I believe anyone is capable of anything. Even you posting a link to a Fahrenheit 9/11 site when the conversation we are having is clearly about SiCKO.

Ummmm, I said, "There are any number of sources out there that demonstrate where Moore has specifically and intentionally lied, misled, what have you--we can be generous and call it 'creative editing,' but he is easily impeachable." That comment applies to Moore in general.

You replied, "I would like to see where he fudged the facts."

I posted that one, because it was the first one I remembered, and it clearly demonstrates my point: that Moore has specifically and intentionally lied and misled people in order to advance his position. Others do it as well. The point being that it's WRONG regardless.

Do you have a link for the topic at hand?

Yes, like I said last time: Google. Go nuts.

My Apollogies. May I ammend my previous statement to, "I would like to see where he fudged the facts, where the movie SiCKO is concerned." And , NO, I am not going to prove your argument for you. I'm sure you are capable of finding proof to support your views yourself. Google

As for Moore's facts and figures, he got most of his numbers here. http://www.who.int/en/ I suppose they are unreliable as well?

---

DONATE TO SETI

My Apollogies. May I ammend my previous statement to, "I would like to see where he fudged the facts, where the movie SiCKO is concerned." And , NO, I am not going to prove your argument for you.

I've already proven my argument, I said it explicitly: that Moore has specifically and intentionally lied and misled people in order to advance his position. There is plenty of evidence that has nothing to do with his size or that he's a hypocrite.

If you don't want to believe that Moore would do the same thing for Sicko, that's fine, feel free. I saw the movie, saw that it is just business-as-usual Moore. That's fine, he's entitled. But that doesn't mean that he has suddenly gained any credibility given his propensity to lie and mislead.

I'm sure you are capable of finding proof to support your views yourself.

Of course. More accurately, I look at the evidence for both sides and create my views from that assessment.

As for Moore's facts and figures, he got most of his numbers here. http://www.who.int/en/ I suppose they are unreliable as well?

They may be, I have no idea. I haven't sat down and compared what Moore presents with reality. Given his prior record, that's very likely a complete waste of time.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You seem to be the minority in this discussion, Rush,

Why is that?




.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

How many commenting here have never actually seen the entire movie?

Don't need to. I don't need to see 'Sicko' to know that the health care system in the USA is badly broken. I have seen a few clips from 'Sicko' though. I don't need his movie to tell me the system is broken. If my own experiences with the health care system were not enough (and they are), I have many friends and relatives that are employed in the industry. They span the entire industry, everything from employees of large health insurance companies and salesmen for drug companies to nurses and heart surgeons. Our conversations can get quite interesting when we get together, and almost invariably the health care providers (nurses, doctors, etc.) will lay the blame for the high prices squarely at the feet of health insurance, both public and private, (to a greater extent), and at the feet of the drug (and other medical supply) companies (to a slightly lesser extent). Excessive government regulation also gets a share of the blame.

However, I will never agree with Moore's prescription, Socialized / Nationalized health care. Having the health care bills paid by someone other than the patient out of his/her own pocket is what created the mess in the first place, allowing and even encouraging the vicious cycle of upwardly spiraling prices. In this, health insurance (whether private or public) is very much similar to lawyers... Namely that, if we didn't have any, we wouldn't need any.

How many commenting here have never actually seen a Michael Moore movie?

I've seen a few of them. While he appears to be very good at making movies that use his own particular idiom, I must admit to being totally unimpressed by movies of that sort. Moore has talent, but he chooses to use it in ways that fail to make a positive impression on me over whatever the subject of the film was.

Imagine attacking the government,

Imagine making a movie to do it. I'd rather sit through a Moore movie, which lets us laugh at ourselves than sit through a 2 hour lecture on stats. He leaves that to us.

If he came out and said we've been screwed and "They" screwed us, he wouldn't have enough money to make his next movie. The sitcom format is fitting to our educationally deprived and over charged ed sys.

School loans: another brick in the wall between us and them.




.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

You seem to be the minority in this discussion, Rush,

Who cares? Rational thought isn't developed by licking your finger to find the prevailing winds.

Why is that?

Because none of you are addressing the points made?

No one disagrees that the health care system is crappy, duh. MK and I have both presented reasons why that is so, coupled with the history behind it. I have shown you that socialized health care isn't free, and that the decisions made concerning it are the same ones that are made by insurance companies--they decide based on cost. Hence, further removing the right of individuals to choose does not improve their care overall and, in fact, drives the costs inexorably up.

Should you disagree, present your reasoning.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

How many commenting here have never actually seen a Michael Moore movie?

To be clear, sometimes he's hysterical. He can be really funny.

Often though, he just puts some little guy on the spot, shoves cameras in their faces, and demands to see the CEO. While that makes for humor and good theatre, for someone who constantly wants to protect the little guy, he won't hesitate to trample on them for video.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You are one hell of a boxer Rush. You weave and dodge very well and your jab is pretty good but you lack any knock out power. Maybe if you could back up your arguments (about the healthcare systems, HMO's or how Universal Healthcare drives costs up) with some facts and or figures from reliable websites or other sources, you might actually convince someone.

But keep giving us your OPINIONS we enjoy them!

---

DONATE TO SETI

You are one hell of a boxer Rush. You weave and dodge very well and your jab is pretty good but you lack any knock out power. Maybe if you could back up your arguments (about the healthcare systems, HMO's or how Universal Healthcare drives costs up) with some facts and or figures from reliable websites or other sources, you might actually convince someone.

But keep giving us your OPINIONS we enjoy them!

My posts stand or fall on their face, just as everyone else's do.

The arguments are clearly enumerated, they start out with a point, usually followed by word "because," or an implied because, in the format "X is this way because..."

An example from this thread: "And still simply just let people die, because their care is too expensive," or "You can't take ANYTHING Moore says, anything at all, at face value because he won't hesitate to badly mislead you in order to get his point across." [emphasis added]

Should you disagree with any of them, your best bet is to present a rebuttal, refuting the argument at point

Your self-serving and facile characterizations above do not address any of the points made by me or MK, they aren't even arguments.

Do you think that helps whatever your position is, or hurts whatever your position is?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

500 Billion on a war we didn't need to fight and no health care for our citizens.

Germany implemented UHC over 100 years ago and are now #1.

Our system is #2, and I don't mean in the stats.

:)

...and where is Osama?????????


Pressure kicks up and they announce Al Queda is rebuilding and as strong as before. We push, they make us paranoid again. Will they run another fund raiser? Only if we push to hard enough.




.

You seem to be the minority in this discussion, Rush,

Who cares? Rational thought isn't developed by licking your finger to find the prevailing winds.

Why is that?

Because none of you are addressing the points made?

No one disagrees that the health care system is crappy, duh. MK and I have both presented reasons why that is so, coupled with the history behind it. I have shown you that socialized health care isn't free, and that the decisions made concerning it are the same ones that are made by insurance companies--they decide based on cost. Hence, further removing the right of individuals to choose does not improve their care overall and, in fact, drives the costs inexorably up.

Should you disagree, present your reasoning.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

You are one hell of a boxer Rush. You weave and dodge very well and your jab is pretty good but you lack any knock out power. Maybe if you could back up your arguments (about the healthcare systems, HMO's or how Universal Healthcare drives costs up) with some facts and or figures from reliable websites or other sources, you might actually convince someone.

But keep giving us your OPINIONS we enjoy them!

My posts stand or fall on their face, just as everyone else's do.

The arguments are clearly enumerated, they start out with a point, usually followed by word "because," or an implied because, in the format "X is this way because..."

An example from this thread: "And still simply just let people die, because their care is too expensive," or "You can't take ANYTHING Moore says, anything at all, at face value because he won't hesitate to badly mislead you in order to get his point across." [emphasis added]

Should you disagree with any of them, your best bet is to present a rebuttal, refuting the argument at point

A "Because" is nice but it gains power with the weight of proof.

Your self-serving and facile characterizations above do not address any of the points made by me or MK, they aren't even arguments.

Do you think that helps whatever your position is, or hurts whatever your position is?

An observation and critique. Offtopic at best.

---

DONATE TO SETI

Should you disagree with any of them, your best bet is to present a rebuttal, refuting the argument at point

A "Because" is nice but it gains power with the weight of proof.

If there actually is no proof, then it should be extremely easy for you to refute the positions that MK and I have taken.

Oh, right, but you haven't even tried. Here, I'll simplify it as much as possible, I'll make it as easy as I can: "When you say that individuals still pay for health care in the U.K. because they pay it indirectly, you're wrong because..."

"When you say that NHS makes decisions based on cost just like U.S. insurers do, you're wrong because..."

There, just fill in the blanks.

An observation and critique. Offtopic at best.

That's rich. Given that all you've provided is, as I've noted before, self-serving conclusory comments that amount to nothing more than your pithy musings.

Yay you.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Okie dokie Mr. Rush!

"When you say that individuals still pay for health care in the U.K. because they pay it indirectly, you're wrong because..."


You are absolutely right! I can't disagree with you. People will always have to pay for health care one way or another. That isn't the issue. It's the fact that the American Health System offers almost ZERO help or hope to it's own people when they could easily do so. Your Government found money in a time of crisis, September 11th.
1999 Defense Budget
2004 Defense Dudget
Well now your fellow Americans are in another crisis. They are not receiving the care they need when all other G8 country's citizens do. No one is turned away in these other countries. Even visiting Americans.


"When you say that NHS makes decisions based on cost just like U.S. insurers do, you're wrong because..."


That actual statement is true but very broad. Of course money is the issue but the difference is that the insurers base their decisions on how much PROFIT they can create where as Universal HealthCare Boards,Committees or Ministries base their decisions on how they will PAY for Equipment and Services etc.

---

DONATE TO SETI

Excuse me, Pawly, if I take exception to some of what you said that just isn't true.

<snip> It's the fact that the American Health System offers almost ZERO help or hope to it's own people when they could easily do so.

The State of Texas spends about 25% of its budget on Medicaid. That is, paying for health care for those least able to afford it. We are talking Billions of US$ per year. 3.7 million Texans received Medicaid assistance in State Fiscal Year 2005.

Source: Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Other states do likewise. This is hardly 'almost ZERO'. Furthermore, the US Federal Government spent 477 Billion, 983 Million US$ on Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs for health care for low-income US citizens in Fiscal Year 2004, and is estimated to have spent 573 Billion, 489 Million US$ in Fiscal Year 2006. That is, again, hardly 'almost Zero', and it shows an extremely high growth rate of almost 100 Billion US$ in just 2 years.

Source: US Government Budget, FY2006. Table of data is near the bottom of that page.

Please get your facts in order before you incorrectly claim that 'the American Health System offers almost ZERO help or hope to it's own people.'

Possible solution:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3729066942861497595&q=en

LAW & ORDER'S SAM WATERSTON: Unity08 Spokesperson

22 min

See: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=40911

By Astro

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I just emailed Michael Moore about this and asked him to look into it if his team has time so he can let us know if it's bogus or on the level.

More as I get it.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

How many commenting here have never actually seen the entire movie?

How many commenting here have never actually seen a Michael Moore movie?




.

I haven't seen Sicko yet (unfortunately). Don't know when it's shown in Germany. But I've seen Bowling for Columbine, and I've seen Fahrenheit 9/11. I also often read at michaelmoore.com and also get my newsletters from him :-)

---

Account frozen...

Excuse me, Pawly, if I take exception to some of what you said that just isn't true.

<snip> It's the fact that the American Health System offers almost ZERO help or hope to it's own people when they could easily do so.

The State of Texas spends about 25% of its budget on Medicaid. That is, paying for health care for those least able to afford it. We are talking Billions of US$ per year. 3.7 million Texans received Medicaid assistance in State Fiscal Year 2005.

Source: Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Other states do likewise. This is hardly 'almost ZERO'. Furthermore, the US Federal Government spent 477 Billion, 983 Million US$ on Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs for health care for low-income US citizens in Fiscal Year 2004, and is estimated to have spent 573 Billion, 489 Million US$ in Fiscal Year 2006. That is, again, hardly 'almost Zero', and it shows an extremely high growth rate of almost 100 Billion US$ in just 2 years.

Source: US Government Budget, FY2006. Table of data is near the bottom of that page.

Please get your facts in order before you incorrectly claim that 'the American Health System offers almost ZERO help or hope to it's own people.'

No excuses, MK!! lol Seriously though.

You're right, I had no idea that so much tax money was being used for Social healthcare programmes in the States. Social Healthcare?? GASP!!! lol

But then either:

A) If Medicaid/Medicare is a successful system then you have proved that social healthcare can work in the US and it should be broadened to help all Americans.

or

B) If is not successful you have shown that the gov't isn't doing enough for it's weakest citizens. More money is probably not the answer, reform probably is.

I did try to find the facts on Healthcare spending when I posted the Defense Budget links but I couldn't find the info. I guess I didn't know the right terms to search for. Thanks. Actually I was really aghast at the rate of poverty in Texas that your link displays. 16.7% of Texans! Wow! That is simply terrible.

---

DONATE TO SETI

Excuse me, Pawly, if I take exception to some of what you said that just isn't true.

<snip> It's the fact that the American Health System offers almost ZERO help or hope to it's own people when they could easily do so.

The State of Texas spends about 25% of its budget on Medicaid. That is, paying for health care for those least able to afford it. We are talking Billions of US$ per year. 3.7 million Texans received Medicaid assistance in State Fiscal Year 2005.

Source: Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Other states do likewise. This is hardly 'almost ZERO'. Furthermore, the US Federal Government spent 477 Billion, 983 Million US$ on Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs for health care for low-income US citizens in Fiscal Year 2004, and is estimated to have spent 573 Billion, 489 Million US$ in Fiscal Year 2006. That is, again, hardly 'almost Zero', and it shows an extremely high growth rate of almost 100 Billion US$ in just 2 years.

Source: US Government Budget, FY2006. Table of data is near the bottom of that page.

Please get your facts in order before you incorrectly claim that 'the American Health System offers almost ZERO help or hope to it's own people.'

No excuses, MK!! lol Seriously though.

You're right, I had no idea that so much tax money was being used for Social healthcare programmes in the States. Social Healthcare?? GASP!!! lol

But then either:

A) If Medicaid/Medicare is a successful system then you have proved that social healthcare can work in the US and it should be broadened to help all Americans.

or

B) If is not successful you have shown that the gov't isn't doing enough for it's weakest citizens. More money is probably not the answer, reform probably is.

I did try to find the facts on Healthcare spending when I posted the Defense Budget links but I couldn't find the info. I guess I didn't know the right terms to search for. Thanks. Actually I was really aghast at the rate of poverty in Texas that your link displays. 16.7% of Texans! Wow! That is simply terrible.

Pawly, you left off a third possibility.

C) The program currently meets the needs of the poorest citizens, but has disastrous consequences.

Government 'social programs' for health care help to fuel the massive upward spiral in health care costs. The more money that the government spends on health care, the more upward pressure is put on costs, which requires even more money to be spent by the government in the next year.

This money is not 'free'. It has to come from somewhere. Either higher deficit spending, or more tax revenue, or both. The combined (Federal/State/Local) tax burden on the average US citizen is already somewhere around 50%. The poor pay far less in taxes, for they are exempt from many of them, such as the Federal Income Tax. The super-rich pay more than average, but they can afford it. This leaves the middle class. The middle class will suffer great pain paying any additional tax burden, and it will invariably push more and more of the middle class down into poverty.

You are correct when you say that reform is needed. However, Socialization of Health Care is 100% the wrong way to go about it. We need market forces to drive costs downwards, not government subsidies to drive costs ever higher.

You mention the percent of population in Texas that is at or below the poverty level. Well, contrary to most people's perceptions, not everyone in Texas is an Oil Bajillionaire. In fact, very very few of us are.

We have a lot of poverty scattered around statewide, but the problem is much worse down in south Texas near the Mexican border. Yes, it is regrettable that our poverty rate (16.7%) is way above the national average of 12.4%, there are states with much worse figures, such as Mississippi (19.9%).

Source: data from a Washington Post article.

However, just like health care, there are no easy answers on how to fix this problem.

Moore is pushing someone's agenda. It is your homework assignment to find out whose agenda he is pushing and report back your findings. Hint: it is NOT some all-inclusive group such as 'the American people'; it is far more narrow a group.

The suspense is killing me... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .