sneak preview SiCKO

[cryptique]

wow - way to elevate the discussion. Good going!

Especially considering that, as previously mentioned, Moore is now actively attempting to improve his own health.

[lizish]

Especially considering that, as previously mentioned, Moore is now actively attempting to improve his own health.

 

Yeah, and I think it makes sense to have Moore's 'everyman' create the movie. He's overweight and until very recently dressed in the same clothes and Tiger's hat day-in day-out.

 

Geez, if say Jack Lalaine narrated it and hecktered us for 2 hours on fitness and prevention, it would be unbearable.

[cryptique]

Speaking as someone who just might outweigh Michael Moore, I get more than a bit miffed when criticisms of his films spill over into criticisms of his weight. He's overweight, we get it. That doesn't invalidate anything he might have to say.

 

Should I start breaking out the jokes about Dick Cheney's heart? Reagan's Alzheimer's disease? Rush Limbaugh's obesity?

 

 

 

 

 

_{What about Ann Coulter's penis?}

[uncle wilco]

Speaking as someone who just might outweigh Michael Moore, I get more than a bit miffed when criticisms of his films spill over into criticisms of his weight. He's overweight, we get it. That doesn't invalidate anything he might have to say.

 

Should I start breaking out the jokes about Dick Cheney's heart? Reagan's Alzheimer's disease? Rush Limbaugh's obesity?

_{What about Ann Coulter's penis?}

 

i'm not a limbaugh apologist by any means, but he lost the obesity tag quite a few years ago. his detractors just love to pull out the old photos. a private chef and illegal prescription drugs do wonders to help you ditch the pounds.

[OOO]

That was on yesterday. I guess they're replaying it.

 

Now I know no one reads my posts.

 

No I read your posts, I swear! This was a different CNN report! After Michael Moore was on Wolf Blitzer and spent most of the time deriding Guptas "fact fudging" report, Larry King had the two of them (Moore and Gupta) on yesterday. They spent most of the show arguing who's facts were right, and not really talking much about the health industry. Although Michael Moore did get a few nice ones in there.

[MrRain422]

I don't think that Michael Moore's own weight issues are a sign of hypocrisy at all. Arguing that people should have access to health care, should they need/want it, is not the same as saying that everyone has an obligation to use that healthcare to it's fullest. It's a personal choice (and sometimes not -- it's not as though everyone who is overweight could easily just drop those extra pounds so easily).

 

There are some legit reasons to dislike Michael Moore, but I really don't see how his weight is relevent even to this film.

[uncle wilco]

There are some legit reasons to dislike Michael Moore, but I really don't see how his weight is relevent even to this film.

when someone advocating free universal healthcare...for life, shows little regard for his own health...that's a problem. his lack of exercise/bad diet will cause increase costs down the line that everyone will absorb. and besides, it just looks bad.

 

Even he has acknowleged this and seeing the interview with him yesterday, it appears he is losing some weight.

[Dreamin']

After Michael Moore was on Wolf Blitzer and spent most of the time deriding Guptas "fact fudging" report, Larry King had the two of them (Moore and Gupta) on yesterday. They spent most of the show arguing who's facts were right, and not really talking much about the health industry. Although Michael Moore did get a few nice ones in there.

Oops, sorry! After I posted that, I wondered if you were talking about a different interview.

 

Maybe I just expect people to tune me out because I talk about Canada too much.

[Beltmann]

There are some legit reasons to dislike Michael Moore, but I really don't see how his weight is relevent even to this film.

Well, it's obvious: Michael Moore is fat, and therefore there is no health care crisis in America.

 

when someone advocating free universal healthcare...for life, shows little regard for his own health...that's a problem. his lack of exercise/bad diet will cause increase costs down the line that everyone will absorb.

That happens now. There are people with good insurance who have poor exercise and dietary habits, and their choices ultimately affect the premiums for others. This is not an argument against universal health care, unless we believe that the uninsured population disproportionately represents the negligent rather than the poor.

[ikol]

Patient satisfaction is inherently misleading, because, well, it only accounts for patients. The biggest problem with healthcare in this country is that there are millions upon millions of people who never get to be patients because they have no coverage. The people who have no health care do not get weighed into the "patient satisfaction" equation.

 

Nevertheless, we have higher patient satisfaction than most other nations. It's not an all-encompassing measure of a nation's healthcare, but it's still significant.

 

This is certainly true, although I still don't think that it means that the rankings are completely meaningless. Just because they may not be perfect does not mean that we can't learn anything at all from them.

 

No, it just means that it's not a fact that nations like France, Germany, and Canada have better healthcare than us. It may be the WHO's opinion, but it's not a fact.

 

 

That's a bit misleading... well, simplistic anyhow. Singapore has a large percentage of healthcare paid for privately, as in, there is an increased onus on individual responsibility. But that individual responsibility manifests itself, in large part, in the Medisave program, which is a forced savings program administered by the government. They still have an emergency program for low income earners and for catastrophic - and costly - illnesses. There is also private insurance, but it operates a lot differently than the current American system. Effectively, it's two tier, which is not what the same as what's currently implemented in the United States.

 

Also, the discrepancy between the percentage that's paid into health care by the governments of the respective countries can largely be chalked up to the discrepancy in efficiency between the two systems. Namely, the system in Singapore is freakishly efficient. Yes, you can point to the market based mechanisms that are built into their system, but when you can also point to where in the culture where individualism is ingrained. Because they're raised to believe it's their responsibility, the preventive side of health care in the country makes us North Americans look like lazy slobs. Unless you're suggesting a major culture shift in North America, you're sort of splitting hairs.

 

I didn't intend to be misleading (I'm no Michael Moore). I just meant to point out that our healthcare is far from completely privatized. The fact that Singapore has so much government-involvement in healthcare and still spends a larger proportion privately than we do just further demonstrates my point.

[Atticus]

when moore was on Bill Mahr he noted the hypocrisy of making a movie about healthcare when he didn't take care of himself. He stated that he's been making significant changes in diet and trying to get healthier.

[bobbob1313]

wow - way to elevate the discussion. Good going!

I wasn't referring to that in terms of the film. It doesn't discredit anything he might have to say in the movie (the fact that he is deliberately misleading in his films might, but thats another story), but really It's hard to take health tips from a guy who so very obviously doesn't care about his own health. I love that something I said in passing that has nothing to do with the movie is the one part of a fairly long post that gets noticed.

when moore was on Bill Mahr he noted the hypocrisy of making a movie about healthcare when he didn't take care of himself. He stated that he's been making significant changes in diet and trying to get healthier.

Way to elevate the discussion.

[ikol]

The fact that Moore is overweight has no bearing on the message of his film. According him, universal healthcare is free.

[Atticus]

Way to elevate the discussion.

 

that was NEVER my intent.

[Beltmann]

Nevertheless, we have higher patient satisfaction than most other nations. It's not an all-encompassing measure of a nation's healthcare, but it's still significant.

Since patient satisfaction is dependent upon expectations, and expectations are driven by a host of factors--including what a unique population has come to tolerate, demand, or assume--such scores might be scale specific and therefore unable to be used as a point of comparison. (Granted, I have no idea how the patient satisfaction data in question was actually acquired, so my skepticism might be unfounded.)

[ikol]

That just goes to show how difficult and subjective it is to rank healthcare systems. Even objective statistics such as infant mortality and life expectancy are not clearcut because factors other than healthcare such as abortions and lifestyle can also affect them.

[WilcoFan]

That just goes to show how difficult and subjective it is to rank healthcare systems. Even objective statistics such as infant mortality and life expectancy are not clearcut because factors other than healthcare such as abortions and lifestyle can also affect them.

 

True. And worse yet, I have not been exposed to any real, comprehensive information about universal health care in Canada or anywhere else for that matter. While compelling, his movie is obviously one-sided and does not go into any detail about how these systems work. He over simplifies any explanations by trying to reiterate that it's "free."

[plasticeyeball]

not to get off the subject but the infant mortality rate does not include or is not affected by abortions. in the US, it's the death rate of children under 1 year old per 1000 live births.

[MrRain422]

I wasn't referring to that in terms of the film. It doesn't discredit anything he might have to say in the movie (the fact that he is deliberately misleading in his films might, but thats another story), but really It's hard to take health tips from a guy who so very obviously doesn't care about his own health.

 

Does he actually give any health tips in the movie?

 

 

not to get off the subject but the infant mortality rate does not include or is not affected by abortions. in the US, it's the death rate of children under 1 year old per 1000 live births.

 

Right, but legalized abortions (at least theoretically) reduce infant mortality rates because, in places where abortion is illegal, more children are born with severe life-threatening illnesses. Abortions due to unwanted pregnancies have no affect on infant mortality rates, but abortions due to in utero diagnoses of severe disabilities or illnesses sure do.

[bobbob1313]

Does he actually give any health tips in the movie?

 

On his website, there is a list of ways that you can help spread the message of free health care, or something, and in between:

 

4. Send your health care horror story to your member of congress (be sure to CC michael@michaelmoore.com) or pay them a house call to let them know how you feel.

 

5. Band together with organizations to bring down private, for-profit health insurance companies.

 

and:

 

7. Put a button or a banner on your site so other people can find out what they can do, too.

 

He has:

 

6. Eat fruits and vegetables and walk around.

 

I just though that was rich.

[MrRain422]

Of those things you listed, only #6 is actually a health tip.

[lizish]

That just goes to show how difficult and subjective it is to rank healthcare systems. Even objective statistics such as infant mortality and life expectancy are not clearcut because factors other than healthcare such as abortions and lifestyle can also affect them.

 

 

That's a retarded statement and in a befuddling way. For instance how are abortions figured into infant mortality except in the most right to life sense? Infant Mortality = the number of children dying under a year of age divided by the number of live births that year. Nothing about the right to choose.

 

But anyway, please keep stating these talking points from Humana's Sicko refutation page. It's fun.

[lizish]

True. And worse yet, I have not been exposed to any real, comprehensive information about universal health care in Canada or anywhere else for that matter. While compelling, his movie is obviously one-sided and does not go into any detail about how these systems work. He over simplifies any explanations by trying to reiterate that it's "free."

 

Obviously! That is sooo correct. I guess that part of the movie that talks about the relative level of taxes doesn't really exist. It is all so clear now, thanks!

[bobbob1313]

Of those things you listed, only #6 is actually a health tip.

 

I know. thats what I found odd. All of the tips are supposed to be ways to spread the message of free health care. I guess he substituted number 6 with "Make a big budget documentary that will net you millions of dollars." That actually might be a more effective way to eliminate the health care problem. If every lower middle class person with no health care could just afford to fly to England, France, and then back to America, and then take a boat to Cuba and then make a movie about it, we wouldn't have this problem.

[ikol]

That's a retarded statement and in a befuddling way. For instance how are abortions figured into infant mortality except in the most right to life sense? Infant Mortality = the number of children dying under a year of age divided by the number of live births that year. Nothing about the right to choose.

 

But anyway, please keep stating these talking points from Humana's Sicko refutation page. It's fun.

 

Befuddling or not (not), I fail to see how my statement was slowed down. Allow me to retard my point, so you might understand it: Abortions reduce infant mortality because fetuses with potentially life-threatening defects are killed off before they are born. Moreover, it's not inconceivable that unwanted babies have a higher mortality rate than wanted ones due to neglect and abuse. If a country has a higher proportion of wanted, defect-free babies (because the unwanted ones and those with defects were aborted), then it's going to have a lower infant mortality rate than a country with less abortions. Are you defuddled now?