Marijuana.com

ITG · 06-27-2007, 07:28 PM

I'm going to start by going on the record by saying: I DO NOT LIKE MICHAEL MOORE. I disagree with his politics. I disagree with his methods. From what I've seen of him outside his own documentaries, I don't like him as a person (example: his "love" of Canada and how they run things, and yet he still is a citizen of the US, not Canada). I just don't like him.

Furthermore, I cannot imagine that he actually covers anything that's actually new in Sicko. He's not bringing up these issues- the American people are. Why do you think it's one of the major points that people keep talking about for the upcoming election, and it was for the previous election? While I'd be lying if I said that not a week goes by without me seeing an editorial about it in the newspaper, I'd be lying, but I think that may be because I usually only read the local paper about once a week now, and at college I mostly read the free student papers. My other news I get online. Still, I WOULDN'T be lying if I said not a month goes by without seeing an editorial AND an article. Yes, the health care system in America is broken. WE KNOW THIS. I don't see how you CAN'T know this. Now we need to talk to health specialist, administrative specialists, and, sadly, yes, politicians in order to figure out how to solve it. I'm sure that some of this is in Sicko, though I highly doubt a fair and balanced approach to the viable options are available.

And, in response to saying that bitching about MM's tactics without making a documentary yourself is wrong and stupid, I have to say that I can't understand how you make that connection. Making a documentary IS EXPENSIVE. Michael Moore actually has an advantage when it comes to making documentaries- it's easier for him to get appointment with people he wants to talk to. ANd not just because he's established, but because there is the potential risk of political fallout if you don't. Why? Because there's a real chance that MM will say you're not willing to talk to him because "you don't want the truth to come out" or '"you're afraid of his hardball tactics" or something along those lines. He has funding, he has connections. Perhaps most importantly, he is, I freely admit, a publicity GENIUS. Making a documentary- which MM's work ISN'T- is HARD. It takes equipment, time, specialists, and funds. What is the average american to do? It's simply unfeasible to write a documentary, or film an op ed piece. So what do they do? They talk about it, they vote on it, they write they're papers- which IS what people are doing, and hve been for quite some time.

Will I watch Sicko? Maybe, but I highly doubt it. I'd rather watch a more balanced, more respectable piece. Think they're not out there? Think again. Do a google search, just for documentaries on American Health Care. Almost all Sicko and MM, right? Do an advanced search leaving out Sicko, michael, and moore. Over 1,300,000 results. Can I guarantee that they're fair and balanced? No. But the odds of them being more fair and balanced than MM is pretty damn good. Even better than a video, though, is to just go out and read about it. You'll find better stuff. Trust me.

Edit: Damn you Plainsman, why you gotta be so much better than me...

***Plainsman1963*** · 06-27-2007, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titts McGhee

Maybe. But at least he's bringin them up.

Not the first...And not even close to the most even handed.

Quote:

I hate people who sit on the soapbox bitching about MM that he shouldnt be making documentaries, yet they wont get off their butts and go make one themselves.

That is about the most ridiculous thing I have read in a while....There are many many documentaries (real documentaries, not opinion pieces) concerning health care. Do a google search and limit the responses to anything but Michael Moore and you'll see what I mean. Last count was 1.5 million responses to the query "health care documentary -moore".

I don't need to make a documentary to have an opinion on MM's movie. There isn't a dearth of documentaries out there.

Quote:

That's like sitting on the couch bitching at someone because they're not vacuuming your floor correctly. It's like, get off your ass and go vacuum yourself then. You know what I'm saying sort of?

Well, I think the analogy sucks...

Quote:

Yeah, your right perhaps he's not going about it the best way but I've learned quite of bit from them, and it's made want to seek out answers to questions I now have.

The same thing could be said about the prohibitionists and their tortured logic about cannabis. Truth is always better than fiction.

Quote:

I'd rather be fed swomething honest rather then live my life in a big, pink bubble.

Then you need to look somewhere besides Michael Moore.

How about another independent filmmaker and his view on the movie?

Quote:

Socialized Medicine is Sicko
By Stuart Browning

I'm an independent filmmaker with no ties to the health insurance or health care industry - only a personal concern about American liberty and medical freedom. I've made a number of short films about health care policy - specifically for the internet - and featured on a new website: www.freemarketcure.com.

Michael Moore's new movie Sicko is set to inject a large dose of misinformation and propaganda into our national dialog about health care policy. A case in point is Howard Fineman's column in the June 18 edition of Newsweek. Having just attended a Washington press screening of Sicko, he writes about the increasingly urgent calls for government-run health care:

It would be nice to think that the urgency is the result of outrage at our mediocre infant-mortality and life-expectancy numbers, which are among the worst in the developed world.

The truth, however, is that even if we were to adopt a single-payer system, our infant mortality and life expectancy numbers would still compare unfavorably with Canada and other OECD countries for the simple reason that they have little or nothing to do with the quality of our health care system.

Life expectancy averages are determined by a multitude of factors such as ethnicity, culture, and crime rates. Asians live longer than whites. Whites live longer than blacks. Canada has more Asians than blacks. Infant mortality rates are likewise determined by a host of factors having nothing to do with our health care system. The chief cause of infant mortality is very low birth weight babies. The U.S., for reasons having to do with ethnicity and culture, has more low birth weight babies than Canada and other OECD countries.

According to one observer, Michael Moore has created a love letter to the Canadian system. However, Americans should know that Canada rations health care and that many Canadians wait inordinately long periods of time for urgent medical treatment. The Fraser Institute's annual report "Waiting Your Turn" estimates that Canadians are waiting for nearly 800,000 medical procedures. If the Canadian system was adopted in the U.S. - and you assume one person per treatment - that would translate to nearly 7.3 million Americans. Not 7.3 million Americans theoretically without health care due to a lack of insurance - but 7.3 million Americans who need medical treatment but cannot get it without being on long waiting lists.

How long? In Canada, it depends on the province and the type of treatment. The median wait time for medical treatment in Canada in 2006 was 17.8 weeks. However, this doesn't tell the whole story. It's not hard to find Canadians who have waited months to get an MRI, and years for some types of treatments. There are multiple kinds of waits in the Canadian system: the wait to see a specialist, the wait to get a diagnostic test, the wait to get surgery - and then the wait for rescheduled surgery after one's initial surgical appointment has been cancelled - sometimes multiple times - a routine phenomenon. Waits for orthopedic surgery can be multiple years - and in the case of some elderly Canadians - forever. Waits for things like gastric bypass and sleep apnea treatment are routinely 4-5 years.

My short movie, A Short Course in Brain Surgery, highlights the plight of Lindsay McCreith, a Canadian with a suspected brain tumor who had to wait four months for an MRI. Instead, he crossed the border to the U.S and got it in two days. He then faced another four month wait just to see a specialist in order to schedule surgery which would represent yet another wait. Instead, he had the tumor removed in the U.S. - immediately. It turned out to be early stage brain cancer.

Another short, Two Women, chronicles the sad story of Janice Fraser who, unable to urinate, needed to have a pacemaker-type device implanted to control her bladder. Unfortunately, the hospital arbitrarily rationed the operation by doing only one per month. Janice was number 32 on the list - nearly a three year wait. She ended up waiting so long that she developed life-threatening infections, had to have her bladder removed in an emergency procedure, and will now wear a urine bag for the rest of her life.

The Lemon tells the story of Shirley Healey who was suffering from a near total blockage of her mesenteric artery which feeds blood to the bowels. She was slowly starving and risked death by waiting in Canada. She came to Bellingham, Washington where she got her life-saving operation immediately. The American surgeon who operated said that the Canadian patients are the worst, most dangerous cases he sees - due to the long waits.

In May, the Toronto Star ran a story about an Ontario man with a fist-sized hole in his head - due to an car accident - who had to wait one year for surgery to close it. Indeed, the newspapers of Canada, the UK, Ireland, New Zealand & Australia feature a constant weekly stream of horror stories about their nationalized systems. Two weeks ago, a study was released by doctors at Glasgow University showing that 464,000 deaths had been caused over the last 30 years by the NHS in Scotland and that "the vast majority of people - around 250,000 - who died due to inadequate or delayed treatment were heart or stroke patients".

Judging from the press, it seems that English-speaking countries are congenitally unable to run nationalized health care systems. Maybe that's why more thoughtful advocates of single-payer laud the French and German systems whose newspapers most Americans can't read. Apparently, Mr. Moore has not been as thoughtful. He may not have considered that anyone with a computer and an internet connection can use Google News Search to quickly determine that his version of the Canadian system is not even close to reality.

These are not isolated anecdotes. Indeed, they are the result of the systematic rationing of health care by the Canadian government via global hospital budgets, technology budgets and the intentional limitation on the number of practicing specialists. However, many advocates of government-run medicine deny that waiting for health care in Canada is a problem.

Defenders of the Canadian system tend to fall into three groups:

* Those who deny that Canadians wait too long.
* Those who admit it and blame it on under-funding
* Those who think that waiting is not a bad thing

Those who deny that waiting is a problem in Canada include Ezra Klein of The American Prospect who minimizes the effects of waiting this way:

... there is no rationing or waiting lists for non-elective or emergency procedures.

Well, no there aren't. But, just because a surgery is termed elective doesn't mean it's not urgent. In fact, all cancer surgeries are considered elective in Canada. And - unless you're having a heart attack, a bypass operation is considered elective - even if the blockage approaches 100% - even if you're a ticking time bomb - even if an American doctor would consider it an emergency.

All of the patients in my films - a man with a cancerous brain tumor, a women whose bladder had ceased functioning, a women who was slowly starving to death due to a blocked mesoenteric artery - were waiting for elective surgery. In 2003, Diane Gorsuch of Manitoba died while waiting more than two years for elective cardiac bypass surgery. But, of course, it's in the interest of single-payer advocates to mislead Americans and make them think that Canadians only endure long waits for varicose vein treatment and lap band procedures.

Klein also plays down Canadian waiting this way:

Oh, and the "hordes of Canadians rushing across the border for care thing"? Mostly myth.

Well, its not difficult to see why. Canadians have already paid high taxes for national health insurance. They don't have health care savings because they've been subjected to two decades of government propaganda that tells them they don't need it. - And, they don't have private insurance because it's outlawed - and many of them are old, afraid to travel for surgery, fear they may lose their place in the queue or be thought of as "un-Canadian".

Then, there are those who admit that Canadians suffer and wait long periods of time for medical care - but who blame this merely on underfunding - not on the system itself. Groups like Physicians for a National Health Program, who take this stance, like to have it both ways. They lament high U.S. health care spending while they praise low Canadian spending - all the while blaming underfunding for the constant stream of horror stories in the Canadian press.

And finally there are those who seem to think that suffering and waiting is a good thing as long as everyone suffers equally. Academics like Pat and Hugh Armstrong who have written a book praising and defending the Canadian health care system say that "waiting lists are an indication of strong demand for high quality health care."

Undeterred by reports of long waits and suffering in countries where nationalized health insurance has been implemented, the advocates of government-run medicine point to 45 million Americans without health insurance as proof that the market has failed and that government-run medicine is the answer.

However, the so-called "crisis of the uninsured" is anything but. As I show in my short film Uninsured in America, the vast majority of the uninsured are people who choose to go without coverage. Seventeen million of the uninsured reside in households making more than $50,000 a year. Fourteen million people without coverage are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP, but haven't signed up. Throw in millions of illegal immigrants who don't buy insurance and millions of people who are uninsured only for short periods of time and we've got a non-crisis of politically exaggerated proportions. Moreover, millions of people who are unwilling to pay for their own medical care have figured out that it's free-for-the-taking at any hospital emergency room.

Consider this: across Canada, thousands of baby boomers and the elderly often wait years for knee and hip replacements; often in great pain while taking powerful narcotics. However, a dog in Canada can get a joint replacement operation at a veterinary hospital done in a matter of weeks. The real danger of adopting a system like the one in Canada is not just long waits for medical treatment. Americans would pay much higher taxes and lose important liberties while turning over personal life-and-death decisions to government bureaucrats.

http://www.freemarketcure.com/social...ineissicko.php
Head to the site to watch this person's version of a documentary...And then compare it to MM's idea of what a documentary is.

Quote:

Michael Moore’s new film, Sicko, which premiered at Cannes last week, is receiving the expected rave reviews. In one particularly interesting review Time Magazine reporter Richard Corliss rejoices that “the upside of this populist documentary is that there are no policy wonks crunching numbers….”

Yes, we wouldn’t want anyone who knows something about health care reform to point out that:

* Moore frequently refers to the 47 million Americans without health insurance, but fails to point out that most of those are uninsured for only brief periods, or that millions are already eligible for government programs like Medicaid but fail to apply. Moreover, he implies that people without health insurance don’t receive health care. In reality, as Michael Cannon and I have pointed out, most do. Hospitals are legally obligated to provide care regardless of ability to pay, and while physicians do not face the same legal requirements, few are willing to deny treatment because a patient lacks insurance. Treatment for the uninsured may well mean financial hardship, but by and large they do receive care.
* Moore talks a lot about life expectancy, suggesting that people in Canada, Britain, France, and even Cuba live longer than Americans because of their health care systems. But most experts agree that life expectancies are a poor measure of health care, because they are affected by too many exogenous factors like violent crime, poverty, obesity, tobacco and drug use, and other issues unrelated to a country’s health system. Americans in Utah live longer than Americans in New York City, despite having essentially the same health care.
* Moore downplays waiting lists in Canada, suggesting they are no more than inconveniences. He interviews apparently healthy Canadians who claim they have no problem getting care. Yet nearly 800,000 Canadians are not so lucky. No less than the Canadian Supreme Court has said that many Canadians waiting for treatment suffer chronic pain and that “patients die while on the waiting list.”

* Moore shows happy Britons who don’t have to pay for their prescription drugs. But he didn’t talk to any of the 850,000 Britons waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals. Every year, shortages force the NHS to cancel as many as 50,000 operations. In a Cato Policy Analysis, John Goodman noted that roughly 40 percent of cancer patients never get to see an oncology specialist. Delays in receiving treatment are often so long that nearly 20 percent of colon cancer cases considered treatable when first diagnosed are incurable by the time treatment is finally offered.
* Moore calls the French system “free,” convieniently ignoring the 13.55 percent payroll tax, a 5.25 percent income tax, and additional taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical company revenues that fund the system. (Despite the high taxes, the system is running an €11.6 billion annual deficit.) The French system is not even free in terms of what patients pay. Its patients pay high copayments and other out-of-pocket expenses, and physicians are able to bill patients for charges over and above what the government reimburses. As a result, 92 percent of French citizens have private health insurance to complement the government system. Yet there remain shortages of modern health care technology and a lack of access to the most advanced care.

I’ve invited Moore to come to Cato and debate the issue. Of course, he is probably too busy to talk with a mere policy wonk…

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/...icko-or-wacko/

OpiaticSchism · 06-27-2007, 11:38 PM

Going off on a huge rant here:

Putting Micheal Moore's movie aside for a moment. Regardless of the fact that he may or may not have misinformed the public and such, his name is at least recognizeable and he will draw some attention to our terrible health care system.

I really don't care what he had to say in it, and I have seen bits and pieces of it where he praised other medical programs which may not actually be as good as he makes them out to be. But I don't care what other countries are doing for their health care. No offense meant.. as I'm sure they don't care about how the US gets medical treatment.

But there IS a serious problem in the US and we need to do something about it. This documentary at least brings some attention to it, as it is done by someone who (like him or hate him) is well known. There's no such thing as bad publicity. Any attention is good.

My insurance payed out over $65-70,000 over the course of a few years. This was while paying premiums through my step-dad's work, as well as paying money for medication, high co-pays, deductibles, etc.. When I turned 18 they tried to drop me. We fought and I was kept on for an additional year.. then I was without insurance for several months after I turned 19 while I waited for the LONG AND TEDIOUS process of getting onto Missouri's medicaid program (which I had been on once before and was then dropped due to 'money that the government had overlooked on accident')

So while I was without insurance, I couldn't afford ANYTHING. I couldn't afford my medication which I had been on for years, because it was $470 a month. I couldn't afford the only treatment that had helped me, because it was $4100 every 8 weeks. I was getting sick again, and the only thing my doctor could do was let me have appointments at half price, and give me free office samples of medication for as long as possible.

I ended up getting approved for medicaid only a couple weeks from the time when I would have been forced to have the treatment or I would have ended up back in the ER due to losing so much weight again. Either way I was going to end up owing thousands all because of an illness that I couldn't help and had very little control over.

The issue isn't with people being able to get insurance that will pay for it.. the problem is with the costs of things. I mean.. $4100 PER TREATMENT for a 4 hour IV drop of this special medication. Wouldn't be bad if it was a one time thing, but it has to be done every 8 weeks.

Let's not forget how picky some insurance companies are either... in my small town, south of the larger city, we only have two ambulances located here in town. They are both for one hospital, but we have two major hospitals in the city. I had to call 911 once and I was taken to the ER. I didn't have a choice as to who picked me up.. because the ambulance had the other hospital's name on the side, I had to pay $600 because my insurance didn't cover that hospital.

Why are things so expensive? Yeah.. so you lab created some medication and drip it through a tube. Why does that turn into $4100? Why does a bottle of pills cost $470? An ambulance ride (they drove the speed limit the whole time.. no lights going, nothing. It was a 45 minute ride writhing in pain, and they drove no differently than if they were cruising around doing nothing and causing no traffic disturbance whatsoever) cost me $600.

Honestly, thinking about all of this stuff makes me for the first time ever feel a deep hatred towards our government and the choices made. Especially when the cheapest form of medication that has worked for me isn't even legal in my state. $25 for a quarter can last me a week, so roughly $100 a month for a non legal form of treatment, versus several thousand in treatments that don't even help as much.

***Plainsman1963*** · 07-03-2007, 08:05 AM

Ok, I've watched the movie. I also watched Michael Moore on Larry King.

In the interest of full disclosure...I don't like Michael Moore. I don't believe his movies should be labeled as "documentaries". They are opinion pieces.

Let's get the bad stuff out of the way first:
MM doesn't give the opposing view. His is a one sided story. He doesn't really disclose the long wait that Canadians endure for "elective" (bypass surgery???) procedures. He glosses over the taxes paid for the "free" health care in other countries.

But...Here is where I am going to eat crow.

The health care system is broken in this country (not that I needed this film to tell me that). We should and we could do much much better than we are now.

MM even says that his opinion may not be the right one. But the discussion should be had. There has to be a way we can improve on what we have now and to avoid the problems that other countries have with long waits and quotas. The whole "socialist" argument in my opinion is bunk. We already have "socialistic" programs. We have police, firefighters, schools, etc. that are paid for with taxes.
Why the hell shouldn't we add health care? Yeah, the government being in charge of anything anymore scares the hell out of me, but putting it in perspective, medicare/medicaid has an overhead of anywhere between 1-3%. Insurance companies have an overhead of 30%, so seems to me that the government is much more efficient already.

I've heard that between medicare/medicaid, state insurance for children and the VA, that the government already supplies "socialist" health care to 2/3 of the population. I don't know if that is accurate, but I bet it's in the ballpark.

How fucking tough would it be to add the other 1/3 and take the damn insurance companies out of the equation?

Out of all the movies Moore has done...This one is my favorite. This country's government is fucked up beyond belief. The health care industry is run by the drug peddlers and the insurance companies. The doctors are making a killing and they have no incentive to change it.

I admit...I jumped on Michael Moore before I watched the movie. I was wrong and I apologize (not that MM will read this or give a damn, but I also apologize to those that said give it a chance).

I recommend everybody watch this movie.

Edit: removed the link because they took the movie down...I smell lawsuit.

THC Fiend · 07-08-2007, 06:07 AM

If you're boycotting the film because you have something against Moore... then it's your loss simply because you'll miss out on two hours of entertainment. It is the entertainment industry after all.

Moore uses the same tactics as previous films (a mixture of lying or what my folks would call "bending the truth")... but admittedly to a lesser extent. The film recounts an obvious tale... but of course Moore makes entertainment out of this tale... and unlike everyone else exploits it for cash. Hell it works for me the movie was pretty fun to watch.

First: "Bowling for payday"
Then: "Fahrenheit 911 GRAND ON THIS WATCH BIATCH"
Now: SiCKO... more like "six OHHHHHHs at the end a' my paycheck every week SON!"

Exploitative? Yessir! Entertaining? Yes. Worth a watch? You bet your second to last cheeseburger.

tekkenlaw · 07-08-2007, 08:35 AM

In my opinion Michael Moore isn't any better than Bill O'Reilly or any other person that forces their political ideology on the public, but this movie doesn't contain nearly as much fabrications and misrepresentations as his past films. It was really well done I thought and it's more real people and their stories than Michael Moore, if I recall correctly he isn't even shown in the movie until maybe 45 minutes in. Blah blah blah Michael Moore made money on this whatever, it doesn't really change the fact the system is broken. I just hope this movie informs more people about how pathetic the health care system we have is.

nornerator · 07-08-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plainsman1963

Not the first...And not even close to the most even handed.

That is about the most ridiculous thing I have read in a while....There are many many documentaries (real documentaries, not opinion pieces) concerning health care. Do a google search and limit the responses to anything but Michael Moore and you'll see what I mean. Last count was 1.5 million responses to the query "health care documentary -moore".

I don't need to make a documentary to have an opinion on MM's movie. There isn't a dearth of documentaries out there.

Well, I think the analogy sucks...

The same thing could be said about the prohibitionists and their tortured logic about cannabis. Truth is always better than fiction.

Then you need to look somewhere besides Michael Moore.

How about another independent filmmaker and his view on the movie?

http://www.freemarketcure.com/social...ineissicko.php
Head to the site to watch this person's version of a documentary...And then compare it to MM's idea of what a documentary is.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/...icko-or-wacko/

Those articles are very good!

Although I will see the movie eventually, and I do consider myself fairly left-wing, I watch Michael Moore like I watch fox news, with a bag of salt. He is quite over the top, and not very trust-worthy, however for a person to stay relatively unbiased (nobody is completely unbiased) it is important to look at all sides of the story, even the sensationalist claims.

Truth is what is important to me, not liberal politics. Never trust your sources unless you have thoroughly examined their credentials yourself, and even then take it with a grain of salt.

IBlazedHeavily · 07-09-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troublemaker_42

I.....just.....can't. It would take MM curing cancer and AIDS in the same day for me to ever begin to respect him. He has made a career out of clever editing, half-truths, and sensationalism. Do I believe we need major health care reform? You bet....but I knew that before MM decided to make this movie. Knowing his reputation for telling only his version of the truth, as opposed to the ACTUAL truth, I simply cannot take anything he is a part of very seriously.

thats a shame..the guy has every right to be respected.

are u assuming that the majority of the country did not think about healthcare reform before the movie? come on dude..this is an old issue...the guy is talented, this is what he does..why hate him for it?

thank Mike for making a documentary about healthcare in such a way that it makes people really think. Everyone talks about this stuff, but when a movie is made about it, it is much more impacting. you know how many politicians and senators saw the thing and publicly expressed approval and respect for it? I can't believe youd show such disrespect ..wow

IBlazedHeavily · 07-09-2007, 03:44 PM

deleted

***Plainsman1963*** · 07-09-2007, 04:09 PM

No, he really doesn't have every right to be respected. Not after the shit he's pulled time after time in movie after movie.

Respect is earned and MM has not earned my respect in the least.

06-27-2007, 07:28 PM	#11
ITG Sr. Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,159 Grams: 17,817.63 Groans: 3 Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post Thanks: 397 Thanked 513 Times in 277 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	I'm going to start by going on the record by saying: I DO NOT LIKE MICHAEL MOORE. I disagree with his politics. I disagree with his methods. From what I've seen of him outside his own documentaries, I don't like him as a person (example: his "love" of Canada and how they run things, and yet he still is a citizen of the US, not Canada). I just don't like him. Furthermore, I cannot imagine that he actually covers anything that's actually new in Sicko. He's not bringing up these issues- the American people are. Why do you think it's one of the major points that people keep talking about for the upcoming election, and it was for the previous election? While I'd be lying if I said that not a week goes by without me seeing an editorial about it in the newspaper, I'd be lying, but I think that may be because I usually only read the local paper about once a week now, and at college I mostly read the free student papers. My other news I get online. Still, I WOULDN'T be lying if I said not a month goes by without seeing an editorial AND an article. Yes, the health care system in America is broken. WE KNOW THIS. I don't see how you CAN'T know this. Now we need to talk to health specialist, administrative specialists, and, sadly, yes, politicians in order to figure out how to solve it. I'm sure that some of this is in Sicko, though I highly doubt a fair and balanced approach to the viable options are available. And, in response to saying that bitching about MM's tactics without making a documentary yourself is wrong and stupid, I have to say that I can't understand how you make that connection. Making a documentary IS EXPENSIVE. Michael Moore actually has an advantage when it comes to making documentaries- it's easier for him to get appointment with people he wants to talk to. ANd not just because he's established, but because there is the potential risk of political fallout if you don't. Why? Because there's a real chance that MM will say you're not willing to talk to him because "you don't want the truth to come out" or '"you're afraid of his hardball tactics" or something along those lines. He has funding, he has connections. Perhaps most importantly, he is, I freely admit, a publicity GENIUS. Making a documentary- which MM's work ISN'T- is HARD. It takes equipment, time, specialists, and funds. What is the average american to do? It's simply unfeasible to write a documentary, or film an op ed piece. So what do they do? They talk about it, they vote on it, they write they're papers- which IS what people are doing, and hve been for quite some time. Will I watch Sicko? Maybe, but I highly doubt it. I'd rather watch a more balanced, more respectable piece. Think they're not out there? Think again. Do a google search, just for documentaries on American Health Care. Almost all Sicko and MM, right? Do an advanced search leaving out Sicko, michael, and moore. Over 1,300,000 results. Can I guarantee that they're fair and balanced? No. But the odds of them being more fair and balanced than MM is pretty damn good. Even better than a video, though, is to just go out and read about it. You'll find better stuff. Trust me. Edit: Damn you Plainsman, why you gotta be so much better than me... __________________ It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul. Come to the Chat... Join the Party

06-27-2007, 11:38 PM	#13
OpiaticSchism Jr. Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 206 Grams: 1,709.99 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 1 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	Going off on a huge rant here: Putting Micheal Moore's movie aside for a moment. Regardless of the fact that he may or may not have misinformed the public and such, his name is at least recognizeable and he will draw some attention to our terrible health care system. I really don't care what he had to say in it, and I have seen bits and pieces of it where he praised other medical programs which may not actually be as good as he makes them out to be. But I don't care what other countries are doing for their health care. No offense meant.. as I'm sure they don't care about how the US gets medical treatment. But there IS a serious problem in the US and we need to do something about it. This documentary at least brings some attention to it, as it is done by someone who (like him or hate him) is well known. There's no such thing as bad publicity. Any attention is good. My insurance payed out over $65-70,000 over the course of a few years. This was while paying premiums through my step-dad's work, as well as paying money for medication, high co-pays, deductibles, etc.. When I turned 18 they tried to drop me. We fought and I was kept on for an additional year.. then I was without insurance for several months after I turned 19 while I waited for the LONG AND TEDIOUS process of getting onto Missouri's medicaid program (which I had been on once before and was then dropped due to 'money that the government had overlooked on accident') So while I was without insurance, I couldn't afford ANYTHING. I couldn't afford my medication which I had been on for years, because it was $470 a month. I couldn't afford the only treatment that had helped me, because it was $4100 every 8 weeks. I was getting sick again, and the only thing my doctor could do was let me have appointments at half price, and give me free office samples of medication for as long as possible. I ended up getting approved for medicaid only a couple weeks from the time when I would have been forced to have the treatment or I would have ended up back in the ER due to losing so much weight again. Either way I was going to end up owing thousands all because of an illness that I couldn't help and had very little control over. The issue isn't with people being able to get insurance that will pay for it.. the problem is with the costs of things. I mean.. $4100 PER TREATMENT for a 4 hour IV drop of this special medication. Wouldn't be bad if it was a one time thing, but it has to be done every 8 weeks. Let's not forget how picky some insurance companies are either... in my small town, south of the larger city, we only have two ambulances located here in town. They are both for one hospital, but we have two major hospitals in the city. I had to call 911 once and I was taken to the ER. I didn't have a choice as to who picked me up.. because the ambulance had the other hospital's name on the side, I had to pay $600 because my insurance didn't cover that hospital. Why are things so expensive? Yeah.. so you lab created some medication and drip it through a tube. Why does that turn into $4100? Why does a bottle of pills cost $470? An ambulance ride (they drove the speed limit the whole time.. no lights going, nothing. It was a 45 minute ride writhing in pain, and they drove no differently than if they were cruising around doing nothing and causing no traffic disturbance whatsoever) cost me $600. Honestly, thinking about all of this stuff makes me for the first time ever feel a deep hatred towards our government and the choices made. Especially when the cheapest form of medication that has worked for me isn't even legal in my state. $25 for a quarter can last me a week, so roughly $100 a month for a non legal form of treatment, versus several thousand in treatments that don't even help as much. __________________ The Opiatic Windows Experience: Helping Your PC

07-08-2007, 06:07 AM	#15
THC Fiend Wonko the Sane Tournaments Won: 1 Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,431 Grams: 6,484.30 Groans: 6 Groaned at 11 Times in 6 Posts Thanks: 147 Thanked 276 Times in 173 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	If you're boycotting the film because you have something against Moore... then it's your loss simply because you'll miss out on two hours of entertainment. It is the entertainment industry after all. Moore uses the same tactics as previous films (a mixture of lying or what my folks would call "bending the truth")... but admittedly to a lesser extent. The film recounts an obvious tale... but of course Moore makes entertainment out of this tale... and unlike everyone else exploits it for cash. Hell it works for me the movie was pretty fun to watch. First: "Bowling for payday" Then: "Fahrenheit 911 GRAND ON THIS WATCH BIATCH" Now: SiCKO... more like "six OHHHHHHs at the end a' my paycheck every week SON!" Exploitative? Yessir! Entertaining? Yes. Worth a watch? You bet your second to last cheeseburger. __________________ "Nietzsche is dead." -God brevity is... wit

07-08-2007, 08:35 AM	#16
tekkenlaw Sr. Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 890 Grams: 3,994.39 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 22 Thanked 58 Times in 41 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	In my opinion Michael Moore isn't any better than Bill O'Reilly or any other person that forces their political ideology on the public, but this movie doesn't contain nearly as much fabrications and misrepresentations as his past films. It was really well done I thought and it's more real people and their stories than Michael Moore, if I recall correctly he isn't even shown in the movie until maybe 45 minutes in. Blah blah blah Michael Moore made money on this whatever, it doesn't really change the fact the system is broken. I just hope this movie informs more people about how pathetic the health care system we have is. __________________ "Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself." -- Jimmy Carter RIP 420.marijuana.com RIP overgrow.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Remove Advertisements Marijuana.com Sponsor
Marijuana.com Advertisement	<a rel='nofollow' href='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a78e9dba&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE' target='_blank'><img src='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=6&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE&n=a78e9dba' border='0' alt='' /></a>

07-03-2007, 08:05 AM	#14
*Plainsman1963* Administrator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,303 Grams: 28,776.73 Groans: 29 Groaned at 7 Times in 7 Posts Thanks: 590 Thanked 1,252 Times in 634 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: -1.000%	Ok, I've watched the movie. I also watched Michael Moore on Larry King. In the interest of full disclosure...I don't like Michael Moore. I don't believe his movies should be labeled as "documentaries". They are opinion pieces. Let's get the bad stuff out of the way first: MM doesn't give the opposing view. His is a one sided story. He doesn't really disclose the long wait that Canadians endure for "elective" (bypass surgery???) procedures. He glosses over the taxes paid for the "free" health care in other countries. But...Here is where I am going to eat crow. The health care system is broken in this country (not that I needed this film to tell me that). We should and we could do much much better than we are now. MM even says that his opinion may not be the right one. But the discussion should be had. There has to be a way we can improve on what we have now and to avoid the problems that other countries have with long waits and quotas. The whole "socialist" argument in my opinion is bunk. We already have "socialistic" programs. We have police, firefighters, schools, etc. that are paid for with taxes. Why the hell shouldn't we add health care? Yeah, the government being in charge of anything anymore scares the hell out of me, but putting it in perspective, medicare/medicaid has an overhead of anywhere between 1-3%. Insurance companies have an overhead of 30%, so seems to me that the government is much more efficient already. I've heard that between medicare/medicaid, state insurance for children and the VA, that the government already supplies "socialist" health care to 2/3 of the population. I don't know if that is accurate, but I bet it's in the ballpark. How fucking tough would it be to add the other 1/3 and take the damn insurance companies out of the equation? Out of all the movies Moore has done...This one is my favorite. This country's government is fucked up beyond belief. The health care industry is run by the drug peddlers and the insurance companies. The doctors are making a killing and they have no incentive to change it. I admit...I jumped on Michael Moore before I watched the movie. I was wrong and I apologize (not that MM will read this or give a damn, but I also apologize to those that said give it a chance). I recommend everybody watch this movie. Edit: removed the link because they took the movie down...I smell lawsuit.

07-09-2007, 03:44 PM	#19
IBlazedHeavily Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 635 Grams: 5,171.27 Groans: 4 Groaned at 13 Times in 6 Posts Thanks: 14 Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	deleted

07-09-2007, 04:09 PM	#20
*Plainsman1963* Administrator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,303 Grams: 28,776.73 Groans: 29 Groaned at 7 Times in 7 Posts Thanks: 590 Thanked 1,252 Times in 634 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: -1.000%	No, he really doesn't have every right to be respected. Not after the shit he's pulled time after time in movie after movie. Respect is earned and MM has not earned my respect in the least.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Court Question	idigapony1	Legal Issues	7	05-29-2007 06:12 PM
Beatles Fans check this out	mehow	Music	1	02-05-2002 04:27 AM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate View Forum Leaders Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read

Marijuana.com

Hot Products: