A Steaming Loder of Crap
Kurt Loder’s review of Sicko is a thing of beauty.
That last statement is even truer than you’d know from watching “Sicko.” In the case of Canada — which Moore, like many other political activists, holds up as a utopian ideal of benevolent health-care regulation — a very different picture is conveyed by a short 2005 documentary called “Dead Meat,” by Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg. These two filmmakers talked to a number of Canadians of a kind that Moore’s movie would have you believe don’t exist:
A 52-year-old woman in Calgary recalls being in severe need of joint-replacement surgery after the cartilage in her knee wore out. She was put on a wait list and wound up waiting 16 months for the surgery. Her pain was so excruciating, she says, that she was prescribed large doses of Oxycontin, and soon became addicted. After finally getting her operation, she was put on another wait list — this time for drug rehab.
A man tells about his mother waiting two years for life-saving cancer surgery — and then twice having her surgical appointments canceled. She was still waiting when she died.
A man in critical need of neck surgery plays a voicemail message from a doctor he’d contacted: “As of today,” she says, “it’s a two-year wait-list to see me for an initial consultation.” Later, when the man and his wife both needed hip-replacement surgery and grew exasperated after spending two years on a waiting list, they finally mortgaged their home and flew to Belgium to have the operations done there, with no more waiting.
Rick Baker, the owner of a Toronto company called Timely Medical Alternatives, specializes in transporting Canadians who don’t want to wait for medical care to Buffalo, New York, two hours away, where they won’t have to. Baker’s business is apparently thriving.
And Dr. Brian Day, now the president of the Canadian Medical Association, muses about the bizarre distortions created by a law that prohibits Canadians from paying for even urgently-needed medical treatments, or from obtaining private health insurance. “It’s legal to buy health insurance for your pets,” Day says, “but illegal to buy health insurance for yourself.” (Even more pointedly, Day was quoted in the Wall Street Journal this week as saying, “This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years.")
But wait, there’s more!
What’s the problem with government health systems? Moore’s movie doesn’t ask that question, although it does unintentionally provide an answer. When governments attempt to regulate the balance between a limited supply of health care and an unlimited demand for it they’re inevitably forced to ration treatment. This is certainly the situation in Britain. Writing in the Chicago Tribune this week, Helen Evans, a 20-year veteran of the country’s National Health Service and now the director of a London-based group called Nurses for Reform, said that nearly 1 million Britons are currently on waiting lists for medical care — and another 200,000 are waiting to get on waiting lists. Evans also says the NHS cancels about 100,000 operations each year because of shortages of various sorts. Last March, the BBC reported on the results of a Healthcare Commission poll of 128,000 NHS workers: two thirds of them said they “would not be happy” to be patients in their own hospitals. James Christopher, the film critic of the Times of London, thinks he knows why. After marveling at Moore’s rosy view of the British health care system in “Sicko,” Christopher wrote, “What he hasn’t done is lie in a corridor all night at the Royal Free [Hospital] watching his severed toe disintegrate in a plastic cup of melted ice. I have.” Last month, the Associated Press reported that Gordon Brown — just installed this week as Britain’s new prime minister — had promised to inaugurate “sweeping domestic reforms” to, among other things, “improve health care.”
Moore’s most ardent enthusiasm is reserved for the French health care system, which he portrays as the crowning glory of a Gallic lifestyle far superior to our own. The French! They work only 35 hours a week, by law. They get at least five weeks’ vacation every year. Their health care is free, and they can take an unlimited number of sick days. It is here that Moore shoots himself in the foot. He introduces us to a young man who’s reached the end of three months of paid sick leave and is asked by his doctor if he’s finally ready to return to work. No, not yet, he says. So the doctor gives him another three months of paid leave — and the young man immediately decamps for the South of France, where we see him lounging on the sunny Riviera, chatting up babes and generally enjoying what would be for most people a very expensive vacation. Moore apparently expects us to witness this dumbfounding spectacle and ask why we can’t have such a great health care system, too. I think a more common response would be, how can any country afford such economic insanity?
As it turns out, France can’t. In 2004, French Health Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told a government commission, “Our health system has gone mad. Profound reforms are urgent.” Agence France-Presse recently reported that the French health-care system is running a deficit of $2.7 billion. And in the French presidential election in May, voters in surprising numbers rejected the Socialist candidate, Ségolène Royal, who had promised actually to raise some health benefits, and elected instead the center-right politician Nicolas Sarkozy, who, according to Agence France-Presse again, “plans to move fast to overhaul the economy, with the deficit-ridden health care system a primary target.” Possibly Sarkozy should first consult with Michael Moore. After all, the tax-stoked French health care system may be expensive, but at least it’s “free.”
Trust me, read the whole thing.
Comments
Yeah, ignore CNN’s fact checking and post the political drivel from a washed up MTV dinosaur. JimK and Lee at their finest.
Dear Kurt,
If you are going to question someone’s facts, at least take the time to research your own. Classic “MTV journalism” on display here. You can actually dismiss the Cuban health care system as “medical apartheid” with a straight face? Doesn’t that pretty much sum up the US health care system?
You are no better than Moore at his worst, cherry picking examples that happen to fit your pre-conceived notions. How do you explain away the US abysmal standing in the rankings of western nations in health care, education, child development, infant mortality, etc. etc. Any dittohead can find a single data point to support their pet theory; gathering enough data to make a reasoned argument is more difficult.
The best part is that you can’t even prop up your own arguments in a coherent manner. Castro flying in a specialist on intestinal ailments from Spain somehow means that their system is a failure? Shouldn’t the commies have turned to a nation outside Europe without universal care to prove your point?
Kurt, please stick to what you know best: struggling to look hip while telling the 12 year olds about Paris’ or Mel’s last run-in with the law. Leave the journalism to the big boys.
I’m sorry, is my name on this article? Does it say “By Lee and JimK?” You talk to Lee about Lee’s posts and JimK about JimK’s posts. That should be easy to understand.
Haze, you get exactly ONE shot these days before I boot your ass. I don’t have the time or patience to deal with assholes in droves. If you insist on being an asshole in my living room, you will not be in my digital living room very long.
If you signed up here just to insult me, tell me now so we can be done with it.
As for your “critique,” did you just call Kurt frigging Loder a dittohead? That’s...insane. Also, you didn’t back up or validate a single thing you said, which is what you are taking issue with Kurt for. So...physician, heal thyself.
You beat me to the punch, as usual, Jim.
Hazehead,
Waitaminit… “hazehead”...?
...
...(no, I won’t do it. It’s just too damn obvious.)
Now, I could compare Loder’s article to your rebuttal, and point out that you not only haven’t referenced anything to support your argument, but have also not, apparently, studied the subject very closely. (otherwise, you might know why the U.S. health care system’s global ranking and U.S. infant mortality rate figures are misleading, at best.) But comparing the two would be insincere and intellectually dishonest. I’ll leave that to Moore and his followers. We don’t dig that scene, here, brother-man.
See, it would be apples and oranges, anyway, as Loder, whether you respect him and his employer or not, actually is a journalist. Even the MTV news is still news. Loder is still a news reporter, whether or not you consider what he reports trivial. He swung that job after graduating journalism school.
So, yeah… he may just be an MTV news guy… but he’s still a news guy.
And you are...?
Loder may be an MTV pseudo-journalist, true… but you know what? In this case, at least, it doesn’t matter.
Even a broken clock, as they say, is right twice a day… and Loder’s clock just struck high-noon on Moore’s ass.
I sincerely don’t understand your argument, here.
You act as if Loder filled out this article with one obscure tidbit of a fact, and a lot of innuendo in between-o.
But that simply isn’t the case, by any measure.
Loder’s article is an encyclopedia of references of the horrors of socialized health care.
These aren’t insignificant anecdotes, here. They are genuine slices of the daily realities of the government-doled band aid, and they’re plentiful… and they’re scary.
Now, if you have an actual argument that is based in more than the overly-simplistic, willfully ignorant, bumper-sticker, MoveOn.org version of world affairs, then by all means, let’s hear it.
We genuinely want to hear ideas on how to fix our system. We just don’t see the failed experiment of socialism as the way to do it.
But please, give us your ideas, by all means.
This isn’t DailyKos. We don’t kick people out for daring to propose something different than we’re doing.
But we do sometimes kick them out if they prove they’re only here to snipe, snark and contribute nothing of any value.
Let’s not be one of those people, eh?
Lose the attitude, and discuss things like a grown up.
Leave the journalism to the big boys...? Like, say, Michael Moore? He’s a journalist… no, wait, he’s a documentarian… no, wait, he’s commentator… no, wait, I can’t keep up with whatever he is this week.
Leave the journalism to the big boys...? Hazehead, the big boys aren’t covering stuff like this. They’re too busy stroking Moore.
Hot damn. That article by Kurt Loder is a THING OF BEAUTY. No other way to put it.
Hazehead, this one’s for you, since you obviously have little grasp of pre-MTV history:
Raised in New Jersey, Loder spent three years in the U.S. Army and then worked as a journalist in Europe for several years. Returning to the States, he worked at Circus magazine in the late ‘70s, and then moved on to a nine-year stint at Rolling Stone, where he was a writer and senior editor. He is the author of the New York Times best-seller “I, Tina” (with singer Tina Turner; later the basis of the movie “What’s Love Got to Do With It") and “Bat Chain Puller,” a collection of his Rolling Stone features, which was recently reissued by Cooper Square Press. Much of his other Rolling Stone work is collected in the compilation “Rolling Stone Interviews of the Eighties,” which he also annotated. He is still a Rolling Stone contributing editor, and he has also written for such magazines as Esquire, Details, New York and Time and has tapped out liner notes for compilations by such acts as Led Zeppelin, David Bowie, the Velvet Underground, the Ramones and Jimi Hendrix.
Jimi Hendrix/Purple Haze, Hazehead. Get it?
Loder shouldn’t “play with the big boys”, hazy? Loder is THE big boy.
I think that when debating those that equate the author of the liner notes on Purple Haze with the “big boys” of American journalism, it’s best stand back and let them dig their own holes.
First post on MW, and I’m already being threatened with a ban. Love those dittohead blogs! Especially when 90% was a slam on Kurt Pantsloader.
My point, for those of you clutching your tinfoil hats in the cheap seats, was that of all the fact-checking articles Lee could have referenced (CNN, et all) he decided to post a rambling, semi-coherent “film review” from MTV. That’s the best you got, and that’s why Moorewatch.com is the joke that ends the film.
hazehead, I just found out who you are.
Bye.
Yeah, who was that guy that said moore was just making a “cheeky joke” or whatever, toward you, JimK? Gotta be the same idiot.
"And Dr. Brian Day, now the president of the Canadian Medical Association, muses about the bizarre distortions created by a law that prohibits Canadians from paying for even urgently-needed medical treatments, or from obtaining private health insurance.”
Us Canadians can’t have private health insurance?? That’s a new one to me. Had it for years at my last job.
http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/page4.html
“While the health care system in Canada covers basic services, including primary care physicians and hospitals, there are many services that are not covered. These include things like dental services, optometrists, and prescription medications.
Private health insurance plans are usually offered as part of employee benefit packages in many companies. Incentives usually include vision and dental care. Alternatively, Canadians can purchase insurance packages from private insurance providers.”
“Dr. Brian Day” also says “My support for a universal system that delivers quick access to care is unequivocal. Timely access to health care for those who are less privileged, particularly children, the elderly, and the poor is essential”
http://www.brianday.ca/
DVDguy.
Man, that’s gotta sting, coming from MTV.
Posted by hazehead on 07/03/2007 at 10:51 AM (Link to this comment | )
You can actually dismiss the Cuban health care system as “medical apartheid” with a straight face? Doesn’t that pretty much sum up the US health care system?
No. Equality does not equal equality of result. It means its open to anyone. Cuban healthcare is not.
I think that when debating those that equate the author of the liner notes on Purple Haze with the “big boys” of American journalism, it’s best stand back and let them dig their own holes.
He was the senior editor of Rolling Stone for nine years, genius. Way to cherry-pick your facts; it’s no wonder you’re so defensive of Moore.
Oh, and here’s another tip now that you’re banned. If you have a problem with Kurt Loder… GO TALK TO FREAKING KURT LODER.
My point, for those of you clutching your tinfoil hats in the cheap seats, was that of all the fact-checking articles Lee could have referenced (CNN, et all) he decided to post a rambling, semi-coherent “film review” from MTV.
That might be a point if this were the ONLY review or fact-check posted on MW. Since it’s not, that makes you a moron who either can’t read or doesn’t check HIS facts.
...a rambling, semi-coherent “film review"…
The sentences are well-constructed, and the ideas in the paragraphs flow logically from one to the next. Even if the *information* conveyed to the reader is inaccurate, that does not make it “rambling” or “semi-coherent”; it would make it inaccurate.
I guess it’s “rambling and semi-coherent” because he doesn’t like what it says. *I* don’t like what it says. But I’m not going to dismiss it out of hand. And I’m not going to assume it’s incorrect (it is, in fact, more than reasonably accurate), just because I don’t like what was written.
Whatever “hazehead” is smoking, it must be some pretty good stuff.
"Leave the journalism to the big boys.”
After dropping out of the University of Michigan-Flint and working for a day at the General Motors plant,at 22 he founded the alternative weekly magazine The [Michigan] Voice. In 1986, when he became the editor of Mother Jones, a liberal political magazine, he moved to California and The Michigan Voice was shut down. He stayed at the magazine for only a short while, before getting fired and then working for Ralph Nader.
Now thats the CV of a real journalist, a true prole of, for, and by the People.
Moore later sued Mother Jones for wrongful dismissal, seeking $2 million.
Just a quick comment on the “dead meat” documentary. It is as biased towards the Canadian system as Moore’s film was to the American system.
As usual, Moore mentioned Canada in his film. And as usual Canada comes under attack by the opponents of Moore. They play just as dirty.
Fact checking and responsibility are out the window. All you need to do is dig up a horror story of some poor fool who slipped through the cracks 10 years ago.
The Canadian system isn’t perfect, no one (aside from Moore) ever claimed it was. But overall it is a good system with a little room to improve. We are exploring two tier health care, as are most other countries with universal healthcare (if they don’t have it already).
So keep Canada out of your crosshairs please… It doesn’t matter if Moore likes it better then your system.
Don’t immediately assume anything Moore touches is evil.
On that note:
I’m not sure why Moore always gets Canada involved in his projects. It turns out 7 of the 8 members of the G8, the wealthiest nations in the world, all have universal healthcare. In Fact every country in NATO (aside from USA) has universal care.
Why single out Canada?
Look a bit further and pretty much every country on earth who can afford some form of universal care system have such a system. The oil rich arab countries, Isreal, Korea, Japan… And now even the Mexican’s have a universal care system in the works.
The poverty stricken parts of Eastern Europe cant afford universal care. Most of Africa is missing it, as is Central america and parts of south America. They can’t afford it.
In general, most nations that aren’t a 3rd world county seem to have universal care. Moore had so many to pick from, why did he have to get us canadians involved AGAIN?
Maybe it’s because Canada is just a short drive from Flint, Michigan and he is just too lazy to look elsewhere?
Why single out Canada?
The point is Canada’s health care system is not devoid of problems. Some of the problems Canada has are the same problems other socialized systems have, and those problems are most due to lack of funding.
If the U.S. is to make informed decisions about changing our system, it might be wise to look at other countries first, don’t you think?
jeez, I thought I was done listening to hazy’s braying once he hit the plonk file at RTFTLC…
We all like to attack the source when what we read doesn’t fit our beliefs, I know I have but, seriously, Kurt Loder is one of the more liberal leaning maggots of our times. I still like the guy (Loder, not hazy) but, to attack his credibility on the basis that one of his jobs was writing liner notes for music artists is so “haze-like” it at least made me laugh.
If the U.S. is to make informed decisions about changing our system, it might be wise to look at other countries first, don’t you think?
You kind of missed my point there. Moore had dozens of countries to choose from that had a healthcare system similar to, if not better then Canada. Virtually every country in the world with a healthy economy HAS universal healthcare.
Before you brush this off as “socialist propaganda”, consider the following.
Every NATO country (except America) has “socialized” healthcare. NATO was formed to STOP the spread of communism during the cold war.
Now take a look at their communist rivals, the Warsaw Pact countries. Almost NONE of them have universal healthcare in place. The two richest countries in that alliance (Russia and China) have it, but the rest don’t and likely never will.
Remember the Korean war? When the UN supported the south to prevent the spread of communism? South Korea has “socialized” healthcare. And North Korea does not. North Korea is a “communist monarchy” which makes no sense at all politically, but that is what it has become. Only the elite members of North Korean society have access to adequate healthcare.
How about the Vietnam war? America tried to stop the spread of communism there, but they lost that war. Yet privatized hospitals and clinics are rampant in Vietnam today, heavily funded by foreign investors. There is a universal system in place to provide basic care, but much of the country shifted to a “for-profit” system.
So if “socialized healthcare” is the first step to communism and a loss of freedom, why does virtually every NATO country have it? And why are most modern socialist/communist states lacking it?
Maybe it is because Universal healthcare has nothing to do with being left wing or right wing? Maybe it has something to do with the moral obligation (some say Christian obligation) to help your neighbor when he needs help the most?
Virtually every country in the world with a healthy economy HAS universal healthcare. Is that really a cause-and-effect issue?
Despite what you may read in the NY Times, our economy is actually quite healthy.
Allow me to go on a tangent for just a moment:
North Korea is a “communist monarchy” which makes no sense at all politically
Don’t most communist countries end up becoming, essentially, a monarchy?
So if “socialized healthcare” is the first step to communism and a loss of freedom, why does virtually every NATO country have it?
I submit that this is an unfair question… It can easily be argued that the majority of NATO countries are socialist in nature, and were so before NATO even came about.
To summarize, I don’t believe your argument is a valid one.
Despite what you may read in the NY Times, our economy is actually quite healthy.
The USA still has the most powerful economy on the planet. It is the undisputed richest country in the world.
I was merely pointing out that of the worlds wealthiest countries, it seems like ONLY America decided to cheap out on universal care.
It can easily be argued that the majority of NATO countries are socialist in nature, and were so before NATO even came about.
NATO was formed by the countries that won WW2. They then went on to stop the spread of communism. If they were socialist states to begin with, would they not embrace communism rather then help destroy it?
But it seems you already convinced yourself that all of Europe (the old world) are socialists. Fine.
Look at Japan then. They are fanatical capitalists with a cultural belief that a worker should do everything short of killing himself for the sake of his corporation. Salarymen have been known to not come home to their families for a week, choosing instead to live under their desk in the office when it comes down to “crunch time” as deadlines approach.
In short, the Japanese put American capitalists to shame. And yet they have universal care?
You have this notion that America is the last “free” country on the planet, the only ones who have escaped the terrors of social programs.
Why not admit that you are the last world power that was simply too cheap to do the right thing for their own people in their time of need?
Jesus didn’t deny miracles or salvation to poor people. Explain to me why only Americans do?
So lets Americans choose the Japanese model instead fo the Canadian and bask in the world’s approval. I somehow doubt free health care would come up in the ensuing screechathon o’er imperialist slavery.Salarymen have been known to not come home to their families for a week, choosing instead to live under their desk in the office when it comes down to “crunch time” as deadlines approach.
“Only” the US, gotcha. Somehow I don’t think Jesus served the poor exclusively. He served the most direly in need of care/salvation first, which, sadly, doesn’t automatically equal “poor”.Jesus didn’t deny miracles or salvation to poor people. Explain to me why only Americans do?
The fact that people are poor or discriminated against doesn’t necessarily endow them with any special qualities of justice, nobility, charity or compassion.” Saul Alinsky, as quoted by
Hunter S.Thompson
You have this notion that America is the last “free” country on the planet, the only ones who have escaped the terrors of social programs
No it isn’t. Most of those social programs are not sustainable into the future. You know, like social security.
Why not admit that you are the last world power that was simply too cheap to do the right thing for their own people in their time of need?
Cheap? We’re spending an obscene amount of money on our socialized medical system (Medicare), probably spending more on it than most other countries spend on their socialized systems. So to claim we are cheap is a lie. To point out that a massive government bureaucracy is way too inefficient to do this though is pretty obvious.
Jesus didn’t deny miracles or salvation to poor people. Explain to me why only Americans do?
Jesus wasn’t telling people to give everything to Rome and expect them to provide for all their needs.
Jesus didn’t deny miracles or salvation to poor people. Explain to me why only Americans do?
Explain to me why you haven’t stopped beating your wife.
Your question is just as stupid and just as loaded. America is a nation not of GUARANTEES, but of opportunity. Or at least it was, before we decided to start becoming a clone of Europe.
NATO was formed by the countries that won WW2. They then went on to stop the spread of communism. If they were socialist states to begin with, would they not embrace communism rather then help destroy it?
Oh good grief! Communism is classless political system where private ownership is outlawed and where the government controls the means of production. As practiced by the Soviets, it was a one-party totalitarian tryanny.
Most of the governments in Europe combine systems into what they call democratic socialism. Those governments function by having a multi-party system, not a one-party totalitarian regime. They allow private ownership of property and support a free market to some extent.
You have this notion that America is the last “free” country on the planet, the only ones who have escaped the terrors of social programs.
What you seem to overlook is how dysfunctional socialized systems are, especially health care systems. (Social Security is a prime example of a failed social program.) When you can explain where the United States is going to get the 16.6 trillion dollars—not million, not billion . . . trillion—it will take to stablized and perpetuate our dysfunctional Medicare system over the coming decades, then we’ll discuss universal health care. Until then, you don’t have a point.
Posted by mr_trout on 07/05/2007 at 12:23 PM (Link to this comment | )
Communist was just the name of a group of socialist parties usually allied with Moscow. Usually based on the thinking of both Marx and Lenin (vs. just Marxism for most other socialist parties). The USSR, for instance, never claimed to be a communist country. In the name of country, it said it was socialist (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), it said its legal system was based on socialist law, et cetera. The reason it could not claim to be communist was that communism is rather well defined in Marxist and socialist theory as the stage after socialism… re: the end goal. Not only private property is gone but money too. No more class wars or conflicts. The revolutions are over with and everything has settled down to the old ‘from each according to their ability and to each according to their needs’. Blaw blaw blaw other silly stuff.... ;)NATO was formed by the countries that won WW2. They then went on to stop the spread of communism. If they were socialist states to begin with, would they not embrace communism rather then help destroy it?
Thank you, Buzz, for supplying the answer to Mr. Trout about the difference between socialism and communism. Apparently a refresher on 8th grade political science is needed now and then.
But it seems you already convinced yourself that all of Europe (the old world) are socialists. Fine.
Yes, and tomorrow I plan on convincing myself that our planet is not flat, and that Jessica Biel is unquestionably hot. Wish me luck on that.
Posted by bismarck on 07/05/2007 at 08:22 PM (Link to this comment | )
Thank you, Buzz, for supplying the answer to Mr. Trout about the difference between socialism and communism.
Actually I think you guys are confusing socialism with social democracy.
Yes, and tomorrow I plan on convincing myself that our planet is not flat, and that Jessica Biel is unquestionably hot. Wish me luck on that.
Well, since we’re friends, if we ever bump into Jessica… I’ll fall on that grenade for the team.
YOU BACK OFF MY BIEL.
That girl is packing an onion that could make a Cajun cry.
Well that got a good reaction at last…
Somehow I don’t think Jesus served the poor exclusively. He served the most direly in need of care/salvation first, which, sadly, doesn’t automatically equal “poor”.
You are right, Jesus didn’t just help the poor. He likely helped anyone who fell on hard times or needed salvation. He set a pretty good example for us to live by.
But by bailing out people in most need of help, that usually means the poor. Rich people can usually solve most of their problems by throwing money at them. Even the middle class get by ok.
I guess it depends on your definition of “poor”. Why just look at the operator of this website. I am skeptical he is poor. Maybe poor health coverage, but not poor. He simply fell into tough times and there was no social security “net” to catch him.
Even the average American middle class family with $100,000 a year income would still feel the sting of a $12,000 medical bill. But at least they could recover from it. They have equity in their homes and their cars are paid off.
The American Lower class (those making less then $30/hr, and typically lacking college education) are not necessarily poor either. They work hard, pay taxes, buy insurance, and they can live fairly comfortably. Many set money aside for an emergency, medical or otherwise.
But many are deluded. In an effort to not look “lower class”, these people hoard something called “credit” to buy big TVs and other tokens to emulate the middle class. And nothing hides the fact that you are lower class better then a shiny new SUV you got for 0% financing.
Lo and behold… an accident or the flaws of human anatomy catch up to them. They need medical care and their insurance premiums/deductibles are just too high. And all those years of living off that wonderful “credit” means they can’t even borrow enough money to adequately care for a loved one in a time of need… Oh No! You can’t even sell that new SUV because the bank owns it!
Long story short, forget my poor comment I made earlier. It isn’t only the poor who can suffer in your system. Through a series of misfortunate events, even lower middle class Americans could fall on hard times and be unable to pay for care in a crisis.
The operator of this site sounds like a “pillar of the community” type, and he seems well educated. If it happened to him, it could happen to many readers here. The only difference is that Michael Moore won’t bail the rest of you out of trouble as a publicity stunt. It’s been done.
Thank you, Buzz, for supplying the answer to Mr. Trout about the difference between socialism and communism.
Truthfully, that is the first time I have ever heard a right wing American admit that there was a difference between the two at all…
Any other political forum I have been on, “socialism = communism, and communism makes baby Jesus cry!”
Usually the mere mention of the words “social program” is enough to trigger the “red fear” response in many right-leaning Americans. The hammer and sickle rise on a backdrop in your mind and soviet tanks go rolling past the whitehouse. Scary stuff.
That is why I left my comments about socialist countries and communism overly simplified. Usually there was no point in elaborating because the audience was already on the defensive.
I truly didn’t give you guys enough credit, and I apologize for that.
Communism is merely one far-off branch of socialism, a fairly extreme ideology that comes in many different flavors. But for most of it’s existence, socialism and communism were used interchangeably despite the fundamental difference in ideology.
Like most Canadians, I don’t agree with communism at all. I don’t see it as scary or evil, though. Just financially non-viable in the long run and far too prone to corruption.
Like most Canadians, I do enjoy the benefits of more then a few social programs. The government puts some of my tax money aside for the inevitable tough times that are ahead.
I like the idea that firefighters, police, and doctors are all standing by. Fires will be put out, a stolen car will be returned, and bones will be mended, all without worrying “how much will this cost?”.
Do I feel cheated for helping fund social programs that I won’t ever use? Like paying school tax even though I have no kids? Of course not, it is the right thing to do. It is the same for paying into our healthcare system.
Other social programs I do oppose. It has been proposed to use our government cash surplus to pay for free university. Numerous other countries do that already, and some Canadians think we should do it as well since we can afford it.
I worked hard to pay for my own college education, and I believe that was an important part of the process. Already too many people enroll in college just to make their parents happy and then drop out after a year.
In fact there are many other social programs I oppose, and I made that clear when I voted for the conservative party in the last Canadian election. Although I may seem like a left-wing radical to many of you Americans, I am actually leaning to the right by Canadian standards.
That may sound hypocritical of me, not wanting to pay for one social program, while bragging about the benefits of others… But when the issue is health care I am adamant that it is a non-partisan issue. It is a basic right of all citizens, as unquestionable as the right to vote.
sl0re and mr trout, I’ll concede that there is a distinction between pure socialism and social democrats, but this is a little closer to the point I was trying to make (from dictionary.com):
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
But I can’t concede one point, mr trout—that I am right-wing. I’m a libertarian. But many leftists can’t tell the difference, unfortunately.
A larger point you made, though:
these people hoard something called “credit” to buy big TVs and other tokens
And all those years of living off that wonderful “credit” means they can’t even borrow enough money
Through a series of misfortunate events
You are referring to CHOICES. These people made CHOICES that put them into shitty situations from which they will find it difficult to recover. I know, my brother-in-law makes similar choices (to live beyond his means), so if he and I befell similar tragedies, I would find it MUCH easier to recover.
To go back to an earlier topic, What would Jesus say to the people who made lousy choices in life?
But when the issue is health care I am adamant that it is a non-partisan issue. It is a basic right of all citizens, as unquestionable as the right to vote.
Don’t we have a basic right to food, though? Isn’t that more important on Maslow’s pyramid than health care?
Maybe it is because Universal healthcare has nothing to do with being left wing or right wing? Maybe it has something to do with the moral obligation (some say Christian obligation) to help your neighbor when he needs help the most?
I’m sorry, but I’m getting really sick of hearing this argument over and over again, about moral/Christian obligations. YES, we have a moral obligation to reach out to others.
WE DO. The government is not “we”. You and I are “we”.
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PLACING THE GOVERNMENT IN COMMAND OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
Truthfully, that is the first time I have ever heard a right wing American admit that there was a difference between the two at all…
Well, at least you’re honest about painting all conservatives with a broad (and inaccurate) brush.
That is why I left my comments about socialist countries and communism overly simplified. Usually there was no point in elaborating because the audience was already on the defensive.
So in other words, you thought so little of our intelligence that you DELIBERATELY did not state your position clearly or concisely.
And you wonder why people get defensive and/or have little patience for this stuff.
It’s nice to know that you’ve decided that we’ve earned the privilege of having you treat us with a little bit of respect, but I am forced to wonder just how much of a discussion you (as my new example of this sort of behavior) REALLY intend to have with another person, if you GO INTO the argument assuming that they are not going to meet the discussion on your level. How are we SUPPOSED to react when you make irrational claims and then come back and say, “oh, turns out you’re not as dumb as I thought”?
People can agree or disagree with me, and that’s all well and good, that’s what debate is all about. But if people don’t at least have the courtesy to be fair and honest with others, I typically come down on them a lot harder than those who merely disagree with me, but do so in a civil manner. And here’s the kicker: now that you’ve “come clean” about your intentions, what guarantee do we have that you’re going to be fair and honest with us NOW? Do I have a reason to believe you are not STILL dumbing down your arguments or assuming too little of our capacity for reason?
I like the idea that firefighters, police, and doctors are all standing by. Fires will be put out, a stolen car will be returned, and bones will be mended, all without worrying “how much will this cost?”.
This is another argument I have been hearing frequently since Moore brought it up in his movie. And it’s a rather unimaginative one on his part. Firefighters and police, like many social services in America, are funded mainly on the LOCAL level, not the FEDERAL level. Using fire and police as a template to argue for FEDERAL managed health care is not a well-thought-out argument.
Like most Canadians, I don’t agree with communism at all. I don’t see it as scary or evil, though. Just financially non-viable in the long run and far too prone to corruption.
I don’t think you will find many people in Western countries that want to move to North Korea, Cuba, China, or the former Soviet Union. They have ways of making citizens disappear you’ve never dreamed of. (If you ever need organ transplant, you might want to consider the source. Make sure China isn’t involved.)
Like most Canadians, I do enjoy the benefits of more then a few social programs. The government puts some of my tax money aside for the inevitable tough times that are ahead.
If those social programs work like U.S. Social Security, then there isn’t any money being put away for a rainy day. Every day is a rainy day with socialists.
Do I feel cheated for helping fund social programs that I won’t ever use? Like paying school tax even though I have no kids? Of course not, it is the right thing to do. It is the same for paying into our healthcare system.
Would you feel cheated if you paid into a retirement system for 45 years only to find out the funds had been used to fund other programs and funds for your retirement were no long available? Likewise for health care?
It is a basic right of all citizens, as unquestionable as the right to vote.
Does a person have a right to immediate health care when the national health service wait time for his condition is several months . . . especially when he is willing to pay for that care out of his own pocket?
Can a clinically obese person be denied the right to a hip or knee replacement . . . or by-pass surgery?
Does a chronic alcoholic with cirrhosis have the right to a $100,000 to $400,000 liver transplant?
All of these are existing practices or considerations of taxpayer funded health care systems. Seems like some people have more rights than others.
Posted by bismarck on 07/06/2007 at 02:53 AM (Link to this comment | )
sl0re and mr trout, I’ll concede that there is a distinction between pure socialism and social democrats, but this is a little closer to the point I was trying to make (from dictionary.com):
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Closer? Its just a rewording of what I said. :)
But I can’t concede one point, mr trout—that I am right-wing. I’m a libertarian. But many leftists can’t tell the difference, unfortunately.
I agree… I’d just add I think most US conservatives have a libertarian streak (unlike Euro conservatives)… this makes the claim that even all of them are ‘right wing’ weak to dishonest too. Actually, lefties bestowed the term conservative on them… If they knew the Euro political spectrum better I doubt all would accept that label.
sl0re—
Well, I liked the “in Marxist theory” part. }:>
Posted by bismarck on 07/06/2007 at 09:16 AM (Link to this comment | )
sl0re—
Well, I liked the “in Marxist theory” part. }:>
But I even said that too. :)
communism is rather well defined in Marxist and socialist theory as the stage after socialism…
Aha, you did! Sorry about that, I still have trouble sounding out all the words in sentences. After all, I’m an ignorant toothless right-winger.
Like I said in another post, I like to keep things a bit provocative :3
Too many political forums become a stagnant “circle-jerk” when everyone shares the same hivemind. All the posts are self-gratifying and simplistic. “I hate Michael Moore!” followed by several replies like: “Well spoken brother! I too hate him! Haha!”
These forums get too boring if they are entirely one sided. That is why I like to start out with the extremes and the stereotypes. Bait people with accusations of being far more extreme then they really are, and encouraging them to come forward and prove that they arn’t.
Sadly you sometimes have to prod people a bit to get them to show their true colors.
As an anti-moore web site, I enter expecting to find more of the “Bill Oreilly” types. I chose that stereotype for generalizing you all because Oreilly is the polar opposite of Moore.
Oreilly and Moore use the same bag of tricks. They are both whistle blowers who throw the spotlight on things they do not like. They quote people out of context, selectively report on the world as they see it, and in general have zero integrity. And they never seem to come up with SOLUTIONS to the problems they see in America.
So back on topic, I took the tone here that “Bill Oreilly” types were my audience. I threw out the usual bait for such types. Call them “Christians in name only” and get the usual replies… “If you don’t like America, leave it”, “Moore supports the Taliban”, etc etc.
Quite often I’ll play the devil’s advocate on some forums, supporting ideas that I don’t personally believe in. As I said, I do this to get a feel for the audience, and also to provoke further debate.
I quickly find out which ones are the “you’re either with us or you are a terrorist” types. These alarmists are easily provoked.
More importantly I find out which people are more moderate in their ideology, or at least open minded enough to accept compromise on some issues. They can debate ideology without getting all worked up.
So if a political blog has too many simple minded alarmists who share the same hivemind, there is no point in sticking around for further debate. It would be as futile as having a debate with the Pope over the benefits of Atheism.
But if you give them loaded questions and they respond calmly with intelligent, mature, and original comments… It may be worth sticking around after all.
(If it makes you feel better, I often play the same devils advocate on left wing blogs, environmentalist sites, CNN’s blogs, etc.)
Sadly some people get upset by this. They often mistake it for “trolling” on forums. But a troll usually makes a provocative post and runs away never to be seen again. They don’t stick around for further debate or to justify any scandalous comments they make… “they do it for the LULZ”.
These forums get too boring if they are entirely one sided. That is why I like to start out with the extremes and the stereotypes. Bait people with accusations of being far more extreme then they really are, and encouraging them to come forward and prove that they arn’t.
If I catch you doing that regularly just to bait people, I will ban you.
Just so you know.
Well, gosh, don’t I feel like the mouse that’s been toyed with by a cat. I bow to your superior intellect. You certainly had us feeding out of the palm of your hand.
On a side note, perhaps mr trout could go demonstrate his skills on Michael Moore’s forum.
I’m hankerin’ fer some Yankee to come play banjer wif me.
Like I said in another post, I like to keep things a bit provocative…
etc etc etc blah blah blah
You could have saved yourself a lot of typing just by saying “I didn’t come in here treating your guys’ opinions with civility or respect because I assumed you just regurgitate what some right-winger says on TV”. It would have been shorter, more accurate, and sounding a lot less like you think it’s okay to treat other people like that when they try to meet you in an honest and open debate.
On a side note, perhaps mr trout could go demonstrate his skills on Michael Moore’s forum.
With or without health care, everyone’s welcome there. No black, white, straight, gay, red, blue - only positive critical discourse bettering the world.
The ongoing dissent at that site is simply staggering.
RSS (Subscribe)
Kurt Loder… MTV… who knew. :)