Michael Moore's: Sicko
Message boards :
Politics :
Michael Moore's: Sicko
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Fuzzy Hollynoodles  Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 9659 Credit: 251,998 RAC: 0 |
After having watched the documentary Manufacturing Dissent on tv this night, I see Michael Moore as a manipulating and power struck hypocrite. Exactly, thank you, Rush. Michael Moore controversies "I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me 
ID: 654054 ·  |
Rush  Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 
|
No one is attacking the messenger. The attacks are focused on his incompetence, massive bias, and willingness to mislead his viewers at any cost. Sure, that's the point. No one in their right mind discusses the person, watches some stupid YouTube video without looking DEEPLY into the subject, or just spews what some crappy website says, without a lot of effort looking at conflicting ideas and then coming to their own decision. Just reading crap you agree with isn't an honest inquiry. Ideologues like Moore (and some posters here) aren't effective as sources because they discredit themselves. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... 
ID: 654057 · |
MrGray  Send message Joined: 17 Aug 05 Posts: 3170 Credit: 60,411 RAC: 0 
|
Am I not showing the conflicting sides? Are you not contributing by spewing your ideology? . "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 ID: 654068 · |
Jeffrey  Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
Ideologues like Moore (and some posters here) aren't effective as sources because they discredit themselves. If that were true, most of our governments 'damage control department' would find themselves out of a job... ;)  It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 654188 · |
thorin belvrog  Send message Joined: 29 Sep 06 Posts: 6418 Credit: 8,893 RAC: 0 
|
Once again I wonder why a message can be discredited only because one dislikes the messenger. I thought truth is truth no matter who is telling it? Account frozen... ID: 654235 · |
Labbie  Send message Joined: 19 Jun 06 Posts: 4083 Credit: 5,930,102 RAC: 0
|
Once again I wonder why a message can be discredited only because one dislikes the messenger. Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.  Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now ID: 654237 · |
|
thorin belvrog Send message Joined: 29 Sep 06 Posts: 6418 Credit: 8,893 RAC: 0
|
Once again I wonder why a message can be discredited only because one dislikes the messenger. No. I disagree. Things only are either true or false - there's nothing in between. Either it's truth or it's a lie which is told. Both are the total opposite of each other, thus they can't be "in the eyes of the beholder". Account frozen... ID: 654249 · |
|
Labbie Send message Joined: 19 Jun 06 Posts: 4083 Credit: 5,930,102 RAC: 0
|
Once again I wonder why a message can be discredited only because one dislikes the messenger. Well, I see Moore as a lying sack of ****. You see him as a hero. Thus the eye of the beholder. Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now ID: 654250 · |
KWSN - MajorKong  Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0
|
Once again I wonder why a message can be discredited only because one dislikes the messenger. Truth *IS* Truth. A message cannot be discredited 'only because one dislikes the messenger.' However, a message CAN be discredited by the messenger that delivers it... *IF* that messenger lies, or mixes lies into the truth. For instance, Mr. Moore and his movie 'Sicko'. Mr. Moore speaks truth when he states that health care in the USA has problems. Mr. Moore discredits himself when he then states that more Socialized Medicine (beyond what has already been implemented) will fix the problems, and is the only alternative for doing so. Analysis shows that Socialized Medicine is one of the main reasons why the health care system in the USA has problems. To go further, one must examine just what the 'problem' is. Invariably, the only problem is that the consumer of health care in the USA cannot, in almost all cases, afford to pay for their health care out of their own assets, due to forces which have distorted the market. This, in and of itself, leads to the conclusion that the only viable long-term solution to the problem would be to remove all of the distorting forces and allow the market to correct itself. One does not, after all, put out a gasoline pipeline fire by spraying more gasoline on it with a fire hose. Instead, one shuts off the supply of gasoline reaching the fire. Once that is done, the fire goes out. If we rid ourselves of all of the distorting forces in the health care market, the 'fire' will go out as the market corrects itself and health care once again becomes affordable to Joe Average. Socialized Medicine is one of these distorting forces, but far from the only one. Man, you don't just throw Government Money (tax-derived) at a problem and hope for the best. You WON'T get it. The bureaucratic inefficiencies alone will eat up any possible 'good' that pile of money might do (and then some). Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting to help your fellow humans with paying for their health care. That is a noble and honorable intention. However, there is nothing stopping you, as a private citizen, from doing so RIGHT NOW!. You may protest that you have insufficient assets to directly help even one person with even a moderate medical bill. I will allow you that. However, have you ever heard of charities? Donate to one (or more) that help to provide health care to people without means to pay for their own. Even though your few dollars/euros/whatevers donation won't be enough to totally cover some deserving person's expenses, when combined with all of the other donations that charity receives, they can make quite a difference in people's lives. You may ask what the difference is between donating to charity and paying taxes for 'socialized medicine'. Well, for starters, donating to charity is voluntary. Paying taxes isn't. Charities do not use force or threat of force to make you give them money like the government does with its taxes. Also, doctors and hospitals don't tend to try to overcharge charities like they do the government. In fact, many health-care charities run their own hospitals on a non-profit basis, and they also know that if they started jacking up costs the donating public would catch on and their donations would go down. Mr. Moore did not start out to do a balanced, unbiased review of the situation in his documentary, and come to the conclusion that socialized medicine is the best course of action. Far from it. He made the documentary for the express purpose of pushing his bias towards socialized medicine. I don't have to discredit Mr. Moore. He did a wonderful job of that himself. ID: 654310 · |
|
Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
Mr. Moore did not start out to do a balanced, unbiased review of the situation in his documentary Neither did the 911 commission report... Why does that document not tickle your fancy? Are you biased too? ;) It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 654323 · |
|
thorin belvrog Send message Joined: 29 Sep 06 Posts: 6418 Credit: 8,893 RAC: 0
|
Having lived all your life in a capitalistic country you may know that market is a matter of supply and demand. If they know you really need their products you will have to pay more for them than if they just want you to buy their products. That's what the pharmacy companies do right now: they know that there is a high demand for their products, so they demand high prices for them. And that is what let the costs of the "Socialized medicine" rise into ridiculous in the first place, not the bureaucracy (though bureaucratic matters are expensive also).
As far as I know, he never claimed to be unbiased or to have the only possible truth. Account frozen... ID: 654398 · |
|
Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
supply and demand. Ah yes, there it is, that little 'glitch' within our capitalistic system... ;) It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 654420 · |
|
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0
|
Ahh.. you are getting VERY close now... Companies are NOT out to maximize 'per-unit' profit. They ARE out to maximize 'total' profit. In a market free of distorting forces, as per-unit prices increase, demand falls. Let us have an example to illustrate this. In an undistorted market: At a price level that gives a $100 per unit profit, demand is 10 units. At a price level that gives a $10 per unit profit, demand is 200 units. Which one should the company choose? The first one gives a $1000 total profit. The second one gives a $2000 total profit. Which one should the company choose? Now then, let us introduce a distorting force into the market. Let us have the Government use tax money to buy 300 units of the product then distribute them free of charge. At a price level that gives a $100 per unit profit, demand is 300 units. At a price level that gives a $10 per unit profit, demand is 300 units. Now which one is the company going to choose? $30000 total profit or $3000 total profit? This is, granted, a VERY simplistic example, but it DOES illustrate my point. Companies try to maximize total profit on a product, and not per unit profit. The 'laws' of supply and demand dictate that, in an undistorted market total profit is maximized at a relatively low price. When one has market distortions such as the Government 'socializing' medicine, demand gets fixed and no longer decreases with increasing price. This gives companies the incentive to charge as much as possible. THIS is why 'socialized medicine' is a bad thing.
Ok, but did he give equal time in his documentary to serious consideration of possibilities other than socialization of medicine? I think not. Did he do a serious inquiry of the effects that socialization would have on health care costs? I think not. ID: 654513 · |
|
Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
In an undistorted market: Well now THAT surely explains why the 'cost of living' has become so HIGH for the average Joe... ;) (Of course we like to rewrite history and claim that a bag of chips was never a nickel and has always been half full of nothing but air.) It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 654637 · |
|
thorin belvrog Send message Joined: 29 Sep 06 Posts: 6418 Credit: 8,893 RAC: 0
|
In an "undistorted" market: a bottle of water which normally costs a few Cents in winter will be offered for no less than a Dollar in summer, where there is the most need for refreshment. Heating oil which is cheap in summer when you don't really need it will be expensive in winter when you need it the most. In a regulated market, the prizes of both are the same in summer as in winter or vice versa. So it will be with medicine: because these drugs are NEEDED their suppliers push the prices up. In my (not so humble) opinion the government should just fix the prizes for medicine, and tell the producers either they accept these fixed prizes (or fixed profit margins), or generic drugs would be bought instead (or subsidies to the companies would be refused to be paid, or anything like that - consequences which Rush would call "force"). Take them the chance to turn the prize spiral upwards, and make them turn it downwards again (it's the only thing I even would use "force", because making a fortune with vital things like medicine is just asocial and inhuman), and socialized medicine will become affordable again! Account frozen... ID: 654683 · |
|
Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
Are you saying that the 'good people' of this world would prey upon their fellow man while they are in a state of greatest need for no other reason other than to enhance their profits? Say it isn't so... ;) It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 654700 · |
|
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0
|
In an "undistorted" market: a bottle of water which normally costs a few Cents in winter will be offered for no less than a Dollar in summer, where there is the most need for refreshment. Heating oil which is cheap in summer when you don't really need it will be expensive in winter when you need it the most. In a regulated market, the prizes of both are the same in summer as in winter or vice versa. Ahh... but in a totally undistorted market, the barriers to entry are extremely minimal. Someone else will make the drug, and sell it for less and reap more profits. The only reason why companies are able to push their prices to obscenely high levels is because of another market distortion... The 'Government Granted Monopoly' known as 'patents'. Patenting chemicals is just about the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Get rid of *all* market distortions, and watch the prices tumble downwards. In my (not so humble) opinion the government should just fix the prizes for medicine, and tell the producers either they accept these fixed prizes (or fixed profit margins), or generic drugs would be bought instead (or subsidies to the companies would be refused to be paid, or anything like that - consequences which Rush would call "force"). Price fixing does not work. It has been tried before, economy wide as well as in medical areas. All price fixing does is either guarantee high prices (if they fix it too high) or product shortages. Price fixing is just as wrong when the Government does it as when an industry 'cartel' does it. Generic drugs - see my above statement. Virtually no barriers to enter the drug business ==> all drugs will be 'generic'. Corporate Subsidies = market distortion... get rid of them. Take them the chance to turn the prize spiral upwards, and make them turn it downwards again (it's the only thing I even would use "force", because making a fortune with vital things like medicine is just asocial and inhuman), and socialized medicine will become affordable again! Again. If you want to see the prices spiral downwards, get rid of market distorting forces and watch the market correct itself. Over and over, Thorin, you seem to wish to return to socialist/communistic economics. All previous experiments with this sort of economics have either ended in failure or are headed in that direction. Why, people might ask? The answer to 'Why?' is that there is a fundamental component in human nature that prevents their success. In order for socialism or communism to be effective and 'work', human nature will have to drastically change -- in EVERYONE. But, if this change in human nature ever does occur species-wide (and I am doubtful that it ever will), then socialism and communism will be unnecessary. Pure capitalism is the morally superior system, because it and ONLY it respects the right of all people to own and make free use of private property. The right to own and make free use of private property is the most (and indeed the ONLY) fundamental human right. All other rights descend from this. You have a 'right to life' because your life belongs to you. You have a 'right to freedom and liberty' because you have the right to make free use of that which belongs to you. Socialism infringes the right to own and make free use of private property, and Communism totally abolishes it. Both systems therefore endanger your right to life, freedom, and liberty. Surely you see this. ID: 654749 · |
|
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0
|
In an "undistorted" market: a bottle of water which normally costs a few Cents in winter will be offered for no less than a Dollar in summer, where there is the most need for refreshment. Heating oil which is cheap in summer when you don't really need it will be expensive in winter when you need it the most. In a regulated market, the prizes of both are the same in summer as in winter or vice versa. Except, such as the case with consumer goods, prices are pushed down because there is nearly unfettered competition. The gov't has prevented that with health care by imposing massive regulation. In my (not so humble) opinion the government should just fix the prizes for medicine, and tell the producers either they accept these fixed prizes (or fixed profit margins), or generic drugs would be bought instead (or subsidies to the companies would be refused to be paid, or anything like that - consequences which Rush would call "force"). There should be no subsidies to companies. That is something your precious gov't forces on you, because other people demanded that you pay it. You should be thrilled that your gov't saw fit to make you bail out the shareholders of some of the most profitable companies on earth. Happy? If you fix the prices of medicine, no one will produce any, and prices will skyrocket. Kinda like with Nixon. Drug companies will go out of business and simply won't make drugs for you. Kinda like NHS doesn't. And Cuba doesn't. Take them the chance to turn the prize spiral upwards, and make them turn it downwards again (it's the only thing I even would use "force", because making a fortune with vital things like medicine is just asocial and inhuman), and socialized medicine will become affordable again! Which, of course, it won't. There just won't be much of it, because these companies simply won't produce ANYTHING for you, because it isn't worth their time or money. They won't build the machines you need. They won't research and create the drugs you need. They won't build pacemakers. Defibrillators. Replacement parts. They simply won't provide it for you. Since they won't provide it for you, the price of what little is available will skyrocket because of the demand. And since, as is self-evident, no one that thinks as you do is willing to produce it, your silly system will have to do without. That means even more expensive health care, and a smaller amount of it. What a great plan. And yet, the poorest of the poor in the US and UK can afford computers and mobile phones and time to use them. Why, because those companies are killing each other to get every single consumer they can. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious...
ID: 654797 · |
|
Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
Well, I liked your 'lose the patent' idea... But of course it was ruined with this: because you have the right to make free use of that which belongs to you. So when can I start my automotive repair business? Oh, right after I spend the $10,000 for the 'approved training' so I can eventually be 'certified' by the 'proper accrediting agency'... Whoohoo, I'm free... Oh wait, I must've chosen the wrong school because they are no longer 'affiliated' with the most recent 'proper accrediting agency' and my 'certificate' is now 'invalid'... Looks like I've got to fork over another $10,000 for 'retraining'... Blah blah blah... No wonder people 'with talent' can't ever get anywhere... ;) It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 654822 · |
Jon  Send message Joined: 23 Feb 01 Posts: 1 Credit: 169,413 RAC: 0
|
A show of hands, please, of all those who want to go to Cuba for their medical care. (LOL) ID: 657113 · |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.