank on August 17, 2007 11:02 AMA true opinion is attained through critical investigation of all the evidence and information available on the subject before reaching conclusions, not forming conclusions then absorbing only the information that supports those preconceived conclusions. All else is nothing more than emotion driven nonsense
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 17, 2007 11:03 AM"There is a difference between misinformation and lies"
One could argue they received faulty information and seek to correct the error but that's the only possible defense.
Knowingly telling a half truth is the same as a lie.
Posted by KW on August 17, 2007 11:07 AMWhy are people who can afford insurance but don't buy it automatically discounted from the total number of uninsured?
The reason they don't buy it? Because its expensive, and they'd rather spend their cash on something else.
Uninsured is uninsured, whether you can afford it or not.
Posted by Tbone on August 17, 2007 11:09 AMExcept of course unless your name is george bush and your talking about the reasoning for invading a country.
Posted by Larry on August 17, 2007 11:11 AMTruth,
Where are you getting your information?
This is from Wikipedia (all the information in one place):
Scientists in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." (Russian News & Information Agency, Jan. 15, 2007 [11]) (See also [12], [13], [14])
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." (Capitalism Magazine, August 22, 2002)[15] Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content." (Marshall Institute, March 25, 2003) [16]
David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former botanist: "Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed."[17] Bellamy later admitted that he had cited faulty data and announced on 29 May 2005 that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming", [18] but in 2006 he joined a climate skeptic organization [19] and in 2007 published a paper arguing that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 "will amount to less than 1°C of global warming [and] such a scenario is unlikely to arise given our limited reserves of fossil fuels—certainly not before the end of this century." [20]
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air." [21].
Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown." (Telegraph, April 9, 2006 [22])
George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible." (Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006 [23])
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle." (The Hill Times, March 22, 2004 [24])
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035" [25]
William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[26]) "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." [27]) "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[28])
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural." (Gelf Magazine, April 24, 2007) [29]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming." (May 15, 2006 [30])
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [31])
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[32]
Tim Patterson [33], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" [34][35]
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it". [[36]]
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities." (Environment News, 2001 [37])
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries. [38]
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) [39] "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.", NCPA Study No. 279, Sep. 2005 [40]. “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.” (CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - Google Video Link)
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed." (Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003 [41])
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..." (Global Warming as Myth [42])
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover." [43]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005.
All one needs to do is understand that a good thing done for the wrong reasons is still a good thing and a bad thing done for the right reasons and, all the present time ranting and raving about either only serves to provide confusion in the public psyhce. Accept that ether/ or arguments produce nothing by limiting discussion to those parameters and that arguments open to all possibilities produce results.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 17, 2007 11:27 AMTBone - Again, the proponents are claiming 50 million people "need" insurance but "can't afford it."
If you're one the 17 million who "can" afford it but "choose" not to, you don't qualify to be labeled "in need."
Simple enough?
Posted by KW on August 17, 2007 11:29 AMI guess the question of misinformation would be if MM knew if information was not accurate before and during filming. If misinformation is then put forth knowingly what would that be called?
I am not saying nor have I ever said that his movies are complete misinformation, nor I have I said that they are completely accurate. Nor would I say any of the above about Bush, Congress, Republicans, Democrats etc
Some on here choose to select their guy/gal and defend the "misinformation" as well they may lie but they are my kind of liar. I dont buy into that for anyone.
So Kaiser does no good? The whole NonProfit entity needs to go away? Again you have the right to question the information that Kaiser says, BUT is the information specifically false or not? You choose to be skeptical, but that is not the question on that specific question.
You say you are not in the HC industry, may I ask what kind of industry you are in?
Are you for Socialized HC? If so what reasons would you vote for such a situaation. To say "because of the greedy capitalists" does not put forth the proof of information that some are comfortable with.
2points:
1. What would happen if proposed bills in Congress were passed that would allow individuals to purchase HC individually and not through an Employer? Would the competitive market of many individuals not outweigh the Employer based system. If it would make it worse, how would you see that?
2. How long would it take to get to a Socialized HC system? What would be the costs of converting(Have not seen anyone count this figure into the overall $$$) What impacts of this transition have on Patient Care?
Note. We already have the Govt heavily involved in the HC system. Costs are already associated in the figures that fly around this board. I have never said that we should not have Govt involved(even though I dont like it, I can live with it on a limited basis)
Not sure why you would think that would happen on debate. Have always asked for this on other threads but hell it seems like people like to throw out crap rather than discussion. You seem to question my sincerity at multiple points on here, but you (and others) never take me or others that have offered to meet for coffee for dialogue. That would take most of the animosity out of things especially on a personal level. You can yell BS but cant prove it any other way
Posted by bwr on August 17, 2007 11:30 AMI have a quesion for those who have not seen the movie. was this movie about those uninsured or insured?
Posted by Mike D. on August 17, 2007 11:53 AMI will say this. I am sure that MM knew he was not giving out all the information when he was filming, and more than likely even after he filmed and was in the process of editing. I personally would call that a lie, but it hasn't been considered a lie anywhere else, so I won't call it one as to play by somebody elses rules.
Again, Kaiser does not report all of their claims or services. So the information we get from them is clearly the information they want us to have. If somebody walks into a Kaiser facility with a gun shot wound and they get treated and released, that is their business and the business of their investors, not mine. So I'm not in a position to say that it needs to go away.
I am not in the HC industry, I am in the power industry, and am currently in the process of building the Commanche plant in Pueblo. I know I know, I am the devil.
I am not for socialized HC. And I am sure that the individually purchased care would cripple the employee purchased care. I am in no way questioning your sincerity here, I'm just trying to get information. I doubt I'll meet you for coffee because 1. I can't drink coffee. 2. I don't go to places that serve coffee. and 3. I would rather spend my time with my wife and kids than debating health care pros and cons.
Posted by Larry on August 17, 2007 11:54 AMI haven't seen it Mike, but I would guess that the movie is about the insured.
Posted by Larry on August 17, 2007 11:56 AMHEY NONAME AT 10:53. I have never been to Mexico, but I have been to Europe, Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, all over the Middle East... etc.
I have hardly been a tourist in any of the above. That said, I have had many experiences - with the local residents of said countries - in regards to the medical facilities. Are you the same NONAME as earlier? What are your experiences with the medical facilities in the countries you mentioned? (and please, before you get all defensive... a common problem in these posts.. I am asking out of genuine curiosity.)
Posted by Sheila on August 17, 2007 12:02 PMMy point is that you can beatup MM all you want but the number one problem in this country and it is not only healthcare but gas prices, housing prices, food prices, ect is capitalism. Now all you cons can jump all over me all you want but I don't need MM to show me what the Ken Lay's and all the ceo's and greedy bastards that run our free markets are doing to us. Plain and simple wages are not keeping up with prices. Now KW and all his Bush cronies can come up with all the stats they want but they can't argue that. So they must be the ones sticking it to us.
Posted by larrymc not larry on August 17, 2007 12:11 PMThanks Larry and you are not the Devil, I am.....hehehehe. I work in the IT industry and my current specialty is IT for HC. For those calling me the Devil.....good as I will not run out of work if Socialized HC is enacted.
My point on the Individual HC option rather than the Employer Based option is that we may have better options if Congress would approve an Individual based system for tax purposes. This would most likely lead to more competion and that may lead to lower prices and better services. Something that we are all wanting to fix.
Agreed on you spending time with the Fam rather than this stuff. Just pi&^^es me off when people talk trash and not wanting dialogue. THIS IS NOT YOU by any means. You have been sincere in your discussions.
Thanks for the dialogue
Michael Moore is a Democrat liar.In his movie "Bowling for Columbine" he made it look like Charlton Heston ,at an NRA meeting in Denver, held a rifle over his head and said "from my cold dead hand".He tryed to make it look like Heston was being insensitive because the Columbine school shooting had just happened.I,my wife,my son and daughter-in-law were at that meeting.Charlton Heston did not do what Moore tried to portray.
Posted by An American on August 17, 2007 12:37 PMlarrymc sorry just wanted to make sure I was talking to the right person. What do you suggest on fixing our HC problems? I agree that the Ken Lays and Naccios of the world need to go. But what do you suggest? No one on here has given the $$$ of what the conversion would cost and the jobs, the techonology costs that would bring our overall GDP down and the problems associated with Socialized Medicine.
In the end does the good that changes cause outweigh the ill side affects that changes would cause?
Not sure
Posted by bwr on August 17, 2007 12:39 PMHow many of us(meaning the working men and women) do we propose eliminating to reach the scumbags at the top? How many is acceptable? Or do we not care as long as it is not us? This gives "I have mine, who cares about the rest" a bit of a slant doesnt it?
Posted by on August 17, 2007 12:45 PMWe see the same things I think. And I'm glad we were able to have a discussion that stayed a discussion. I hope you are able to keep your crop growing, just as I am with mine. Your a smart person and I'm glad to see there are some of us left out there. Take care.
Posted by Larry on August 17, 2007 12:47 PMI also think he tried to make it look like you could just walk into a Boulder bank and pick up a rifle.The truth was you had to go through the same background check as if you bought it in a gun store but he did not let his audience knoe this fact.In the movie "Bowling for Columbine".If I am wrong let me know.
Posted by An American on August 17, 2007 12:48 PMthe original letter writer suggested people go see the movie and judge for themselves. Since then, 99% of the posters, clinging tightly to their party affiliation, have gone into attack mode, rather than debate rationally and without malice. What the hell is wrong with this picture? Some of you claim that America is the best country in wealth, education, medical facilities, etc. I believe that is a matter of opinion and, in some cases, isn't factually correct. Nonetheless, e-screaming at each other does nothing to further your position and only serves to make your position look weak. I don't care who you claim to be in bed with, be it democrat, republican or communist.
Please, learn to present your case - be it for or against the original letter - in a clear, concise and impersonal manner. I have seen some of you say things that I KNOW you would never say if you were sitting on the opposite side of the table from each other.
bwr:
I will admit I do not like some posters like KW have all the answers. I do know that the free interprize has it's necatives and this is one of them. Greed rules and there is not alot you can do about it. Now that dirty word communism was first wrote by marcs was wrote to help keeping it under control. But between capitalist and a few roque dictators pretty much soiled it.
Sheila
Agreed, why do you think that I have asked to discuss over coffee? Larry asked some great questions and we worked through them. Unfortunately sometimes difficult to see the forest for the trees on here. Difficult medium for dialogue.
larrymc - So because I respond the the content of this letter as well as the questions asked that makes me a Bush cronie?
Cut me at least a little slack there big guy. While I may not be "anti" Bush I sure don't walk lockstep with any and all decisions he's made in office.
I too agree there's a certain level of society that needs assistance. I think we can all benefit from some changes in approach to helath insurance costs and coverages.
I'm just using hind and foresight and recognizing that scrubing the entire industry and puting the feds in charge isn't the correct approach.
But within the content of this thread of whether or not MM is truthful or accurate in his dismal portrayal of the situation, I think my comments have been well sourced and accurate.
Posted by KW on August 17, 2007 01:02 PMLarry, It was a pleasure chatting with you and hope we get the chance to chat again. Enjoy the weekend with the Fam
Posted by bwr on August 17, 2007 01:07 PMPosted by Jack Bauer on August 17, 2007 07:39 AM
"I don't know why all you lefties feel those who have disagreed with this man's work in the past should have to shell out their hard earned dollars to a man that is known for "distorting" the truth.
You would never go to see a "documentary" made by Rush Limbaugh on this same subject now would you?"
So you concede that Rush has no more credibility than Michael Moore? Thank you for your honesty.
Posted by Repugnants are liars on August 17, 2007 01:29 PMSo brw, you "dont buy into that" "they are my kind of liar" mentality. Then I guess you will freely admit that Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are liars and propagandists....
I'm waiting.
Posted by J on August 17, 2007 01:41 PMLarrymc,
Are you typing too quickly to proof-read, or do you just not practice grammatically correct writing?
You denounce "capitalism," because it breeds greed. Yet a simple walk through history will demonstrate that maybe human nature allows us to be corrupted by greed, and that the system is not at fault. As we look at Feudalism, Capitalism, Theocracy, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Imperialism, or Monarchies, all have displayed corruption and greed throughout. It is demonstrated in the American Revolution, the Fall of the Roman Empire, the failure of the Axis, the demise of the Soviet Union, the civil war in Iraq, the rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire, the freedom of former British colonies, and the collapse of the Berlin wall.
The "American Dream" is based on capitalism, and the success stories of the Gates', of the Rockefeller's, the Buffet's, the Kennedy's of America demonstrates that. You would be naive to judge a system based on the few "bad apples" that stain the bunch.
And are you referring to Karl MARX (not marcs, and it would be written, not wrote) about communism? Because it wasn't Marx that first wrote about it.
"All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."
(Acts 2:44-45)
It is sometimes hard to take your comments and arguments seriously, when you continue to produce such erroneous statements, based on nothing but maybe your personal viewpoint and feelings (that is a guess).
As Sheila so wonderfully suggested (although I don't know what the debatable topics from Mr.Patt's letter are), we should discuss without name calling this topic.
I did not see Sicko, so I can't comment on the information provided in the movie. I did however, visit Mr. Moore's web site and I would like to tackle each issue one at a time:
SiCKO: There are nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance.
Mr. Moore claims that "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actually reported that 54.5 million people were uninsured for at least part of the year. Health Insurance Coverage: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2006. Centers for Disease Control. "
Here is the information Mr. Moore selectively cites:
"In 2006, 43.6 million persons of all ages (14.8%) were uninsured at the time of the interview, 54.5 million (18.6%) had been uninsured for at least part of the year prior to the interview, and 30.7 million (10.5%) had been uninsured for more than a year at the time of the interview."
My determination: Mr. Moore not only told a "half truth" he lied by claiming "nearly 50 million Americans" are without health insurance.
SiCKO: 18,000 Americans will die this year simply because they're uninsured.
Mr. Moore claims: "According to the Institute of Medicine, "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage." Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine, January 2004."
The TRUTH: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.
Determination: Mr. Moore lied. As it is ILLEGAL to deny medical care to anyone in an emergency, the claim that "18,000 Americans will die this year simply because they're uninsured," is absurd. 18,000 will die because they are sick. End of story.
SiCKO: The United States is ranked #37 as a health system by the World Health Organization.
Mr. Moore's claim: "The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds." "World Health Organization Assesses The World's Health Systems," Press Release, WHO/44, June 21, 2000.
Truth: This is actually true, according to the WHO report. What Mr. Moore fails to include (again selectively providing information), is that mortality is weighted at 50% and that the US is ranked #1 in responsiveness. #1
SiCKO: Canadian "wait times" not nearly as long as some try to allege.
Mr. Moore: Mr. Moore cited three sources to back up his movies statement. Statistics Canada, Canadian Institute for Health Information, and a columnist from the Miami Herald John Dorschner.
Truth: While it would be hard to debunk the very liberal statement of "as some try to allege" we shall use the same standard to rank the US, the WHO report shows Canadian responsiveness ranked 7-8. Mr. Moore is probably correct in this assessment.
SICKO: Like Canadians and Brits, the French live longer than we do.
This is true. These societies are also homogenous, and as such do not suffer the same complexities of the citizens of the United States. In fact, when you look at racial breakdowns, according to the CDC, blacks live on average 5 years less than whites. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf
I think the problem here is not a presentation of factual evidence, but statistics and information utilized to make a political point. This is no more a "documentary" than 'An Inconvenient Truth' was a documentary.
Posted by Felix on August 17, 2007 02:05 PMSince Michael Moore slams a lot of Democrats in this movie, then I agree -- he must be a liar.
Thanks for defending the Democrats, Clyde, Dravur, An American, etc.
Maybe you guys should all become pot-smoking, rock-n-rollin', long-haired, hippie liberals. Come on, it'll be fun.
Posted by Tree Hugger on August 17, 2007 02:33 PMI would love to see a movie by Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly even Coulter. And yes I would pay to see it. MM really sticks up for the little guy and goes after intitutions that don't care. It is really all about the $$$$. No cures will ever be found with a for profit health care, there is way too much money treating the symptoms. Could you imagine the money the drug companies would lose if we cured aids, cancer and diabetes. And yes people with health insurance do die and are turned away from hospitals or clinics that do not take that insurance. It is better off to go to an emergency room without insurance if you really need treatment. And Kaiser will let you die in their lobby before treating you if you do not have Kaiser's insurance. See the movie and tell me he lied about the conversation taped of Nixon...
Posted by Mike D. on August 17, 2007 03:23 PMJ. How long you been waiting?
To answer your question that to me sounds pretty sarcastic as you have me pegged as a Republican conservative Right?
No you are not right and I do agree with you. Since you want to corner me into the Republican corner, may I do the same to you?
What about Carville, Soros?
Why the 'tude? Why not discuss in a dialogue. In fact I am a Libertarian that is Fiscally conservative and I could really give a fu&^% what you or anyone else does in other areas. I am for creating Freedoms for my family and everyones Family. Not roping them into Socialist environment.
So J please let me understand why you think I am a Rush or Bill fan? Because I would pick someone other than MM to be a spokesman for healthcare or pick Ed Bagely Jr to be my spokesman for "Green" conservation rather than Gore? Sincerely asking
Thanks
Posted by bwr on August 17, 2007 04:31 PMHeya Mike D Long time no chat. You are kidding about MM looking out for little guy right? There are many people out there that would be a better representative than MM for healthcare. MM, the guy whose Non Profit org that owns stock in Halliburton, Oil companies, and Insurance Co's? Also other crap that he does that I am reading(looking for confirmation) that if true really shines a light on the guy that he is not liking.
Oh and Mike D. Kaiser does not let you die in the Lobby dude. They put you in a cab and send you away. Now get the story correct. But isnt Kaiser a non profit Organization?
Posted by bwr on August 17, 2007 04:41 PMI'm sorry bwr you are correct Kaiser will send you away to die in a cab so as not to mess up the lobby. I do like MM and his movies, I do not believe he is out for the almighty $. At the very least he has created more conversation regarding health care in a long time. I did see the movie and I think the part that disturbed me the most was the tapes of Nixon regarding the beginning of HMO's. MM if he has stock in Haliburton and oil companies that just makes him a smart investor, why not get some money back from the national treasury they are ravaging through. Nothing is really a non profit organization, I'm sure the CEO of Kaiser makles 20 Mil a year or more. Unfortunately I can't take the time out of my workday to look these things up so as Stephen Colbert says I'll just go with the gut, thinking is over rated.. I know we will disagree on many points but I know at least with you it can be a rational discussion.
Posted by Mike D. on August 17, 2007 05:43 PMNo Prob Mike D. Respect our conversations. And not sure how much the CEO of Kaiser makes either.
Questoin though...guess 2 part question as well as losing my looks, I have lost my memory too, not sure what your views of Socialized Medicine is but may not need for question. Are you willing to fire 1)all Benefits employees of Kaiser and or 2)Firing all Patient Care employees of Kaiser because of the CEO making money in a NonProfit organization.
If yes to above question are you willing to do the same for all Insurance and Patient care organizations and then re-do through Govt entity?
Thanks and hope the weather and business is good there.......Hell just jealous I am not there.......lol
Posted by bwr on August 17, 2007 06:12 PMMike D. Hell I dont have a problem of him owning any of the stock in those corporations either. But he seems to not like it as he has stated he would not do that.
He does create conversation for sure. I guess I would like to see someone else be the spokesman. While I do not disagree nor agree 100% of what he has to say, I just dont trust him and find hypocracy that I am not comfortable with. If I may use your Colbert quote for that feeling I thank you. HEY maybe we can agree to use Colbert. LOL Enjoy the day
Posted by bwr on August 17, 2007 06:19 PMHey bwr, No I don't want to fire all the benefits employees because of the CEO making money, I just think the difference in percentage made by the CEO in comparison to the regular worker that really makes the difference is obscene. I will never be rich and I don't hate those that are but I feel most of the insane money made in the medical insurance or HMO CEO's is costing us the insured more and more as well as the average worker for those companies. I think as long as we have for profit health care we won't see cures for diseases because treating the symptoms is the real money maker. i know there are problems in all health care from Universal to single payer but I believe we as US citizens should be concerned that all of our citizens are covered. I guess that makes me a socialist. Have a great weekend, blog ya later.
Posted by Mike D. on August 17, 2007 07:21 PMFelix: 'the claim that "18,000 Americans will die this year simply because they're uninsured," is absurd. 18,000 will die because they are sick. End of story."
Actually, it is the end of Felix' credibility. Felix would have you believe that no one dies for lack of insurance, for lack of medical care. No, according to Felix they all die because they are sick. So, according to Felix, we really don't need a health care system since no one dies for lack of it.
Actually, there are a few people who disagree with Felix. They may not have his credentials but some of them have had a little experience in the area, like the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences.
" 18,000 deaths blamed on lack of insurance
By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday."
"The Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 Americans die unnecessarily each year due to the lack of health insurance coverage."
"National Academy of Sciences estimates that 18,000 adults die each year because they are uninsured and cannot get proper care."
Posted by Truth on August 17, 2007 07:33 PMMike D. I dont think you are a socialist at all. We probably agree more than we disagree in most cases, just differ on some of the roads to get to the end state.
Have a good weekend and when are you going to pony up the big bucks and hire me!
Hahahaha
Laters Mike D
Posted by bwr on August 17, 2007 07:51 PMIt's Not Global Warming post 11:22 a.m.This is a liberal post site,no fact please.
Posted by Keith on August 18, 2007 09:38 AMTree Hugger says MM said bad things about Democrats also so he must be a liar.I pointed out the lies that he said.Can you put down your Dope Bag long enough to show us the facts of where he lied about Democrats.
Posted by An American on August 18, 2007 10:33 AMin regards to the 18000 "americans" that will die due to being ininsured; that is .006% of the "american" population; or we could turn that around to say that less than 99.9% annually do not die due to being uninsured. I wonder how many "insured" people die annually? I find it hard to believe that this stat could actually be backed-up since abviously there is many variables as to why an indivudual dies.
(my math might not be totally accurate? but i think ii still makes the point)
Felix declared that Michael Moore lied when he claimed that 18,000 Americans will die due to being uninsured.
When Moore made that statement, he said the information was according to the Institute of Medicine.
That is the truth, not a lie, as Felix tried to claim. The purpose of my post was to point this out.
I have no idea how the Institute of Medicine arrived at that figure. It's website contains a report which provides some details as to how it arrived at that figure. I'm not qualified to judge the report because I am not a statistician nor a health care expert. I wonder how a lot of statistics I see are arrived at. But that doesn't mean they are wrong.
I agree with Brain that the 18,000 figure is a small percentage of the American population. Felix did not make that point. His invalid point is that Michael Moore lied when he made the statement, which is not the case.
There are people, I presume the Felix is one of them, who consider the 18,000 figure to be insignificant. Others disagree.
Posted by Truth on August 18, 2007 06:19 PMMM did not lie about sighting this stat; I just think this stat has little significance. The movie's issue is "universal HC" vs. the U.S. system, the stat is attempting to criticize the U.S. system because it has failed these 18,000 people; in general I believe the issue is not necessarily the quality or quantity of either system it is the cost of our system that is the biggest problem. I don't think (in the long run) that a government ran system is the answer to lowering the cost of our health care system; history would suggest that it is not the answer,in fact (being synical) it sure is a good way to collect even more taxes.
Posted by Brain on August 19, 2007 09:11 AMJonas Edward Salk (October 28, 1914 – June 23, 1995) was an American physician and researcher best known for the development of the first successful polio vaccine (the eponymous Salk vaccine
Albert Bruce Sabin (August 26, 1906 - March 3, 1993) was a renowned American medical researcher of Jewish ancestry who is best-known for having developed the hugely successful oral vaccine for polio
Mike D: No cures will ever be found with a for profit health care, there is way too much money treating the symptoms
Posted by Brain on August 19, 2007 12:06 PM