Micheal Moore's SICKO gets *Thumbs Up* from fact checkers.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Oh, so Moore didn't go to Cuba and claimed the healthcare system there is better than in the U.S.?

He did....because it was 60 miles away. He could have gone to about 16 other countries as well. Which I believe is the actual point of the movie.

Originally posted by SaucyRossy

Originally posted by kleverone
Well, I'm going to go ahead and actually watch the film before I decide to form an opinion about it. I just try to be openminded. It helps me learn things. It's pretty cool.

You sir are a smart man.

Wow. Thank you. Would you believe that is the first time I've ever heard that? Ever! Thanks mom and dad!!! Couldn't have even crossed you lips once huh?????

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
We already have A Large Thread About The Cuban Issue Within Sicko

Perhaps it would be best to keep that existing thread active on the Cuban healthcare issues, and reserve this thread for other discussion about the Moore movie.

The problem is that everytime this movie is discussed, the Cuban healthcare system will come up, because it is part of Moore's claims.

I know you want to believe what the Cuban dictatorship tells you, and in this case and for some strange reason you would even believe the U.S. government websites, who take their information from what the Communist dictatorship tells the world, it is not like the Cuban regime lets American, or any other independent group to actually get a first hand account about the healthcare system in the island.

But who do you actually think knows about the so wonderful Cuban healthcare system, websites and groups which take their information from what the opressive Communist regime tells them, or the Cuban people who have lived and still have to use the wonderful healthcare system?

If you read the excerpted part given in the original article, it clearly says.

It compares American health care with the universal coverage systems in Canada, France, the United Kingdom and Cuba.

So why is it that you want to dismiss the part about "comparing the U.S. system to the Cuban system"?

Do we just dismiss the most obvious staged lie because some people want to do that?

You don't present the truth about anything by staging a big lie imo.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by kleverone

He did....because it was 60 miles away. He could have gone to about 16 other countries as well. Which I believe is the actual point of the movie.

He did and staged a lie about it.

Does staging a lie help to bring out any truth?

Originally posted by Muaddib
He did and staged a lie about it.

Thats quite a bold statement. I assume you have seen the movie then?

We Have Two Threads

I'm not going to say it again, as I'm certain this movie will inspire a great deal of heated and productive discussion.

Please use the existing news thread that has significant detail and discussion of the Cuban healthcare aspect of the Sicko movie for additional debate/points regarding that aspect.

Reserve this thread for everything else. It will help readers focus on the various issues with better clarity.

Thank you.

I'm guessing at least 25 million for the weekend box-office. Any predections?

I predict that Moore gets to keep 50% of all revenue. Damn. That is some serious profit. And in light of SO warning, I will conclude that I am not interested in discussing Moore apparent lie about cuba, I am focusing on the USA aspect, which is undeniably as bad system.

AAC

I won't bash the movie because I have not seen it but I would like to address of generic terms like "experts" in articles. Many times is an old journalism trick. Articles will state, experts say, or scientists say, but never actually provide names or references beyond the very generic title. This is because most of the time these "experts" are nothing more than interns, student advisers or whoever happens to answer the phone when the writer calls. The real experts are usually busy. The writer will get their information from people lower down on the totem pole and write the article labeling them as experts. If someone really important has been interviewed you will see their name in the article. If a desk jock lacky has been interviewed you will see generic terms like "expert" or "scientists" used. It is sadly common practice and the reader rarely knowns the difference.

Secondly, it would be great if healthcare was free. But hey, wouldn't it be great if everything was free? Why not clothing, houses, and food? I do not believe that anyone should be turned away because they cannot pay the bill. and I could be wrong about this but my wife is a nurse and I believe she once told me that no one in America is denied emergency treatment.

If I had to guess I would guess that this documentary will distort information. All documentaries (yes, I said ALL documentaries) distort information to a point because they are trying to get the viewer to feel a certain way about an worldly issue. I have read in other interviews that Moore likes to tout the Canadian health care system as being vastly better than the American, but I know Canadians who live here in the USA now who hated the Canadian health care system.

The bad thing about documentaries in general is that you can almost make any issue look the way you want if you never provide arguments from the opposite side.

I do not think that the movie will ultimately do very well. When I have asked people in the Hollywood industry what they think about it most don't even care and that is never a good sign. The age of Micheal Moore may have pasted.

moore say the canada system is better.... yes its free but you can wait like 1 and a half year to get a operation in some case.... we have problem to fund it... we cut everywhere.... they talk about privatise it just like usa so its not perfect to

I've just seen the movie.

I have to say that the apparent operational ethic employed by the health care insurance industry (as depicted) bears a striking similarity to that of any one of a variety of gov't agencies.

As a long term employee of a state gov't agency with extensive public contact, I am sorry to say that the two organizations seem to share the same philosophy with regards their "customers":


"Less (service provided) Is More (profit/bugetary prudence)".


This is particularly worrisome for me since, over the last few years I have developed what would be considered several "Pre-existing Conditions"; conditions which would, should I ever loose my existing employer provided health benefits, likely prevent me from ever acquiring affordable health insurance again.

"I believe she once told me that no one in America is denied emergency treatment."

-----------------------------------------------------

the key words are "Emergency treatment". If you're heart happens to stop and you make it to the emergency room, they'll try to get it started again, do a bunch of tests, maybe hospitalize you long enough make sure you're not gonna drop dead three feet from their door..... then, they'll refer you to a doctor for treatment as to whatever was the cause of your heat stopping.

or it you break a bone, they'll put a splint on it and refer you to a doctor for appropriate treatment....mind you, the cost of setting that broken bone, and the treatment might be equivalent of two years of wages for some people.

emergency treatment is not healthcare....it's just doing enough to keep you going till you can get into your own doctor's office to get the treatment you need.

and sure, there are free health clinics, ect...
but, they are usually based on income....and you can be making only half or less a year of the cost of the medical bills you are getting charged and still not be eligible according to their standards.

I don't care what the problems with canada's or any others healthcare system has. there is one thing for sure.....everybody's paying for it, and everybody's getting healthcare..
go live in the fine state of ny for a few years...every year, they use medicaid and the cost of the state and county's employees healthcare benefits as an excuse to hike up the property taxes. that doesn't include the amount of money going into the federal government for these programs...and well...their employees healthcare. here in the good ole US....we are all paying for it.....but the only thing many of us are getting out of it is that if we lose consciousness on the street somewhere, some idiot will call the ambulance to take us to the hospital to be stabilized so we can be sent home to suffer with the illness long enough to be able to pay the insane bill that they will charge us!!

Originally posted by Muaddib
The experts say he is telling the truth about Cuba's healthcare system?... Which "experts" are these?

CNN's 'experts'. CNN - which leans very far to the left and loooooooves Michael Moore.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
the simple fact that healthcare should be a non-profit organization is a no-brainer.

Your 'simple fact - no brainer' is full of holes. Competition and free market drives a better product. As was stated .. look at the product put out by the public school system verses the product put out by private schools.

Originally posted by SaucyRossy
The thing I don't get about people who hate Michael Moore and hate this film is that to me he is only talking about making things BETTER for Americans.

People can't talk about making things better in America if they use lies and misrepresentations to make an agenda-driven point. Moores propaganda machine is so full of lies and errors that he can't be taken seriously. The sad thing is that he is in a position to have done some good but instead he pumps out the partisan lies.

Originally posted by zerotime
If I had to guess I would guess that this documentary will distort information.

If this film is as full of lies and misrepresentations as the rest of his propaganda, then it can not be called a documentary. A mockumentary or propaganda film .. but not a documentary.

Time will tell. Did Michael Moore actually make a documentary this time or is it his usual bunk? Gotta see the film to know. But I'm not going to give one penny to Michael Moore, so I'll have to wait until someone rents it or buys it and then I'll borrow it from them to see.

I dont like Moores stuff. He twists it to argue a specific side while making it look like the other side has no arguement. Its not a documentary at all, and it is propaganda. Not because I am a conservative who disagrees with free healthcare but because he provides a one sided arguement in an attempt to trick people into thinking its a one sided issue.

The AMA isn't thrilled...

Statement Attributable to:
Edward L. Langston, MD
Chair, American Medical Association

"Physicians grapple daily with the shortcomings of our U.S. health-care system, and we also marvel at the miracles that stem from its strengths. This movie addresses some of the core issues that AMA has been actively working on for years: the plight of the uninsured, the abuses of corporations that put profits over patients."

"We disagree, however, that the only solution is to give up and turn our health-care system over to the government under a single-payer system. The AMA has a plan for covering the uninsured that builds on what’s great in our system – world-class medical innovations and research, and health care professionals dedicated to the health of their patients. America’s health-care system is far from perfect, but by building on its strengths and expanding coverage to the uninsured, we can provide top quality health care to all Americans."

www.ama-assn.org...

A little PC rhetoric but the message is clear... Keep the government out of health care. If you want a concise view of what the "promised land" of government institutional control would be like, head on down to your local DMV office.

If you want to argue that freee health care will drive down the quality of service, you will always have a valid arguement. But let's look at the hundreds of selfless, altruistic doctors that sacrifrfice their income to serve the less fortunate in 3rd world countries.

I have an idea...

Before any state passes out a medical license, that doctors should spend two years in an nonproft clinic finded by the feds. If this was the case, dozens of these centers can pop up around our cities. And you can een throw in state evaluators that can rank these doctors during their non-profit tenure, and once completed, that number rating will help get a better private sector job.

These ideas can also be argued, I understand, but shouldn't we at least be trying? Also, most of the people on here have internet service and can't understand those people that don't have internet nd don't have a way to the health system.

I am not so willing to give up on the idea.

AAC

Point blank, it isnt the governments place to tell me to pay for other peoples health care, plain and simple. If I want to donate money to free health care clinics, I will. Otherwise, it is my money to do with as I please. Im all for helping people less fortunate, but I am even more for restricting government from forcing people to pay for entitlements. Health care is an entitlement. You aren't entitled to anything. You have the right to do whatever you want, but you aren't entitled.

You have the right to health care, as in, no one shall restrict you from getting health care. You should not have the entitlement to health care, as in, if you cannot afford it, you force other people who worked for their money to pay for it.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
you force other people who worked for their money to pay for it.

If this is your position, then I don't know what else to say. I just hope that the shoe never returns to your foot and you are left in a position to understand genuinely other peoples shortcomings. Also, If the people did have to donate some of their taxes to this cause, they could be given compensation breaks from other tax related income. Let's say it could be a BIG writeoff during TAX season, if that makes you happy.

AAC

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

It seems you've conceeded to the impossibility of such an idea. I happen to work in the medical industry and I see everyday the increasing conspicuous corruption that kickbacks create.

hahahaha you think its bad now? You think the solution is ADDING government to RID corruption?! hahahaha That is like saying "we don't have enough water here...I say we move to a desert to solve this problem."

If you think its bad now, well adding government will only make it worse.

Capitalism is some guy providing a service then getting his money, Socialism is some guy getting his money then providing a service. Which one do you think will work better?

Again, I work/operate in the healthcare system (IDTF) and I think I know what I'm talking about, or atleast where I'm coming from. Yeah, there are hurdles, but to say I won't try because of my negative assertions, I am not from that school of thought, sorry.

AAC