I don’t consider this as anything unusual.
I would say the vast majority of people see things precisely this way.
It’s just that you’re more likely to incite someone to email you, or comment, or what-have-you, when they’re in harsh disagreement with you, than you are when they are more level-headed, like this person.

Let’s not forget, the rabid dogs on the left love nothing more than to hear themselves speak… or, see themselves speak, as it were… so of course most of the responses you get will be from asshats like that, and not mainstream people like this.

It’s not like Jim and I think that the US healthcare system is perfect.

Really? I’ve never read any suggestions or constructive criticism about our health care system on either MW or RT, just ridicule of other nation’s systems that provide better care as measured by national health trends. Usually based on an isolated incident that you misguidedly extrapolate to be the norm.

Any idiot find isolated examples that agree with their predetermined world-view. Maybe you should try looking into why the average French person will outlive us by 4-5 years and Cuban babies have a better shot at being healthy when born than those in the US.

The French system is bankrupting their nation, our system is bankrupting the citizens. There must be a middle ground…

Posted by hazehead on 07/03/2007 at 01:35 PM (Link to this comment | )

Really? I’ve never read any suggestions or constructive criticism about our health care system on either MW or RT, just ridicule of other nation’s systems that provide better care as measured by national health trends. Usually based on an isolated incident that you misguidedly extrapolate to be the norm.

Really? You have selective hearing then.

Any idiot find isolated examples that agree with their predetermined world-view. Maybe you should try looking into why the average French person will outlive us by 4-5 years and Cuban babies have a better shot at being healthy when born than those in the US.

The first part of that answers the second part.:) The French get 5 weeks of vacation a year, and that one guy in Sicko on the Riviera ‘aint
getting any stress from work either. That alone would add years to your life. I would have to see some more actual facts on Cuban babies but I am willing to bet some of those refugee boats from Cuba had pregnant women in them. Why would that be if their baby had a better chance in Cuba?

Check out therealcuba.com for the true answers to the Cuban healthcare system--if you have the stomach for it.  By the way, in “Sicko”, did moore explain why Cuban babies are born healthier?  If not, let me be the first to school ya:

Some doctors say they were told to use any means possible to keep the infant mortality rate low. Jesus Monzon, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Pinar del Rio until he left in 1995, says pregnant mothers were required to appear monthly for sonograms and other tests to make certain the fetus was healthy.

”If there was any malformation in the fetus, they would interrupt the pregnancy,” said Monzon, now a lab technician at Mercy Hospital in Miami. A heart murmur or other serious problems required an abortion. This was “automatic,” he said. If the mother objected, a team from the hospital would persuade her an abortion was necessary.

Tell me, hazy, did moore reference any of this info in his film?  How about this:

Other sources also say abortion is a tool used to keep infant mortality low, including Andy Gomez at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami, and Carmelo Mesa-Lago, a retired University of Pittsburgh economics professor who has spent decades studying Cuba.

Recent Cuba abortion data is not available, but a study by the Pan American Health Organization from 1998 states Cuba had 70 abortions per 100 deliveries in 1992 and 59.4 in 1996, far higher than the 34 to 38 abortions per 100 live births reported during that time in the United States.

Is that the America that you want to live in?  How about a socialized healthcare system that keeps numbers like this:

Nestor Viamonte, a primary-care doctor in Ciego de Aguila until 2003, says all Cuban doctors are told to focus on babies. Infants under 1 and those with serious chronic diseases were the only ones who could get in to see a doctor without waiting days for an appointment.

Mothers were required to bring in their babies monthly for examinations. Babies who died in the first month were reported to have died before birth to keep the numbers low, Viamonte said.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/817811/infant_mortality_rate_in_cuba_raises_eyebrows_cuba_is_known/index.html?source e=r_health

I’m sure that in his quest for equal and fair representation, moore included all of this data in his film.  I’m quite certain that he even asked El Presidente Fidelio Castro all about it…

Really? I’ve never read any suggestions or constructive criticism about our health care system on either MW or RT

Really? Well that just proves that you’re a drive by troll who hasn’t bothered to fully explore this site. Otherwise, maybe you’d have seen
this.

Talk about a “predetermined world view”, huh? Yours is so set in the stone of ignorance and hate that it makes you either blind or illiterate.

And tell me, if these incidents are so damned isolated, then why are there just so damned many of them?
If the socialized systems you’re defending are so superior, then why is it estimated that the U.S. health care system treats upwards of 875,000 foreign nationals every year? (almost 20% of these from the socialized wonderland of Canada alone.)

Any idiot find isolated examples that agree with their predetermined world-view.

Oh, you mean like this;

the average French person will outlive us by 4-5 years

or this;

Cuban babies have a better shot at being healthy when born than those in the US.

Which, incidentally, are bullshit numbers, anyway, in this context.
The French lifespan is attributed, far more than any other factor, to their diet, not their health care. I defy you to find a single citation of anything to the contrary.
And Cuban babies are more likely to be born healthy, because they’re less likely to be born at all. Not only is the miscarriage rate higher in Cuba, but what’s more important is that the pregnancy rate is higher in the U.S., due to far more advanced medical fertility technologies.

If you’re going to offer an argument, at least make it a good one.

I can’t believe how different my interpretation of Sicko is compared to what some of yours’ seem to be.

While watching the movie, I got the impression that Moore was trying to respond to some of the rhetoric surrounding socialized medicine. Like George Bush Sr.’s quote that was something along the lines of “Think socialized medicine is the way to go? Ask a Canadian!” The implication being that nearly every Canadian would be unhappy with their health care and would tell you as much. Also implying that they would be unhappy with the system because it was socialized, not because it was being run poorly. (Yes, I realize this video clip is probably 17-or-so years old.)

So, MM went to Canada, and asked some Canadians. I’m sure he found people who weren’t happy, but he also found people were. Their testimonies directly contradict what Bush said so many years ago. I actually couldn’t find any current satisfaction surveys for different countries, but I’d be willing to bet $10 via PayPal that MOST Canadians are satisfied overall. I wonder what the satisfaction level of the US is. Maybe Bush Sr. should’ve said “Think privatized medicine works? Ask an American!”

I can’t name any sources (I bet I could find them if pressed though), but another common argument against socialized medicine is that people don’t get the care they need quickly enough. I don’t have any figures or statistics, but on this site alone I’ve seen 2 Canadians* HERE (moorewatch.com) who said they personally (or someone very close to them) received exactly what they needed in an acceptable amount of time. I haven’t seen any Canadians* here saying they had to wait an unacceptable amount of time.
*Yes, I’m taking their word for it. These people who purport to be Canadians may actually be lying.

I’ll try to make this one shorter, as the explanations are getting a little redundant… People say doctors in countries with socialized medicine don’t make much money. As I’m sure this is true in some cases (like the “doctor” in Cuba that drives a “Cubo") it’s clearly not universally true.

So, what did I get out of the movie?
1. Apparently the mere fact that something is “socialized” or “government run” doesn’t automatically mean it’ll be ruined. If the system is managed poorly anything can turn to shit (just look at Cuba), if the system is managed well, anything can work great (just look at Canada).
I don’t know about anyone else, but I like to think that WE can do it right!
2. Our current system is managed very poorly. It’s very costly (people WITH health coverage are going bankrupt), it’s not universal (duh), and it’s focused on profits instead of care (another duh… near-quote from Sicko: ’HMOs can make more money by denying care‘).
3. Even in a shit hole like Cuba, where everything sucks, people can still get free and low-cost medical service. Surely a country where everything is great (’Mer’ca) can figure out a way to take care of every one of it’s people, even if one of those people isn’t rich.

Am I completely off base here? Am I so jaded by my liberal pinko leanings that I can’t see the other clear message in Sicko? Maybe point #3 above isn’t an admirable goal? Should we dismantle the other socialist services (police, fire, armed forces, coast guard, park service, DOT, etc., etc., etc.) we have?

If so, what is “on base”? What is the clear message?

Do you people seriously believe MM thinks Cuba is paradise? If not, quit saying as much!

Posted by Rapid R on 07/03/2007 at 02:07 PM (Link to this comment | )

Any idiot find isolated examples that agree with their predetermined world-view. Maybe you should try looking into why the average French person will outlive us by 4-5 years and Cuban babies have a better shot at being healthy when born than those in the US.

The first part of that answers the second part.:) The French get 5 weeks of vacation a year, and that one guy in Sicko on the Riviera ‘aint

Diet (somehow, something about that diet allows them to live on butter on not get heart disease...), genetics (re: we’re not French), that sick babies are born alive here more and thus counted as live births even though they don’t all make it....

I wonder what the satisfaction level of the US is.

The US has the highest level of customer satisfaction of any country in the world, a little factoid Moore conveniently left out of his film.  There was a link to the source of this data in one of the reviews of the film linked here.  I’m at work and don’t have time to go hunting for it, but you should be able to find it.

...ridicule of other nation’s systems that provide better care as measured by national health trends. Usually based on an isolated incident that you misguidedly extrapolate to be the norm.

Of course not a single non-American who sees Sicko” is interested in US bashing. They simply thirst for universal wisdom beyond their borders.

If the system is managed poorly anything can turn to shit (just look at Cuba), if the system is managed well, anything can work great (just look at Canada).

1) Yeah. Canada’s isn’t that great. Read the site a bit more.

2) Yeah, if it’s managed well, it can work great. Communism also works on paper.

I can’t name any sources (I bet I could find them if pressed though), but another common argument against socialized medicine is that people don’t get the care they need quickly enough.

In some cases, health care is not timely.  In other cases, it’s simply non-existent.

Due to its very nature socialized health care ends up being underfunded.  The long wait times and lack of some services are directly related to this problem.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I like to think that WE can do it right!

Well, when we fix Medicare, let me know.  The proof is in the doing.

I will have to admit that the system here in Canada isnt perfect, of course, Im only going on the same information you guys (who are not Cdn) are going on, which leads to the kind of opinions that Rann and Buzz have.

But I can tell you first hand, that its not all bad.  I went to my family doctor because of headaches, and due to family history, had an ultra-sound that day at a clinic near by, and a CT scan a couple of days later.

This is a a very stupid e-mail by a very bad Michael Moore fan. It doesn’t surprise me that it has been used on this site.

You got punked as they would say.  It sucks that he’s a good person, doesn’t it?  Doesn’t fit your agenda, so you have to attempt to smear him for paying for her health care.  LOL you all are such easy marks, keep it up there is plenty of more fun planned for you two.  LOL.

Who’s the fat guy?

I like the Black Flag person. What is the difference between a “bad” and “good” Michael Moore fan?

What does “CT” mean? Is “CT” similar to “H2O” or “e=mc2”?

Hey, I saw a film recently - it was called Ziet-Gust or ZietGeest - whatever - it made me want to move to Costa Rica.

This is a a very stupid e-mail by a very bad Michael Moore fan. It doesn’t surprise me that it has been used on this site.

You got punked as they would say.  It sucks that he’s a good person, doesn’t it?  Doesn’t fit your agenda, so you have to attempt to smear him for paying for her health care.  LOL you all are such easy marks, keep it up there is plenty of more fun planned for you two.  LOL.

Interesting that these are posted right together.

See, the thing is that baytrails here? He’s the typical Michael Moore fan. Spiteful. Hateful. Stupid as a rock. Anything else is the extremely rare exception to the rule.

This is a a very stupid e-mail by a very bad Michael Moore fan. It doesn’t surprise me that it has been used on this site.

Well, it looks like Moore must reel him back in for indoctrination. I know you didn’t mean to make a funny post but I really did lol. For that I Thank you.

Posted by up4debate on 07/03/2007 at 06:49 PM (Link to this comment | )

But I can tell you first hand, that its not all bad.

I know / I buy it. Not everyone here has a bad HMO experience either. Still, enough do that I don’t want to be in an HMO.

Hirudin, I actually wrote a point-for-point analysis of your post, about two hours ago.
Unfortuantely, when submitting it, I was met with a reality check of just how long winded I can be, when I got a message claiming that the maximum charater count is 100,000, and I’d submitted 120,000 or something to that effect.
Christ, I talk too much.
I lost that post, as the back button gave me a frustratingly empty posting field… (Jim, is there a way to fix that?) and I just didn’t have the will to go through it all again. So I’ll just pick one point, which I think was the most important, for this comment;

1. Apparently the mere fact that something is “socialized” or “government run” doesn’t automatically mean it’ll be ruined. If the system is managed poorly anything can turn to shit (just look at Cuba), if the system is managed well, anything can work great (just look at Canada). I don’t know about anyone else, but I like to think that WE can do it right!

Make a note, here; I agree with you. As Americans, we can do anything we set our minds to. History is a well recorded testament to that fact.
But… (and like my Nana Gertrude’s backside, it’s a big “but")
... This is a central question I request any proponent of socialized medicine ask themselves, honestly;
Why socialized medicine?
I mean, if you honestly have faith that we can fix the plethora of very, very serious problems that plague universal health care (UHC), why then do you have no faith that we can fix the problems plaguing our existing system? Why is your solution to our flawed system the complete implementation of an entirely new, but even more flawed, system?
Logically, it would be considerably easier to repair free market health care (FMHC) than it would to scrap it wholly, replace it with UHC, and then fix all the problems inherrent in UHC, wouldn’t it?
Not to mention that, with all the flaws FMHC has, most of these are not systemic. They are not problems inherrent, by design, of FMHC, like the problems with UHC are.

If FMHC is a 1979 gremlin with no brakes and a busted steering column, it may be ugly as sin and all f#@ked up, but it can still be fixed. UHC, however, is a more like a shiny new bus with all 6 wheels in the front. The problem is in the very design of the thing. Repair is not really an option. So again, please ask yourself this honestly;

(and this is for all UHC advocates, here) If we are capable of rebuilding that entire system to make it work, then why do you think aren’t we capable of fixing the system we have?
Why UHC???

I lost that post, as the back button gave me a frustratingly empty posting field… (Jim, is there a way to fix that?)

Well, not the back button thing...and the character limit can be upped.  It’s currently 10000...I bumped it to 15, but I’d be loathe to go higher.

If you are planning a LONG comment, I suggest writing in a text file first - Not a word processor, but a text editor.  Word processors can introduce weird characters. 

Or hell - make it a post and link back to the original comment that inspired it.

I lost a 4th of july post at my site earlier today, I know it can be VERY frustrating!

Why UHC???

artmonkey asks a good question.  For the life of me, I just don’t understand why liberals want neocon’s running their health care system.

I got the impression that Moore was trying to respond to some of the rhetoric surrounding socialized medicine.

How are cherry-picked horror stories about private care a response to UHC rhetoric?

I’m sure he found people who weren’t happy, but he also found people were.

And yet, in his film, all partakers of private health care are miserable and all partakers of social health care are blissful.  He ADMITS that he is not even TRYING to be fair in his presentation.  His campaign matters more to him than The Truth (tm), and the fact that you have to ASSUME there were unhappy Canadians PROVES that.

Our current system is managed very poorly.

That does not prove UHC is the answer.  Our system can be fixed without conversion.  Even all the reasons that you mentioned in support of this (other than “it’s not universal” being a complaint, which is baffling at best), do not apply to everyone.  There are plenty of low-cost alternatives, there is plenty of focus on care.  If you accept Moore’s picture of private health care as the norm for the US, then yes, I would say your “pinko liberal” perspective is “off base”

Even in a shit hole like Cuba, where everything sucks, people can still get free and low-cost medical service.

NO.  THEY.  CAN’T.  Not in the way Moore is portraying their health care.  TOURISTS get free and low-cost medical service.  CITIZENS get put into rotting buildings and left to swim in their own waste.

Maybe point #3 above isn’t an admirable goal?

Of course it is.  Doesn’t mean the government has to be in charge of it.  Those are two completely different arguments, and Moore has you bamboozled into believing that they are inextricably intertwined.

Should we dismantle the other socialist services (police, fire, armed forces, coast guard, park service, DOT, etc., etc., etc.) we have?

This is another completely faulty argument by Moore, and shame on you for repeating it.  Armed Forces are for national defense.  NATIONAL defense.  That is clearly a federal issue.  DoT handles NATIONAL infrastucture, state and local roads are handled mainly by state and local governments.

So are police.

And fire.

And non-national park services.

And public libraries.

Most community services are managed by community government, and federal intervention in these matters (e.g. Dept. of Education, “100,000 new cops/teachers”, etc) have caused more problems than they’ve solved.

This may be one of the stupidest things I’ve heard Moore suggest in response to an argument against UHC, and that’s saying something, considering how high he tends to set the bar.

Should we dismantle the other socialist services (police, fire, armed forces, coast guard, park service, DOT, etc., etc., etc.) we have?

This is another completely faulty argument by Moore, and shame on you for repeating it.  Armed Forces are for national defense.  NATIONAL defense.  That is clearly a federal issue.  DoT handles NATIONAL infrastucture, state and local roads are handled mainly by state and local governments.

Two other thoughts.
1) we created some of those before there was any such thing as socalism so how are they socialist.
2) Like we get a great deal from them… we pay way too much IMO for those services, we just don’t have a better idea on how to have them done… its the best of the worst [ideas or ways] of delivering those services.

After watching the documentary “Sicko” last evening I decided to take a look at your website, that was essentially “plugged” in Michael Moore’s documentary. In all honesty I have to say that the very things you seem to accuse Michael Moore of, swaying too far to one side, you and your website appear to do the same thing in reverse. “Yesterday Michael Moore ate a cheeseburger while wearing tan loafers… that bastard, you know what that means.”

I happen to enjoy Michael Moore’s documentaries a great deal. Am I naive enough to blindly believe everything spoon-fed to me? No, far from it. But I do believe that because of the sensationalist way he approaches some pretty tough subjects, it lends way for debate. Debate on the news, debate on post-boards, even opening the door for a website such as yours to be created.

It is true that there are morons everywhere. I take offense to the continual reference to “all” Moore-fans not being the brightest in the world. My opinion is that it is wrong for anyone to blindly follow another, and that would include not only Michael Moore fans but regular posters/supporters of your website.

I have the distinct advantage of having first-hand seen not only the health care in the United States but Canada as well. I am an American who is now a permanent resident of Canada. It is true that there are advantages and disadvantages of both health care systems, but I can honestly say that if given a choice between a longer wait time to see a specialist or losing everything I’ve worked my life to attain, I would choose the former. We have easy access to basic health care. If there is an emergency and we go to the hospital we are treated then and there. The wait times you speak of are for specialized services or times that our family practitioner has to refer us to another physician.

My 8 year old has a heart condition that was detected on Good Friday. It is not an immediate danger sort of condition, but is worrisome nonetheless. Subsequently he has been referred to a Cardiology department for further testing. And the wait period for this service? Two months from the time the papers were submitted. But I also know that if his condition were to worsen they’d take him immediately at the Children’s Hospital where he’ll be going for his tests. Yes in some ways the wait times can be difficult, but at least I know that he will be seen. If someone has a condition that is deemed dangerous or requiring immediate attention, in most cases they are given immediate attention. Notice I say “most cases”, as I am sure there are situations where someone has slipped through the cracks, so to speak. People who deal in absolutes, in my opinion, are the true morons.

Socialized health care is not the only reason for our wait times. Because we have socialized care in Canada, that is run by the government, our doctors are paid by the government. Doctors who work in the United States have a much higher salary base, in many cases, then those in Canada. Canadians who are professionals, doctors as well as other professionals, in several cases go the U.S. on work visas. In some cases it is the individual person’s choice to do so for monetary gain, and in other cases these people are “recruited” by American companies, because these companies are given the advantage of acquiring trained professionals without having to pay for their education. An article a few years back in a prominent Canadian magazine referred to it as the “Brain Drain”. (I will point out that this “brain drain” speculation is another debatable topic… just to clarify.)

Another point for you to consider is that, although I haven’t found anywhere on your website yet that references where you are from, other than the United States (I will point out that I have only been reading this morning, to avoid any attacks from the website creators at this small possible error), Americans are given a very different view of things via the media than people who are outside the country. There was nothing more eye-opening for me than moving from the United States to Canada and watching my first Canadian news program. I was brought up in the United States, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance every morning before school started, raised to believe that we were the “big brother” of the international world, helping those who needed to be helped, I believed it so much that I went into the Air Force when I graduated. When you are given the advantage of a different perspective, as I was, you quickly realize that isn’t entirely the case. The international world sees the United States as the playground bully. Do I blindly believe this new media that has lent itself to me? No, but I do believe that somewhere in the middle is where the truth lies. And it is my opinion that most people would think that way. You would view two sides of a situation, listen to both and come to the realization that somewhere in the middle is the truth. Those who do not approach things this way are the those who shoot off their mouths with little facts to back it up, and in all honesty I’ve seen this type of person from both your supporters and Michael Moore’s.

And my message here is where I feel the true strength in Michael Moore’s approach lies: the beginning of my email dealt with the debate at hand between Michael Moore’s tactics and your opinions of them, and went into a discussion about health care and weighing the pros and cons as such. If more people did this, especially more political people, there would be real change. No one, regardless of their opinion, should be dismissed or attacked. I applaud anyone, regardless of which side of the fence they are on, to stand up and speak their mind, and this includes your website. I do consider myself a Michael Moore fan and will continue to watch and anticipate his documentaries, and look forward even more to the debates they spark in the aftermath.

MH92503, first of all I’d like to thank you for the cogent and heartfelt thoughts.  Clearly we can agree to disagree on many points, and therein lies the spirit of debate.  However, I’d like to address just two points you made in your post. 

The international world sees the United States as the playground bully.

So what?  The international world is also full of two-faced ingrates.  All I have to do is throw a rock inside the U.N., and I’ll hit a representative of that mindset.  It doesn’t make the U.S. better or the other countries worse, it’s just that I don’t necessarily give or need to give a damn.  We (U.S. and other countries) agree to disagree.  To bring it down to a personal level, if you don’t like me, don’t deal with me.  You’re happy, I’m happy, and I wish you luck. 

But I do believe that because of the sensationalist way he approaches some pretty tough subjects, it lends way for debate.

I’m glad you brought that up, and I can certainly agree with you on that.  I’m sure you’ll agree with me on another point, and that is that Canada is responsible for unleashing too many pedophiles upon the world.  It’s disgusting and reflective of Canada’s loose morals, and something needs to be done about it.  All other civilized countries try to do something about pedophiles—why isn’t Canada?  I mean, what is wrong with the average Canadian: are they blind, or just plain stupid???

MH92503, one piece of advice - I say it not to criticize you, but to make it easier to read what you have to say - use paragraphs.  Giant blocks of text rarely get read online.  If you break it up into paragraphs, it makes the ideas contained therein easier to understand.

bismarck, I hadn’t realized that Moorewatch included debates on pedophiles. But, since you brought it up I will reference it.

I’m sure you’ll agree with me on another point, and that is that Canada is responsible for unleashing too many pedophiles upon the world.  It’s disgusting and reflective of Canada’s loose morals, and something needs to be done about it.  All other civilized countries try to do something about pedophiles—why isn’t Canada?  I mean, what is wrong with the average Canadian: are they blind, or just plain stupid???

I would be interested to find out where exactly you get your facts from regarding this comment. Not that you are apparantly aware, but things are done about pedophiles here, I hear it on the news everyday.

I believe debate is a great thing, I do agree with you on that. However, it occurs to me that you lack the ability to debate intelligently, resorting to generalizations and insults about the “average Canadian” as a whole. People would be far more inclined to respect your opinion and venture their own if you’d refrain from these tactics.

In regards to the following comment:

So what?  The international world is also full of two-faced ingrates.  All I have to do is throw a rock inside the U.N., and I’ll hit a representative of that mindset.  It doesn’t make the U.S. better or the other countries worse, it’s just that I don’t necessarily give or need to give a damn.  We (U.S. and other countries) agree to disagree.  To bring it down to a personal level, if you don’t like me, don’t deal with me.  You’re happy, I’m happy, and I wish you luck. 

It is that “me” mindset that lends way to several problems on a global scale. If you truly feel this way, that different countries shouldn’t care about what others do or what others think, then you wouldn’t be engaging me in a debate about Canadian morals. Also, if you believe this, then surely you must be anti-war? Countries should worry about themselves and fend for themselves, would that be accurate?

MH, you missed his point entirely.

He was being sensationalist with no real facts to back it up.  Your logic was presented to us as saying that is OK, as long as it leads to debate.

As you an see, being sensationalist for the sake of “stirring debate” is actually quite useless.  You actually proved his point with your response, which went from “debate” to a personal attack on his intelligence in 0.4 seconds.

I will concede to the fact of missing the point of his post, yes. And I do see your point of being a sensationalist with no facts at all. However, I did present my opinion saying that I felt there were three sides to every story, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Not that either side was just blatantly making things up, but that amidst the story each side told, there was some truth and merit to both. I didn’t see the same logic in the aforementioned post from bismarck, nor was it my intention to attack anyone’s intellect; rather, their ability at intellectual debate, in reference to

I mean, what is wrong with the average Canadian: are they blind, or just plain stupid???

nor was it my intention to attack anyone’s intellect; rather, their ability at intellectual debate

Well, now you’re splitting some awfully fine hairs, but so be it.

His statement was no more or less inflammatory than Moore’s barrage of comments about America and Americans.  If it serves no purpose toward the goal (to reach some middle ground), neither does Moore’s inflammatory rhetoric.

Good for the goose, good for the gander.  Or good for neither.  Ultimately, the point is, you can’t have it both ways.

Thank you, JimK

Thank you, MH

I believe debate is a great thing, I do agree with you on that. However, it occurs to me that you lack the ability to debate intelligently, resorting to generalizations and insults about the “average Canadian” as a whole. People would be far more inclined to respect your opinion and venture their own if you’d refrain from these tactics.

Precisely why Moore’s films have no place in the public debate.  The defense of his films as “encouraging discussion” is beyond the pale, and I will balk at it every single time.

How are cherry-picked horror stories about private care a response to UHC rhetoric?

Well, they’re not. The portion of the movie (2/3 or so) that talks about UHC is the response to socialized medicine rhetoric.
Yes, there are parts of the movie that don’t fit my general description of the movie. No, that doesn’t make my general description wrong.

That does not prove UHC is the answer.

But that doesn’t prove PHC is the answer. But that doesn’t prove… but. but. but.
No it doesn’t. Like I said, the movie is a response to the bullshit.
Bullshit: in socialized medicine you don’t get the care you need
Response: here’s some people getting the care they need

NO.  THEY.  CAN’T.  Not in the way Moore is portraying their health care.  TOURISTS get free and low-cost medical service.  CITIZENS get put into rotting buildings and left to swim in their own waste.

I admit it, I don’t know much of anything about Cuba.
But are you saying that the hospital that they go to in the movie is a “Tourist Hospital”?
To be more blunt: If what you’re saying: “CITIZENS get put into rotting buildings and left to swim in their own waste” is true. And since the hospital in Sicko wasn’t rotting. It’s also true that there were no citizens in that particular hospital.
Like I said, I don’t know squat about Cuba, but are you saying that they prevent citizens from entering these “tourist hospitals”?
Sorry, but I think you’re wrong, or lying.

“it’s not universal” being a complaint ... is baffling at best

(In this quote “it” refers to figuring out a system where everyone gets care.)
Of course it is.  Doesn’t mean the government has to be in charge of it.

Low cost != Universal
There is NO way a private system will provide anything other than “low cost” coverage. Well, maybe if the government forced them (A). Or maybe if the government paid for it (B). Or maybe if the government managed it(C). But isn’t the point of keeping the system private to prevent the government from controlling health care(A&C;) and to avoid paying higher taxes so poor people can get health care for free(B)?

This is another completely faulty argument by Moore, and shame on you for repeating it.  Armed Forces are for national defense.  NATIONAL defense.  That is clearly a federal issue.  DoT handles NATIONAL infrastucture, state and local roads are handled mainly by state and local governments.

No it’s not.
Let me see if I understand you.
NATIONAL defense, run by NATIONAL government is good.
State and local roads (and other community services), run by state and local governments (community governments) are good.
But health care, run in any way by the government is bad?

Sorry, but I think you’re wrong, or lying.

therealcuba.com

Now apologize for calling him (and me, and everyone else who knows this is a fact) a liar.

But health care, run in any way by the government is bad?

Pretty much, yeah.

Well, they’re not. The portion of the movie (2/3 or so) that talks about UHC is the response to socialized medicine rhetoric.
Yes, there are parts of the movie that don’t fit my general description of the movie. No, that doesn’t make my general description wrong.

Countering rhetoric with rhetoric doth not a discussion make.  The movie painted no good picture of private care and no bad picture of public care.  Tell me I’m wrong.

But that doesn’t prove PHC is the answer. But that doesn’t prove… but. but. but.
No it doesn’t. Like I said, the movie is a response to the bullshit.

The movie is a commercial for a universal, single-payer system.  It is not just FYI, no matter how much you wish it was.  Moore tells people DIRECTLY that his films are not fair and he does not even TRY to be fair.  His personal campaign is his primary motivation.  AND HE IS CAMPAIGNING FOR UNIVERSAL, SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE.  Watch Moore’s interview on the news post above.  Tell me he wants anything for this country other than a universal, single-payer system.  Your defense of the movie is what is bullshit here.

I will say it again, demonstrating problems in one system DOES NOT PROVE that a conversion is necessary.  There are other answers to be explored.  If you’re the one who’s so enlightened, how come I’m the one who’s being open-minded about our options?

Sorry, but I think you’re wrong, or lying.

Well, this is the part where you learn that I don’t make statements that strong unless I am damn sure about it.  Check the link JimK provided above.  Or better still, there’s a picture on another news post further down that shows you PRECISELY what I have described.

Bad enough that you made fun of the way I typed earlier.  You call me a liar again, you’d better have your facts straight, son.  Right now I’m running out of reasons to take anything you say seriously ever again.

There is NO way a private system will provide anything other than “low cost” coverage.

Sure it can.  It can provide high cost coverage.  It can provide free coverage.  There are all kinds of coverage a private system can provide.  And this is the only sentence in your whole paragraph that even made SENSE.  Would you care to try it again, only in English, so I can understand your point and respond?

No it’s not.

OH, ZING!  YOU GOT ME!  Well, guess what, Socrates?  YES IT IS!

Wow, this discussion is really moving forward.

Let me see if I understand you.

I’ll give you advance warning: you don’t.  Although I don’t know if that’s really “advance” warning since everything written above demonstrates that you haven’t really understood anything I’ve said so far.

NATIONAL defense, run by NATIONAL government is good.

Correct, because that is done in the defense of the entire nation, maintaining the integrity of our entire society.  Not individuals.

State and local roads (and other community services), run by state and local governments (community governments) are good.

Correct, because local controls are most effective at addressing local issues.  They know exactly what needs done, they are more adaptable to the locality, and they are directly accountable for their conduct.

But health care, run in any way by the government is bad?

OH HE WAS SO CLOSE AND THEN HE SANK INTO GENERALITIES AND BROAD STROKES!

There is a reason that I emphasized the difference between the federal government and the local government.  IT’S BECAUSE MY ARGUMENT IS AGAINST FEDERAL CONTROL OF THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY.  Moore is arguing for FEDERAL CONTROL.  I am arguing against FEDERAL CONTROL.

You know what that means?  It means local controls… ARE NOT PART OF THE DISCUSSION!  And you know what that means?  It means fire and police… ARE A FAULTY ARGUMENT!

Get it?

So you would be OK with a local government run health payment system w0rf?