I haven’t read moore’s satire take on Detroit sports conspiracies, but I’m guessing he addressed their years and years of poor play.  For one thing, he should mention that for a twenty year period, there were few NBA teams that were better than the Pistons (when they moved to Auburn Hills) and even fewer NHL teams consistently better than the Red Wings. 

The Lions are absolutely the worst and the Tigers have fared little better over the past couple of decades.  The other day a co-worker asked me if the Detroit franchises were cursed and my response was “Only because they’re physically located in Detroit.” He laughed but I wasn’t joking.  On a recent trip to watch the Tigers beat the Diamondbacks this year, one can’t help but notice how vibrant and (relatively) beautiful the town looks by Comerica Park and Ford Field.  One also can’t help but notice how totally scary and delapidated the city is just two or three blocks in any direction from those two stadiums. 

The town exudes corruption and decay.  Imagine being a young millionaire ballplayer living in the nice, upscale towns of Grosse Point or St. Clair Shores.  Then imagine your daily drive to work, looking at hundreds of discarded and/or burnt out houses along the way.  Abandoned buildings and cars litter the neighborhoods.  These athletes also get to see drug deals and other socially degrading activities take place due in part to twenty or so percent unemployment. 

It has to weigh down on a person, especially when they travel to towns like Atlanta, Chicago, etc. to see the workplaces of their peers.  Emotionally it has to have an impact on a player just as it would any of us.  As they say, “location, location, location.”

I want to comment about this:

tongue-in-cheek conspiracy theories about Detroit sports are small potatoes.

Moore writes:

Last Sunday, Calvin Johnson of the woe-begotten Detroit Lions caught an incredible pass in the end zone in the final seconds of the game to beat the Chicago Bears. Except they didn’t beat the Chicago Bears. Because the ref said Johnson didn’t have control of the ball.

Nothing typifies people like Moore than this.  Moore likes to make people think he knows what he is talking about when he doesn’t. 

By rule, the play was not a catch.  The referees made a gutsy and correct call.

But he caught the ball, with two hands, and with both feet in the end zone. He then slammed the ball into the ground in what appeared to be the beginning of his mini-victory celebration (see video).

Part two of the deception:  tell people what you believe, rather than what happened.  Johnson never slams the ball to the ground.  Never.  Not once.  According to the rules, when he loses the ball on the ground, he has not completed the catch.  Period.

The ref, though, ruled it “incomplete.” There was nothing incomplete about it.

Part three:  How dare people be accountable to the rules of the game! 

Was the ref right on the “letter” of an arcane and rarely-enforced NFL rule? Maybe. Probably not. Who cares?

Part four:  Demonize the whole process and hope people don’t notice your ignorance.

The rule in question is called almost every game.  If, in the act of catching a ball, goes to the ground, he must maintain control of the ball.  Johnson did not.  Before Johnson stands up, the ball is on the ground.  This is part of the “Emmanual Rule” that originated back in 2002.  Emmanual, a Tampa Bay reveiver, caught a pass and in the process of catching the ball, rolled on the ground and the ball touched the ground.  The rule at the time said that was an incomplete pass.  So the rule was changed to allow the ball to touch the ground as long as the receiver maintains control of the ball.  In the Johnson catch, the fact that the ball is on the ground is proof that Johnson did not maintain control of the ball throughout the catch. 

No one in their right mind can say that a rule from 2002 is “arcane.” No one who watches football can say this call is seldom made. 

But here is what matters:  Moore tries to say that the rules are unfair simply because he disagrees with them.  That is a great part of this - Moore (and others) think the rule is “unfair.”

To me, what would be “unfair” is playing a game in which the rules change in the middle of the game.  Yet that is what Moore wants.

Not only that, but NFL referees make trips to training camps every year.  They hold meetings with the plays on what the rules say.  They go over changes and points of emphasis. 

One of the rules that is always discussed is “what a catch is.”

Calvin Johnson, the Detroit receiver, has sat through those meetings.  He has been through many rules sessions.  He knows or should have known the rule. 

Yet very few have blamed Johnson. 

In the world of Moore and others, it is always someone else’s fault.  There is no accountability for when they screw up.  It is always easier to blame someone else.  It is always easier to open your mouth and speak out of ignorance.  It is always easy to say “this isn’t fair!” when in fact changing the rule in the middle of the game would be grossly unfair.

Moore needs to grow up.

Do refs always get things right in US sports? Is what a proper catch is ever debatable? Is what’s in control or not debatable?

Perhaps Calvin Johnson actually believes that he was in full control, and therefore disagrees with the ref? Or perhaps he’s just lying to avoid blame. I don’t know. What I do know though, is that I like sports controversy. :)

But are debates on referee calls really linked to a population’s general lack of accountability? I think you are stretching it a bit…

“Posted by MikeS on 09/28/10 at 09:05 PM

“Here, for example, is Donna Smith, complaining about a fire fighter who can’t get a $22,000 test to see if his son has a rare form of Muscular Dystrophy.  I feel for him.  But if we had the socialized healthcare system she prefers, that test would probably not exist.”

It certainly is a weird kind of double think the lefties use for this stuff. They’re convinced kaptialism is the cause of everything bad.. and/or they say things like ‘there is no profit in providing things like X’ when there is and that’s why companies provide it! But in medical cases it gets even weirder… because they imagine big evil corporations are screwing everyone for their profits… but when you point out procedure X is covered by all major insurance providers in the US but not by any of the western countries public healthcare systems they switch gears into defending the noncoverage (well, if the statistics say it is not effective.. blaw blaw blaw)…. Even for things we all know are effective (one such discussion was with a RN who knew perfectly well that the more expensive medical device that I mentioned (because she worked in the field that used them) was not covered in Euro systems made life much much better for those eligible for it in the US and she dropped the stupid ‘if the stats’ line on me)…
Anyway, there is nothing you can do with the true believers (I mean, if they were reality based they wouldn’t advocate a centrally planed public system to begin with...).. but at least they’re about to get their clocks cleaned in the next election. The public has had it with them and their BS. Hell, I’ve had it them.

"Tax rates vary from 10% for lower income to 35% for the upper incomes and many deductions are capped.”

Actually, they start at 0%. Many many people (probably too many) pay no income tax because their income was not large enough.

Anyway, it’s so many it is a danger to the country IMO… when so many pay no tax, they become a danger as they have no reason to not vote for big spenders of ‘other people’s money’. Everyone should have to kick in so they’re vested in what goes on in government…

But are debates on referee calls really linked to a population’s general lack of accountability? I think you are stretching it a bit

I would have a tendency to agree.  Luckily for me I did not link a “population’s general lack of accountability” to any population.  The exact quote is “In the world of Moore and others, it is always someone else’s fault.”

I stand by that assertion.  Moore and his followers are never at fault for anything.  When the GM plant shut down, it was the fault of the CEO.  No blame was ever placed on the unions who drove costs sky high to the point where the plant could no longer compete.  Moore blames everyone but the two kids in the Columbine massacre despite the fact that the kids were not being bullied, they were the bullies and only their incompetence prevented a larger tragedy.  In Sicko, Moore blames everyone but individuals for health care choices. 

It is always the other guys fault in the world of Michael Moore and his followers.

Michael Moore is an American hero dont you think.
He saved this website and is trying to stop uninsured people dying in the streets.Capitalism is more evil than socialism for sure. Jesus was a socialist. I like the second ammendment. Guns are fun for assasinations and school tragedies. Lets all say a great thankyou for Michael Moore. A true American Hero. Right, anyone want a coffee in this blogosphere.

Michael Moore, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher.....class acts....
Hannity, O’reilly, Malkin, Mental Beck… capitalist scum.

Michael Moore is great....if you dont agree you have probably been brainwashed by Faux News or some other ridiculous propaganda or a lifetime of attrocious right wing rhetoric.

I see the trolls have come out to play…

I see the trolls have come out to play…

Actually, they just come out from under the bridges to exhibit their ignorance for all to see.

“HeroMoore” is no different.

The sad thing is that I bet he is “congratulating” himself on how he confronted the “vast Right Wing Conspiracy” and spoke “truth to power.”

Living under a bridge is a terrible existence that never faces reality.

He’s cross-posting his little literary gems over at Kos, where they’re lapping it up like so much spilled champagne.

I went over there to see what the intelligentsia was talking about, and I stumbled on his rant about Lauren Valle getting “stomped in the head so hard you could hear her glasses crunch”.

I logged on to point out that Michael Moore is a big fat stupid liar who takes perfectly good points (like how it’s wrong to stomp on people) and ruins them by twisting the facts. I also mentioned that Moore has done a lot of similar things in the past.

I think they ended up hiding my posts, because when I went back on there to look at the responses, my post was gone.

"socialized healthcare system she prefers, that test would probably not exist.”

and even if it did exist, they wouldn’t pay for it.

There are plenty of medical tests, treatments and drugs which are deemed too expensive for their respective purposes - on both sides of the atlantic ocean. There are things we generally do in Sweden, but you don’t do in US (even under premium insurance). And the other way around, of course. Needless to say, cost is rarely officially admitted to be an issue. Not in US, not in Sweden.

You’ll have to evaluate treatments/drugs/tests individually, compare them with variations in FDA regulations/recommendations (a drug approved in US might not be approved in Sweden, and the other way around), aswell as to the particulars of the insurance policy in US compared to state and local treatment variations in Sweden. There are many things to factor in.

No need to oversimplify things. There is however room for extreme cost healthcare in Sweden too. The first thing I think US needs to debate is whether you want universal healthcare at all. If you do, debate how such a system should look like. If you don’t, you don’t.

(using Sweden as an example, since it is what I know best)

The first thing I think US needs to debate is whether you want universal healthcare at all.

So the “universal healthcare” in Sweden is not “universal, is it?

If services are limited, then the care is not “universal.”

Services are always limited, private and government. Yet, I’m pretty sure people generally regard police or national defence as universal benefits. Pretending that people don’t is just making a mockery out of serious subjects. So let’s skip the word play. I’m just saying that US should start by debating whether it wants universal healthcare or not. If yes, follow that one up by debating its limitations, at least initially. Judging by other countries the latter seems to be more of an ongoing process…

No, we are not going to “skip the word play” because words have meanings.

The last time you commented on this subject you did the same thing - you threw out terms and then denied their meaning.

First, I have yet to hear of a private insurer say “universal health care” when describing their coverage.  The reason for that is that companies have agreements and contracts that spell out what they will and will not cover.  Companies have limited care and coverage by agreement with the insured.  “Limited coverage and services” is not the same thing as “universal health care.”

So when you say the US should have a debate on whether it wants “universal health care,” how do you propose to have a debate on something that, by your own admission, does not exist? 

Yet, I’m pretty sure people generally regard police or national defence as universal benefits.

No they don’t.  No one expects the police to be everywhere.  Police in one district do not have jurisdiction ion another.  No one expects the military to be everywhere.  It is impossible.

No one - except for people who are purposely disingenuous like yourself - uses the term “universal” to mean anything other than the correct definition.

Judging by other countries the latter seems to be more of an ongoing process…

Yeah, because we see how great the systems you put forth are working.  England - broke.  Canada - broke.  Japan - broke.  Germany - broke. 

You see Kim, one of the things that people such as yourself always ask is “what about people that cannot get coverage for a particular condition?” You then advocate “universal health care” knowing full well that the same limitations (if not more) on coverages for conditions are placed by government run systems than private companies. 

You sit there and say “what about the added cost to everyone for uninsured people that go to the hospital, and can’t pay?” The premise of your question being that everyone’s costs go up even though study after study show that with so called “universal health care,” costs are higher for patients than without it because a person is more likely to go to a hospital emergency room for a minor ailment than not. 

The fact of the matter is, Kim, that once again you have ventured into a conversation using false statements, lies and claims.

After our last conversation, I wondered if you had the moral integrity to see that your debating tactics were dishonest.

That question has been answered in the negative.

Oh, and by the way Kim, take a look at this:

http://bigpeace.com/hfontova/2010/11/04/abcs-tradition-of-cowardice-and-treachery/

Look at the cowardliness and gutlessness of people such as Moore that promote the “universal health care” in Cuba.

Maybe “universal health care” in Sweden will cover a new pair of “realism glasses” for you.

By your definition no country in the world has universal healthcare, never have, never will. Yet, for some inexplicable reason the debate goes on between people who clearly don’t subscribe to your interpretation of the phrase.

Go ahead and find another suitable term for what the rest of the world calls universal healthcare. Good luck with that. Personally, I’m not that interested. I’m more interested in practical real world implementations.

I try not to use false claims, or to lie. You on the other hand are discussing things I have not stated. Chill, will you?

I’m not a fan of totalitarian regimes. Cuba is not an exception. Hell, I’m not even a fan of Mikey. I just like honest and reasoned discourse.

(Universal healthcare in Sweden does not cover optical)

By your definition no country in the world has universal healthcare, never have, never will.

I am not making the claim that countries have “universal health care.” You are.  Clearly you do not wish to stand by that which you state.

Tell me Kim, do you believe in “truth in advertising?” In other words, do you believe that something that is advertised and sold should actually be that product?  Or are you happy being deceptive?

I’m not that interested.

Of course you aren’t.  If you were actually interested, you would know that what you and others advocate is fantasy.  You talk about being interested in “practical real world solutions” but yet use words that distort your actual meaning.

It is dishonest.

The thing that bothers you is not the dishonesty, but that someone is calling you out in your being dishonest. 

I try not to use false claims, or to lie.

Yet you did and continue to do so.

Chill, will you?

Have integrity, will you?

I just like honest and reasoned discourse.

Sorry Kim, but that doesn’t pass the laugh test.  In our last conversation you did the same thing.  Time after time you dismissed studies and logical thought processes because of your wanting to define terms and mislead people.

Cuba is not an exception.

But Cuba has the very “universal health care” you advocate.  Isn’t it interesting that you talk about wanting to be in the “real world,” and when that real world contradicts your fantasy world, you run away from reality.

(Universal healthcare in Sweden does not cover optical)

The healthcare is not universal then, is it?

*sigh*

Ok. “Universal healthcare as the term’s generally understood, in Sweden does not cover optical.”

Look, I didn’t invent the term. Someone else did. I just use it as it’s being used by pretty much everyone, but you.

Fight it if you wish, Don Quijote. I’m not interested enough.

Look, I didn’t invent the term. Someone else did. I just use it as it’s being used by pretty much everyone, but you.

You still don’t get it, do you? 

I don’t care what term people use.  I care about the accuracy of the term.  It is, at best, misleading.  It is better described as a lie.

People of your ilk use the term because it describes your fantasy world where everyone is universally covered for every condition in the universe. 

That isn’t reality but you keep wanting to use the term because that is what snake oil salesmen do - they promise one thing and deliver another.

Until you are willing to admit that the term is misleading, there can be no “real world discussion” because your premise is faulty and deceptive at the very start.

And do not, for one second, think that I have forgotten that you cannot and will not answer the two arguments brought forth for proponents of state controlled health care.  In fact, you said, ”You on the other hand are discussing things I have not stated.

That does not line up with your statement that people start by debating whether it wants universal healthcare or not.

Yet you don’t really want that debate, do you?  You only want to say what others should do and what you believe and live in a fantasy world where real people make real decisions and real words have real meanings. 

You want to lie in using words that do not mean what you say they mean.  You misrepresent your intentions.  You want to control the ideas and the terms used in any discussion because otherwise your little house of cards crashes to the ground.

The fact of the matter is that people like you can’t debate or be honest in discussions like this. 

It just isn’t within you.

Christ. I’m not living a fantasy. I fully understand that there are limitations to any healthcare system. Sweden isn’t perfect (effin’ far from it). Nor is France or US. All systems have flaws, which is something most reasonable people understand.

You think that the label is part of the problem, I don’t. I think it’s insignificant. Noone I know believes that “universal healthcare” equals “limitless fantasy world healthcare”. Noone. There’s no agenda in using the term. I use it bevause that’s what people use for describing an “organized health-care system built around the principle of universal coverage for all members of society”. It doesn’t have to be universal in all aspects of the word. Limitless and universal are different words, with different meanings. And one does not need to include the other.

This is ridiculous.

I’m not living a fantasy.

Of course you are.  You are labeling something as something it is not.  For some weird reason, you don’t think that matters.  Yet when Obama talked about the universal health care, he proudly proclaimed that no one would be turned down, that no pre-existing condition would be denied, that no coverage would be denied. 

Despite your silly “noone I know believes that ‘universal healthcare’ equals ‘limitless fantasy world healthcare,’” the fact of the matter is that is the way it was marketed.  That is the way it was presented to the people of America. 

In other words, you either are being disingenuous, or you know no one else.

Limitless and universal are different words, with different meanings. And one does not need to include the other.

Universal:  of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience.
2.
applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.
3.
affecting, concerning, or involving all: universal military service.
4.
used or understood by all: a universal language.
5.
present everywhere:

Limitless:  without limit; boundless: limitless ambition; limitless space.

Sure.  There is no similarity or synonymous meanings to the words, are there?

This is ridiculous.

I agree.  It is ridiculous for people such as yourself to lie about health care.

Hi Guys sry I´m new here and since I´m a german it could happen that my english spelling and gram is pretty crude.

I just wanna say as a heads up I don´t think that that Michael Moore is one of the best documentary filmers but some of his comments about a free social healthcare system are completly true. Mostly I mean stuff like the sentence I rode above:

“But if we had the socialized healthcare system she prefers, that test would probably not exist.”

sry guys....but that is...BULLSHIT.

Since I live in Germany and my father lived many years in France I can tell that is working pretty fine believe me.

As some proove here 2 small links to it....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Germany
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/bb3Germany.php ---- from a british doctor

And just as a little Bonus: That´s our unemployment System....

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

I think its not bad for the nr 4 (with 81 million people ----- 20% of them foreigners) in the List of countries by GDP....and believe me...we are still complaining that it is not enough.

greets Peter-Paul

Reter,

Welcome to the discussion.

about a free social healthcare system are completly true.

No health care system is “free,” and any attempt to label it as such or tout its benefits are lies.

sry guys....but that is...BULLSHIT.

Except for the fact that there are articles that validate the claim.  Why would a person or company work to develop a test and then be forced to give it away or not make a profit from it to fund further research? 

As some proove here 2 small links to it....

Interesting articles.  Now note how in your own country there is a mix of private competition and government health care.  The same holds true in France.  That is what we currently have here in the US.  The author of the article comparing France and the UK’s heath system demonstrates the fallacy of “universal health care” or “unlimited health care” or “socialized health care.”

That´s our unemployment System....

Your system has several things that are not allowed by the US Constitution. 

Interesting system though.

Do not remove my comments Man!
Be honest!
The USA has one of the highest infant mortality rates of any developed country. I would say we are pretty close to low man on the totem pole on this one. As for overall health of our children, well have you see our children? This generation is predicted to be the first not to live as long as their parents. Now how can anyone say that is healthy is beyond me. Diabetes, heart disease etc is plaguing our children at younger and younger age.

USA ranking on infant mortality rate: #32
( #1 Sweden and #2 Finland) Save the children report

USA ranking on health care quality index: #37
(#1 France and #2 Italy) World health organization

USA ranking on life expectancy: #29
(#1 Japan and #2 Hong Kong) UN human development report

We consistently rank very low as far as education goes. I have some stats.

1) USA ranking on Literacy scale: #9
(#1 Sweden and #2 Norway) OECD

2) USA ranking of student reading ability: #12
(#1 Finland and #2 South Korea) OECD PISA

3) USA ranking of student problem solving ability: #26
(#1 South Korea and #2 Finland) OECD PISA

4) USA Ranking on student mathematics ability : #24
(#1 Hong Kong and #2 Finland) OECD PISA

5)USA ranking of student science ability: #19
(#1 Finland and #2 Japan) OECD PISA

You would also think since most Americans believe the USA is the best country in the world, then no other country could surpass us on women’s rights. WRONG!

USA ranking on women’s rights scale: #17
(#1 Sweden and #2 Norway) World economic forum report

Freedom of the press is surely something America leads the pack in, right?

USA ranking on journalistic press freedom index: #32
(#1 Finland, Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands tied) Reporters without borders.

Of course we all know our political system is one of the worst. Corruption runs rampant.

USA ranking on political corruption index: #17
( #1 Iceland and #2 Finland) Transparency international

As for overall quality of life goes, wouldn’t the best country on Earth at least come in in the top 5?

USA ranking on quality of life survey: #13
(#1 Ireland and #2 Switzerland) The economist magazine

USA ranking on human development index: (GDP, education, etc) #10
(#1 Norway and #2 Iceland) UN human development report

Maybe these little nuggets of truth will also help to enlighten.
Denmark gives the most of its GDP (1.01%) to developing countries: Norway
gives 0.91%: The Netherlands give 0.79% and so on until the end of the list, where
the USA sits. Yes the USA ranks DEAD LAST in foreign aid at the pathetic 0.1% of
its GDP, compared to the other 21 nations listed as developed nations. The idea that
the US government is a heroic bunch that runs around the world helping the poor and
the ddis-empoweredis not backed up by the evidence. We have one of the stingiest
governments on Earth.

Most Americans believe the US spends 24% of its budget on aid to poor countries:
the actual amount is well under a quarter of 1%. Our country also ranks #5 on the
asylum-seeker acceptance rates (#1 is Denmark and #2 is Canada)

So any educated person with half a functioning brain can clearly see the USA is not superior to anyone. Only in the minds of her citizens does this myth exist. The rest of the world knows the truth.

1.The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. It is almost twice as expensive as every other developed nation This is largely due to administrative costs which account for 19-25% of healthcare costs, and up to 34% at for-profit hospitals.

2.Other than South Africa, America is the only developed country in the world that does not provide healthcare for all of its citizens.

3.Yet, the US ranks 26th in infant mortality and 24th in the number of healthy years a person can expect to live - putting America’s healthcare system in the company of Cuba and Slovenia rather than Canada and Western European nations.

4.And, despite ludicrous right-wing anecdotal claims of high dissatisfaction among those who live in countries with universal healthcare, the reality is that, with the exception of Italy, Americans are more dissatisfied with their healthcare than are the citizens of every other developed nation, including England, France, Germany, and Canada. Moreover, US doctors spend less time with patients that do doctors in other nations.

http://news.ucsf.edu/releases/comparison-study-shows-us-low-in-primary-care-physician-visits/
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

mayjobs,

We have been down this path with so called “truth seekers"like yourself before.  You don’t know or care about the truth, so please stop talking about it as if you and only you were privy to it.

RE: Infant mortality.  The US ranks lower because it counts any live birth as a birth.  Other countries (the ones above us) only count children that are carried to term and then live for 6 months.  The US tries to keep premature babies alive while and counts their sad and untimely deaths.  Other nations do not.  The statistical analysis is flawed.

RE:WHO ranking.  One of my favorites.  The WHO set up criteria on what they believe is important, and then ranked accordingly.  For example, government contribution to health care was a criteria.  That means Cuba ranked higher than the US. 

RE; Life expectancy.  It is interesting that Japan is #1 - a country with the highest suicide rates in the world.  Life expectancy takes in many things.  Citizens in the US are more likely to be killed on highways because we travel more.  Accidental deaths have nothing to do with the health care system, but yet lower the age expectancy. 

Educational stats:  You are correct in that the US has some improving to do.  Any attempt to hold schools accountable has been met with opposition of teacher’s unions which are no friends of this country.  Go talk to them.

RE:  Women’s Rights.  One of the criteria is abortion on demand paid for by the government.  Most people in this country do not believe in such a thing, so the US ranked lower.  Isn’t it funny that you are putting forth a “study” which tells women they are not in control of their bodies and the government must support them?

RE: Journalistic Freedom.  The Reporters Without Borders report heavily criticized the US for military reporting.  They believe that no plan of battle should not be made public.  They believe that countries should not have secret documents, but want to keep their sources secret.  The RWB report criticized the US for not allowing non-vetted reporters on the front lines.  (After all, what could go wrong with that, right?) They also criticized the US for not launching a rescue mission to retrieve reporters that were captured when they crossed into areas the US had told them to stay out of.

As to giving the most as a percentage of GDP, this stat has long been debunked as it only counts what the US gives as a government.  It does not count what private citizens give to causes. 

But here is the bottom line, maryjolos.  It is clear that you are not only ignorant of the facts, but that you really hate the United States.  I would never try and dissuade you from your delusions of what the US truly is.  I am not a psychologist, don’t play one on TV and didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.  Your delusions are something that you are going to have to face.  If you hate the country, leave.  That is all there is to it.  There are a lot of people from all over the world wanting to come here and they don’t share your slanted view of the US. 

The exit door is open but we all know that you won’t have the guts or the intellectual integrity to walk through it.

Check out the latest masterpiece from Mr. Moore:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/16/920935/-Lets-Pass-Some-Laws-Before-the-Republicans-Head-Into-Town-(after-all,-t thats-what-theyd-do)

I think the KOSkids just banned me for calling Michael Moore a turd-in-a-skin. They said I was violating site policy by leveling personal attacks on a fellow Kos member.

Now, the interesting thing is that I was commenting on the personal attack Moore made on the President when he told the President to take off his Pink Tutu.

I wasn’t defending the President so much as I was attacking Moore’s rank hypocrisy.

It’s too bad, because Lefty-Baiting is one of my favorite sports. It’s so much fun to poke the nest and watch them scurry about looking for facts.

Like you say carver. We’ve walked this road before. Which makes me wonder why honest debate is so difficult.

RE: Infant mortality. The US ranks lower because it counts any live birth as a birth. Other countries (the ones above us) only count children that are carried to term and then live for 6 months. The US tries to keep premature babies alive while and counts their sad and untimely deaths. Other nations do not. The statistical analysis is flawed.

That’s just not true. Some countries count live births differently, but most do it exactly like you do. Here’s a 2004 list of countries doing it “your way”. As you can see, many of them are ranked “above you”. Austria, Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Scotland, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, United States.

And amongst the ones differing it’s not as clear cut as you portray it to be. There’s no general 6 month rule. I’ll grant you this though. The stats are still not fair to the US, but it’s not mainly because of differencies in reporting. It’s because of another health problem. Namely the large number of preterm births in the US (twice as many as in Sweden) Since preterm births generally means increased infant mortality, your stats are effected. Here’s a US study on it.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm

If you discount preterm births, and if you take differencies in reporting into account, you make top ten. Congrats! But then again, isn’t the amount of preterm births a health problem initself?

RE:WHO ranking.  One of my favorites.  The WHO set up criteria on what they believe is important, and then ranked accordingly.  For example, government contribution to health care was a criteria.  That means Cuba ranked higher than the US. 

As far as I know, there’s no such criteria. Accessibility is however, but that’s certainy not the same thing. If all 300+ million Americans were covered by premium insurance, then you would rank high. Hell, you would proably be ranked number one.

That’s just not true.

You know Kimpost, you’re right.  It was an overgeneralized statement.

However, the point and the fact remains that the data is not collected the same in every country and yet that is not taken into account by the WHO.

That is the essential point and you fail to address it. 

As far as I know, there’s no such criteria.

So Kim, when a study is set up that examines one thing, that isn’t criteria for the basis if the study? 

When the WHO uses “government contribution” as one of the criteria, doesn’t that mean that they think that government run health care is a good thing? 

And once again, because I know that you have a hard time with this, no one in the US is denied health care.  Which makes you wonder why the US would rank lower in “accessibility” when all people have access?

Why does the WHO include “life expectancy” as a rating of health care?  “Health care” and “health outcomes,” which are much more dependent on broader social forces so why include a ranking that does not relate to health care?

The WHO Study, upon which so many people like you cite, is flawed.  Seriously, totally and fatally flawed.

Yet people like you are so interested in the outcome, that you never stop to think that the supporting data is wrong.  All you want is something that supports your fantasy world.

And by the way, in the following assertion:

If all 300+ million Americans were covered by premium insurance,.....

The term “premium insurance” has no meaning whatsoever.

Once again you try to introduce a term that is outside the scope of any logical or reasoned discussion.

You know Kimpost, you’re right.  It was an overgeneralized statement.

However, the point and the fact remains that the data is not collected the same in every country and yet that is not taken into account by the WHO.

That is the essential point and you fail to address it. 

I’m not a mind reader. I addressed what you wrote, because it was wrong. Your overgeneralisation painted an untrue picture.

So Kim, when a study is set up that examines one thing, that isn’t criteria for the basis if the study?

When the WHO uses “government contribution” as one of the criteria, doesn’t that mean that they think that government run health care is a good thing?

I don’t follow you. The WHO ranking does not examine government involvement. “Government contribution” is not one of the criterias. If I’m wrong I apologize, but I just can’t find that criteria.

And once again, because I know that you have a hard time with this, no one in the US is denied health care.  Which makes you wonder why the US would rank lower in “accessibility” when all people have access?

Emergency rooms all over respond in kindness to all requests of physicals and desired screenings now, do they? It’s disingenuous to equate “access through ER” with overall access. An honest approach would be to recognize accessibility as a con in the US healthcare system. It might be a con worth accepting, but it still is a con.

Why does the WHO include “life expectancy” as a rating of health care?  “Health care” and “health outcomes,” which are much more dependent on broader social forces so why include a ranking that does not relate to health care?

Because it is related to healthcare. You can argue it’s importance, and how it should be weighted, but that’s a seperate discussion.

The WHO Study, upon which so many people like you cite, is flawed.  Seriously, totally and fatally flawed.

Yet people like you are so interested in the outcome, that you never stop to think that the supporting data is wrong.  All you want is something that supports your fantasy world.

Hey. I am the one who just gave you an actual reason as to why the US ranking on infant mortality is flawed.

I don’t care much about any particular ratings. I don’t even think that I have ever cited a ranking as an argument for my positions. I like to recognize the actual problems, though, without filtering it through some kind of propaganda machine. And I happen to think that the US healthcare system overall has some major issues. Mainly with cost and accessibility (uninsured and underinsured). I don’t see the fantasy in that.

The term “premium insurance” has no meaning whatsoever. Once again you try to introduce a term that is outside the scope of any logical or reasoned discussion.

I tried to come up with an understandable term for portraying the opposite of people who are either uninsured or underinsured. Perhaps “well insured” suits you better?

I’m not a mind reader. I addressed what you wrote, because it was wrong. Your overgeneralisation painted an untrue picture.

Sorry, you don’t get away with that one.  The original statement says that the statistical analysis is flawed because of the different ways that births are counted.  You did not address that point.  In fact, you later agreed with the premise that different countries use different ways to count births, and yet you still don’t address that different data standards make the stats faulty.

I don’t follow you. The WHO ranking does not examine government involvement. “Government contribution” is not one of the criterias. If I’m wrong I apologize, but I just can’t find that criteria.

Look under “Fairness Factor.” The WHO uses a model of percentage of income that a person pays for health care.  When the government pays more of the costs of health care, the “Fairness Factor” is skewed.  Like you, the WHO thinks that governments are money factories and that the money doesn’t come from actual people and actual taxes.  Government contribution should not matter one iota but because you and the WHO think it should, the results are skewed in the direction toward countries that have government run health systems.

It’s disingenuous to equate “access through ER” with overall access.

Let’s go back to what you wrote, shall we?

Accessibility is however,

So now you are saying that accessibility is not the same as “accessibility.” This is the trouble with discussion health care with people like you.  You guys throw out terms and when people like me say “you said this,” you run away from your own assertions.  You run away from the definition of words that you choose to use.

Because it is related to healthcare.

Really?  Say that two twin brothers are out skateboarding.  Identical twins, identical parents, identical family surroundings, identical food, identical health insurance,etc. Identical.  Got it?

One gets hit by a bus and killed on the spot.

How is his death anyway attributable to “health care?”

It isn’t and you cannot make any case that it is.

Yet his death counts against a health care system.

without filtering it through some kind of propaganda machine.

Yet you are defending the WHO report that is nothing but propaganda.  You use terms that are nothing but propaganda.  You live in a fantasy world, Kim. 

Perhaps “well insured” suits you better?

Once again, a term without meaning.  Just another little bit of marketing and fantasy from you.

I’m not defending the WHO report. I’m arguing against some of your unsubstantiated claims. Not by suggesting that the ranking is correct, because I don’t think it is, but by pointing out where you are wrong.

As for your constant word games, I don’t get why they turn you on so much. By those, you are effectively killing any attempts to rational discourse.

Accessibility isn’t always accessibility. Just as fucking ain’t always fucking. There’s a concept called context, and if we pretend not to understand that, even when it’s in plain sight, then discourse has become pointless.

I’m not defending the WHO report.

Yet the WHO report is one of the things that you have used to attack the US Healthcare system.  You have used it to justify some of your claims and beliefs.  Now that you see (or hopefully see) that the report is statistically flawed, you want to back away from the report, but you won’t have the guts or intellectual integrity to back away from your claims.

By those, you are effectively killing any attempts to rational discourse.

No one is playing word games other than you, Kim.  Words mean something.  You want to use words without defining them or being held accountable for their meanings.

For example, let’s take “accessibility.” You constantly use it as if it has some universally accepted meaning.  When shown that it doesn’t you run away like a stuck pig.  So let’s take the term out of the realm of “healthcare” and put it into another arena.  Let’s try “accessibility to the internet.”

Assume for a moment that you believe that everyone should have “access to the internet.” In this day and age, that is reasonable, right?

But wait…

What exactly does “access” mean?

Like many elderly people, my mother is scared to death of computers and won’t get one for her home.  But she has access to the internet through the local public library and the hospital at which she volunteers.  Everyone has access to the library computers.  Is that “access?”

If a person doesn’t have a home computer, should “access” mean we have to buy that person a computer in order for them to gain “access” to the internet?  Should we pay for their ISP?  Is that “access?”

Should “access” mean unlimited bandwidth speed?  Unlimited downloads?

Does “access” mean “the ability to view porn?  Kiddie porn?”

Does “access” mean “WiFi” hotspots?  5G networks?  Mobile devices for everyone?

Got it now?

Words mean something even in context.  The problem with you is that you refuse to believe the meanings of the words you use and the very context you use them. 

You put up the pretext of wanting a “rational discussion” but won’t recognize that until we come to agreement on the meaning of words, “rational discussion” is pointless.  We saw that in your disingenuous use of the term “universal health care” when you later admitted the health care was not “universal.” We had a similar issue on “free healthcare” where you used the term but had to later admit the in the context you were using it, “free healthcare” was not free.

The question is Kim, “why are you so afraid of the terms you use?  Why do you constantly feel the need to lie and then whine when you get caught?”

You don’t want people to know that your entire position is built on a house of cards.  When a strong wind of honesty comes along, it crumbles.

And by the way, I noticed that you didn’t (couldn’t) respond to the example of how “health outcome” is not the same thing as “health care.”

You don’t want a rational discourse.  You want people to genuflect at your supposed brilliance.  How dare any of the rest of us question your supposed superiority of intellect and ideas.

It ain’t gonna happen, Kim.

Like garlic to vampires, truth to people like you is a killer.

Un-be-lie-va-ble!

:)

Un-be-lie-va-ble!

Which I suppose is “reasoned discourse” in your world.

Thanks for proving me right.

Again.

And again.

And again.

PDF erstellen

Word in PDF umwandeln

Excel in PDF umwandeln

Bild zu PDF konvertieren

PPT in PDF umwandeln

"But if we had the socialized healthcare system she prefers, that test would probably not exist. “

Really?

Really?

Really.

Yessir, those socialized health care systems provide coverage to everyone:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/902581--woman-dies-waiting-in-er-as-ag-finds-little-movement

No competition, no accountability, and no legal recourse for this incompetence.

One major difference between those of us who oppose government run health care in the US and those who are for it is that we look at the outcome.  We look at costs and patient care.  Those who are for it just want to feel nice and warm under the tattered blanket of “universal coverage.” It doesn’t matter to them that the coverage is horrible, inefficient, and wasteful, it is the illusion that is it better that matters to them.

I’m not entirely sure “your” side would end up winning a health care horror story match up, gitarcarver.

I’m not entirely sure “your” side would end up winning a health care horror story match up, gitarcarver.

As usual Kim, you try to deflect away from the issue.  The issue is not “horror stories.” The issue is, as I stated,

No competition, no accountability, and no legal recourse for this incompetence.

The US leads the world in outcome based healthcare, Kim.  Unlike you, we don’t deal with warm fuzzy feelings and promises of things that don’t exist.  We deal with reality.  Outcome is what matters.

There are some “horror” stories of health care in the US. Most times those events are met with compensation to the victims.  Is that going to happen in the story I cited? 

Nope.

Just a call for more money to be thrown into the wasteful system.

I suspect that you would include in “horror stories” those where an insurance policy didn’t include a test or operation and the person now wants the that test or operation.  That isn’t a horror story, that is a contract.

Of course, a government run system won’t pay for every test and operation, and the great “ObamaCare” plan now has administrators admitting that there will be rationing of care. 

Gee, just like those of us against government run health care said there would be.

Gee, just like you said there never is in socialized medicine.  (That is what you maintained until you couldn’t or wouldn’t define “universal” in “universal health care.”

If you want to keep playing Kim, I will.  It is clear that you are unable to debate this in a manner where words and ideas matter, but I am still willing to play the game and expose your ideas for the lies and frauds they are.

Some games are too boring to play, so I’ll pass if it goes down that path. As of now, this.

No competition, no accountability, and no legal recourse for this incompetence.

You realise, of course, that competition and accountability can exist within a universal healthcare system? It’s not even controversial to recognise that.

And a few other points.
- Yes. People sitting on lousy “contracts” often provide excellent horror stories.
- A government run system won’t pay for everything, but nor will insurance based systems. It’s not uncommon that more are paid for by government systems.
- I’m discussing “universal healthcare” (as I have defined it) as a principle. Not a particular system, such as Obamacare.
- Some limits will always exist, under any system (insurance based ones too). If you wish to call it rationing, then fine.
- Most countries with some form of “universal healthcare” (again, as I have previously defined it), allow private health insurance. All you have to do is pay. Of course you won’t get a tax break for doing so, but you’ll possibly feel all warm and fuzzy inside for helping paying for someone elses healthcare.

so I’ll pass if it goes down that path.

And yet you merrily strolled down the path again.

You realise, of course, that competition and accountability can exist within a universal healthcare system?

Unicorns can also exist.  It doesn’t mean they do.

It’s not uncommon that more are paid for by government systems. 

Actually, it is very uncommon that the level of service within a government run health care system and a private one is the same.  Generally speaking, the private ones are much faster, cover more and are less expensive.

- I’m discussing “universal healthcare” (as I have defined it) as a principle. Not a particular system, such as Obamacare.

You are discussion that which does not exist.  That’s the same point we keep coming back to.  You don’t have the right to define well known words to mean what you think they should me.  Secondly, ObamaCare is the type of care you feel is “universal,” so any attempt at distancing yourself from it is disingenuous.

Such tactics are common from you, Kim.  You throw things out there and then when they are shown to be false, you try and back away by saying “I wasn’t talking about that.”

Like most people who are against individual rights and freedoms, you can’t think for yourself and can’t think of the logical conclusion of your own statements.  You only want the “warm fuzzy feeling” of the fantasy world you live in.

allow private health insurance.

So I just want to make sure that I understand what you are saying.  A person is required to pay taxes for government run health care that is not universal, and then can option to pay out of their own pocket to get more coverage because the “universal coverage” is in fact not “universal?”

That’s what you are saying, right?  Your own position destroys any remnant of the idea of “universal health care” and yet you keep putting it out there. 

The idea that someone would feel “warm and fuzzy” on the inside for being robbed by the government is ridiculous.  No one ever feels good about paying taxes.  Most people hate the waste and inefficiency of government which is often demonstrated by government run health care.

I enjoyed the trip.  Have a great day and enjoy your lunch with the Mad Hatter.