|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
125.133.32.50
Michael Moore is often bombastic, in your face and clubbing the viewer of the head and if you are liberal that is fine because it preaches to the converted.
This time though he has succeeded in dropping the republican democrat line and just tells it like it is. It is not even about socialism versus capitalism. It is a case study on why people are being victimized by an issue that should never have become an issue.
The pointed question is simply how did America let profit become more important than American lives.
I am a Canadian and I agree with socialized medicine because I can;t imagine going bankrupt over a broken ankle.
As a film it works extremely well in that "are you kidding me" kind of way. No cartoons and not a bunch of numbers on the screen. It has a more human feel this time around -- and it's an issue that is killing more people than 9/11 did. Perhaps it's because the people dying are out of site and no big buildings to plaster on ever news channel. Out of site, usually the poor and minorities so nobody cares. For all that one can say about Michael Moore it is clear that he does care. It's sad that he is vilified for that.
But don't let the somber subject fool you -- there are some amazingly funny moments - kind of laugh out loud bits that have one laughing in the absurdity of "how could they let that happen?"
A Doctor in Britain (with a million dollar home an Audi and a big screen TV in a very upper scale neighborhood making $200k a year) said that he lives very well and never needs to make medical decisions based on someones income or insurance. Sure he won't have 7 homes and 7 tvs and 5 ports cars but it's tough to argue that he's not a success or "rich."
And many services are already socialized in the US and run quite well.
Follow Ups:
Now I gotta say this one takes absolute balls...
I am amazed that Michael has not been shot for this one.
Going in to the film, I was unimpressed with Moore's appearances on CNN and more unimpressed with CNN's responses. I did side with Moore no matter what the exact numbers were as either set of numbers chosen showed a disparity and a problem with US healthcare. CNN also agreed with Moore that there is a problem but seemed to leave it at that (up next, Harry Potter mania!).
Moore is quite savvy. There's nothing quite like having an opinion peice shown 40 feet tall with a 100db sound system to a captive audience. The kicker is people also get to hand you (the filmaker) money to watch it! I can only laugh at the irony of watching something championing a socialistic ideal through a capitalistic system.
I found many of the arguments posed by Moore to be reasonable and full of merit. I don't feel like picking at the minor imperfections in how he presented his arguments nor do I feel like dismissing them because the minor technical details don't rail against the logic. I do feel the whole 9/11 workers to guantanamo bay thing was another shameless stunt....up until the point where the group went to the pharmacy and hosiptal in cuba. If Moore had directly taken them to the cuban healthcare system instead of the "bullhorn in the bay" incident, I would called him a genius. As it turned out, he just got incredibly lucky and managed to film an magnificent display of human compassion. He should be ashamed that he put already ailing people in danger for his movie stunt. He should feel blessed that cuban healthcare professionals healed those ailing people. The firehouse scene felt a little staged but it's hard to tell if it's Moore or the cuban government who were being savvy on that one. It's also hard to deny the emotional impact of the cuban visit and how effective it is in supporting Moore's opinion about socialized medicine in the united states.
I am very cynical about the prospects of changing the healthcare system in the united states. It would be hard to tell a bunch of obscenely rich and powerful (through the many lobbyists they hire) healthcare executives that they can no longer make gigantic profits off of the sick of the united states anymore. However, I'm willing to speak truth to power all the same.
-Tom §.
It really tries to raise few good questionsHe does not even debate why US spends more money on health care than any other country in the world, but has 1/4 of the people uninsured. He discusses insured only. and question why even insured do not get care they deserve?
Did he choose things that suit idea he wants to express, of course, but he did not lie, (unlike our ... I do not even want to go there). He was careful not do involve political parties in to the movie, but to show how "health" companies operate. He gave examples and reference points to make us think (but as it was pointed out in the movie, does government wants us to have time to think with our heads).
As much as "clarkjohnsen" and "patrickU" are concerned, I wish that they experience the same great US health and overall benefit system my wife (and indirectly myself) experienced:
About 6 years ago my wife had started to experience pain (and some other symptoms, wont go in to details). HMO doctors could not, or did not want to, perform ultrasound examination since insurance would not pay it.
After several visits and about 2 months (which BTW together cost more than one ultrasound) we told doctor to give us in writing that she cant order/perform ultrasound because of the insurance, and that we will than pay for the exam. BUT, also that we will sue her as a doctor, and insurance, if there is something wrong. She got ultrasound. She was diagnose with cancer. It was caught fairy early so they operated with chances of long term survival of about 90% but after two surgeries and no chance for kids any more as a consequence.
However, doctor said if she had come month later her survival chance would be 20%. And one month earlier she would probably have one surgery, less invasive, and could have kids.
She went thru several months of chemotherapy working all the time except day of the therapy, but time she had to make up. She had to work or would loose insurance.
I will not even go in to cost issue (since most of it insurance could not weasel out, although they tried, they tried hard). Or issue of getting insurance once you had some illness.
So, "clarkjohnsen" and "patrickU", I really, with whole my hart, wish both of you experience the same.
Real hard indeed.
Moore means less: How radical documentary maker Michael Moore lost the plot
Michael Moore has transformed the documentary film, drawing huge audiences to tales of greed and hypocrisy. But his biographer, Roger Rapoport, believes that there's another, darker, less attractive side to this crusader
...Elsewhere, Moore's methods and past work are under scrutiny while another film about Bush's last election campaign appears to have been placed firmly on the back-burner. Rumours abound, sparked by the man himself, that he may now decide to abandon documentaries to write romantic comedies and straight dramatic features (with a slice of wry) instead. Where else is there left for Moore to go?
The long gestation period for Sicko, Moore's paintball-style attack on the American health-care system, reflects parallel changes in his own life. Recognising the irony of an overweight director on a bad diet preaching healthy living, Moore decided to heal himself. He hired a personal trainer and began taking long walks. He also created the Traverse City Film Festival near his impressive home on Michigan's Torch Lake. As he personally reviewed entries, Moore also continued working on fictional screenplay ideas of his own.
This decision to create feature-length film dramas is curious, though, when you consider what happened to his one previous attempt. It was a $10m John Candy comedy called Canadian Bacon, and it cratered faster than a Flint, Michigan job at General Motors, the major employer in Moore's childhood home-town. Now, it looks like the Big Bopper of ambush journalism wants to turn to romantic comedies and other dramas that will win over the audiences that skip his non-stop assaults on the super-rich, warmongers, gun-slinging vigilantes and heartless drug companies out to grind the faces of the poor. It's as if the sheriff has decided to get out of Dodge City and take up macramé.
Wouldn't want the right wings' favorite debate ploy to permeate this forum.
And this forum has lots of stupid white men. Moore's next project is rumored to be another documentary and if the man wants to make a comedy that is the best way to lampoon a government ANYWAY. Canadian Bacon was not a very good movie but the message was still alive in there. A government trying to take attention away from it's corrupt behavior so the president decides to wage war on Canada -- those terrorists. "besides most Americans don;t know where Canada is on the map" so they're the perfect terrorist organization. The idea on paper was quite good IMO.
he is the worst self named prostitute around...
Iraq and national health care.
He's a visionary, clever and fair.
Cīmon Tin donīt be blind! He is a lousy film maker, who is so untrue to journalism as one can be, that do include that he does not have some points.
His films are made for the political fanatical.
deep concerns (among Americans).
We have massive corporate brainwashing in this country and Moore is the sole voice of dissent.
He's been right.
Now, care to argue his facts or the major one that he was right about Iraq?
Guess what: he's more than right about our crappy health care system, too.
Not even the republicans will argue about the health care (well except the rich ones).
I would argue that Bill Maher is also doing his part. He is doing the show Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO. Bill does not have the draw of a Michael Moore.
There is no point in preaching to the brainwashed. If people still support bush and the War in Iraq - then you may as well try and discuss the theory of relativity with someone with an IQ half that of Forest Gump!
Critical thinking requires one ignore the person and read the information being presented. What I see is personal attacks on the man's weight, appearance, the way he speaks but not what he says, writes, thinks.
Maher is more potently against religion and people who do not use reasoned arguments. So religious people will tend to be offended by Maher and his Libertarian views. But there is a "simplify everything to black and white" policy in right wing religious thinking. Saddam Bad Kill. Socialism Bad Stop.
Reading Michael Moore opposition website forums the strawman arguments are endless. Reading some writer for Slate Christopher something it is quite apparent that attacking the man and using lots of discrediting remarks is easier than actually building coherent arguments against the truth.
The scary thing for the part of the population that truly is intelligent enough not to believe the likes of Bush is that they are in the minority.
I find it funny that the same people who hate Moore because he stumbles over some words in an interview with no real preparation as to what he will be asked are the same people who vote for the likes of Bush who when he knows all the questions in advance and has a teleprompter to read from speaks so much worse than your average 9 year old girl from Britain -- but like I said --perhaps Mike needs to do a film about the education system. A stupid population continues to support right wing religious Pat Robertson folk though so education is WAY down the list of something to improve.
He was right about Irak?
No he was not.
What is right is the missmanagement of the after war.
I am more than happy that SH and his sons are gone for ever.
And what is if at some point SH would have get if not killed weapons of MD?
Gazing his own people was no problem for him was it not.
But all this is forgotten....
The fact is RM is a pretentious brain washer.
Now for his last film...I never will see it...
It is a miss opportunity to be intelligent & critical and some kind of humour.
Look at Gore!
He look like a teeny whoppy, almost a teen fan.
Peinlich.
He was right about Irak?
I don't know if he was right about IRAK but he was right about IRAQ. Don't worry like most Bush devotees - Bush couldn't find it on the map or spell it either. Since it was America who installed Saddam Hussein as dictator of Iraq in the first place -- you could say America was to blame for putting a power hungry killer in charge and gassing hundreds of thousands of people. (right wing government too BTW)
"What is right is the missmanagement of the after war."
Ohh yeah and the fact that it is the WRONG country - but again Geographically inept. Iraq, Afghanistan those darn Arabs what's the difference right?
"I am more than happy that SH and his sons are gone for ever."
I agree - no one is going to miss them - but there is a bigger picture here that needs to be addressed. It sets a terrible precedence to ignore the UN and attack sovereign nations without "hard" evidence. Especially when they KNEW that it was Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Canada and several other countries went with the US to get Bin Laden and try to kill/capture the 9/11 orchestrator. Canada and others rightly said piss off when it was time to go to Iraq.
And before you say anything about Hussein let's see how evil the new guy is when he becomes dictator. Sooner or later the US will have to leave.
"And what is if at some point SH would have get if not killed weapons of MD?
Gazing his own people was no problem for him was it not."
George Bush letting 18,000 American die every year for not having social healthcare does not seem to bother him much. 8 years times 18,000 by the time he is through not to mention the American soldiers fighting in a war they should not have been in. Quite the tally.
"But all this is forgotten."
Yes it seems the Bush supporters have forgotten.
In German it is Irak so sorry to have you made sweat about this word...
And how many did Clinton let die, not having the strengh to change anything.
You can not think and talk lihe this.
This absurd.
But the fact remain. Moore is a terrible director if one at all.
And his films are not worth the celluloid they are print on.
"In German it is Irak so sorry to have you made sweat about this word...
Ahh the Germans talking about what to do with dictators -- that's a laugh.
"And how many did Clinton let die, not having the strengh to change anything."
Clinton had no direct reason to attack Hussein. Neither did Bush. Bush has set a precedence. He can take you from your bed and have you shot whether you live in Germany or anywhere else under the guise of "war on terror." He can arrest any American citizen for no cause and without a warrant all in the name of "terrorism." And he can do it with ZERO evidence or proof. DO you think this is a good thing?
And why is it Clinton's job? It is the job of the people of Iraq to overthrow their own leaders if they don't like them. One can not impose a civil war.
"But the fact remain. Moore is a terrible director if one at all."
Yeah all those snootie awards he wins might say otherwise - the vast majority of people Like Michael Moore and his films...including and most importantly his fellow directors. You know peers - people who direct movies for a living.
What movie have you made? What degree from an established university do you hold that would make me believe you have any insight on film making.
The only sentance of yours I would like to catch on is: The Germans talking about....
So you think a German because as such should not talk about dictactors?
You must be an extreme Right wing something....
A humor. Of course that's the line you go after...
You have presented no case against Sicko or Michael Moore.
But then I should remember to:
"never get into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."
had it only had the resolve?
Britain, too, should have maintained its control over India. Spain never should have "conceded" S. and C. America. Nor should Portugal have carelessly let its African colonies slip away.
Patrick, you're old.
History has left you stumbling around your crusty library, port in hand, muttering about the Ancient Regime.
Moore was absolutely correct about Iraq. See the film again. All of it FACTUAL.
You know, I suspect, little or nothing about American health care.
Gore is correct about global warming, of course.
The future has impaled you like a cow on the front of a speeding train.
What could one possibly respond to that?
OH!
MUH....
you are either 13 years old or you just think like one -- and that insults some of the 13 year olds I know.
*
g
But is he a director?
No he is not. A liar and a polemist.
he's a "liar and a polemist", but that's like saying you're not a biped, you're a dishwasher and cat burglar.
As for the 'lying', I'll agree there's a certain amount of, umm, "artistic license" involved. Some of which is dependent on a point of view as to it's veracity. But any sane person would admit that any deceit in '9-11', say, is a thimble full compared to the reservoir of lies that the Bush administration perpetuated to get us into this dumb-ass war. Or that the business decisions of GM (Roger and Me) turned a large part of Flint into an urban wasteland. So, taken as a whole, his films express an opinion (his)but one which is generally factual.
And then of course there are the lies spouted to the conservative sheep, mindlessly taken as gospel even though they can be verified or disproved by something as simple as watching the damn movie (see 37th vs. 39th below, which somehow, for some mystifying reason, has become the cornerstone of the conservative's issues with this film)
Oddly, Michael Moore is certainly no film or ideological hero of mine. His attack interview, in 'Columbine', of Charlton Heston (who at that point was a doddering, pants-up-to-his-nipples old man, gracious enough to invite Moore and his crew into his house unannounced) was just creepy, like beating up on a homeless person. And does he really think he can embarrass someone like Phil Knight, who has apparently modeled his business career on Gordon Geko? Just ludicrous grandstanding.
Note, though, that my criticisms are with his film making. I'm not trying to pick apart every word for some misrepresentation that will somehow, if allowed to remain unchecked, send the Republic into a Death Spiral from which we'll never recover. Is the conservative ideology really so weak? Maybe so....
vaya con dios
Which is way too good for my words but no for my thinkink and telling.
You think a little series of lies are ok?
For a journalist?
No way.
MM is an egocentric maniac and that shine through his disgracefull movies, his last one will makes its millions without my participation as I am sick of his way of highjacking populist causes.
For his behaviour, like you describe it with C. Heston, and a well publicised " accident ", that would do it for me for ever.
And a total lack of humour to round it up, no thanks.
FYI, he's less of a journalist than an editorialist. In his documentaries Moore uses caustic irony to convey personally held views about corruption within our society; it's based upon a preponderance of selectively gathered evidence rather than simply reporting the news as he finds it.
In that regard, Michael Moore's films tend to be semi-documentary in concept, biased albeit based upon facts. His films are manipulative in the same way that news opinion editors make profound observations extolling the virtues of social change; moreover, they're extrapolations, based upon sufficient facts to reach an honest conclusion.
BTW, documentary filmmakers don't have to follow strict news media guidelines when seeking information for their films, they just have to be relatively accurate with the facts in order to build a compassionate case.
Some folks like what he does; others don't, but I kind of doubt that folks will lose much sleep over the fact that you seem to be a cheerleader for the latter category. ;0)
AuPh
Since we spoke about him last time...
I think he has an inflated ego, that he is a liar and that his talent as a director are in the minimal range, the only postive is that he is able to find out Themes that, would have he been a serious and humorous person with a sense of proportion he could have been real satiric.
When I saw his first film back then I felt not at ease for one second, and in the end the portraits he describe are not other than his very own.
I think he is despictable.
Yes, semi- fictious....
Folks will also not worry also too much about you...In this we can shake hand....
As usual Anti-Moore diatribes focus on minutia rather than the big picture. Whether the number is $5000.00 or $6000.00 is not really the point since both are so vastly higher than $251 which both agree on.
CNN and Republican monkeys keep talking about "but those countries pay taxes for medical" And we don't want Socialist programs because socialism is communism. Which it's not but that's another brain washed mantra of the right.
Americans pay taxes for things like libraries roads, fire departments, police, road construction etc. All of these are socialist programs. Without socialism there would be NO society at all. In fact it was a Socialist program that got the United States out of the great depression and a capitalistic one that put them there in the first place.
Moore's response to CNN
"THAT'S the only thing we should be talking about. How profit and greed are killing our fellow Americans. How profit and private insurance have to be removed from our health care system. CNN should join me in asking why our 9/11 rescue workers aren't receiving medical care. Somebody should send a crew to Canada to find out why they live longer than we do, and why no Canadian has ever gone bankrupt because of medical bills. And all of the media should start saying how much it costs to go to a doctor in these other top industrialized countries: Nothing. Zip. It's FREE. Don't patronize Americans by saying, "Well, it's not free -- they pay for it with taxes!" Yes, we know that. Just like we know that we drive down a city street for FREE -- even though we paid for that street with our taxes. The street is FREE, the book at the library is FREE, if your house catches on fire, the fire department will come and put it out for FREE, and if someone snatches your purse, the police officer will chase down the culprit and bring your purse back to you -- AND HE WON'T CHARGE YOU A DIME FROM THAT PURSE!
These are all free services, collectively socialized and paid for with our tax dollars. To argue that health care -- a life and death issue for many -- should not be considered in the same league is ludicrous and archaic. And trust me, once you add up what you pay for out-of-pocket in premiums, deductibles, co-pays, overpriced medicines, and treatments that aren't covered (not to mention all the other things we pay for like college education, day care and other services that many countries provide for at little or no cost), we, as Americans, are paying far more than the Canadians or Brits or French are paying in taxes. We just don't call these things taxes, but that's exactly what they are." http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2007-07-17
The bottom line is simple. If you have a heart attack in Canada you won;t go bankrupt. In the US you are looking at $100,000 bill. For rich people $100,000 is like $3.00 to me but to most people $100,000 is bankruptcy. I can tell you this -- the amount of EXTRA taxes you pay(over what you pay in the United States) in any Socialized country over your entire lifetime would not come close to $100,000.00.
Americans still pay relatively high income tax and state taxes and property taxes -- the difference is the money is not going to keeping you alive. So if you're rich you like it the way it is -- after all you got yours screw everyone else.
Interestingly the right wing goes after Moore for his money and nice home but unlike MOST of the rich elitists he was not born with a silver spoon up his ass and puts himself on the firing line. That is what a TRUE patriot does -- not the folks who wrap themselves in the flag and blow the "you're with us or against us" routine. These are the same people who would rat out their neighbors in Nazi Germany.
Indeed, The right wing Republican establishment learned a LOT from history -- they learned a lot from Joseph Goebbels.
Well, at least it a post without heat against myself.
A sensible post.
z
I could not use his faux leather pant as a sign of mourning the lost of Victor, here...
I do hope a momentary lost...
I always thought your's & Victor's performances here were au natural, bare on class and substance. ;0)
AuPh
Poor little thing..
You're the feller mourning his momentary lost[sic], whatever that's supposed to mean. If you're going to sing his praises, then please try to NOT be so sensitive about it.
Ciao,
AuPh
nt
Nothing I said in the prior post related to homosexuality except in your imagination. I was speaking metaphorically. You DO know what a metaphor is, don't you, m'boy? ;0)
AuPh
You donīt need a link for that one, do you?
I suppose you were raised in a surrounding were it was cool to be an homophope, now how da fit with your pseudo Left being?
BTW, mon ami, one can't help but notice that Stale, in response to RGA above, tore you and Clark a new anus (now it matches the size of your egos).FTR, you both come off looking like world class jerks (insensitive bastards) for pre-judging Sicko based on your personal dislike of Moore, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. So-called "compassionate conservatives" who get their kicks shooting the messenger when they don't like the message are a dime a dozen, and they tend to be the same breed of arrogant self-aggrandizing bottom feeder the world over!
Sad, very sad. Tsk, tsk.
Regards,
AuPh
It seems that the heat that was always present in our exchanges has coll down.
Why is this?
A question of habit?
Or a certain understanding of the other...
Well that can not go on, as becoming like an old couple is the boring of all bored, if I may say so, and I does.
So try a new little music, that could help to wake me up...
I feel not in the mood today for reading or having to discuss MM further.
But as an old friend, one with fantasy, you could...answer for me...
;0)
As I canīt hardly remember any post at all from you without editing.
I never show it up because Iwas too gentleman for it.
Now that I am becoming an asshole...
Trust me, it isn't that becoming. ;^D
AuPh
nt
...bite my ass. But maybe that's just me, for whom they're always gunning. We'll see how you fare in this skirmish.
clark
NT
s
busy putting out the fire on his pants.
nt
.
I just read his autobiography not a long time ago, and it was marvellous! Read it, if you did not...
* No, not the under aged....But also not the over rippen one.
where I believe (correct if wrong) that he wrote Lolita . He had quite the brilliant mind, and pursued many, many interests.
Thanks for the tip on the autobiography-I'll be sure to read it.
Autres Rivages: souvenirs, was the French title, here is I think the English title.
One of the best read you can have!
Right now I am readin Graham Greene autobio. which has also a lot of charm.
I was not sure if he wrote it in Lausanne or Geneve, but after reading the post down below well Oregon...
- http://www.amazon.com/Speak-Memory-Penguin-Modern-Classics/dp/0141183225/ref=pd_bbs_sr_12/104-1093302-8906352?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184449757&sr=8-12 (Open in New Window)
Robert Caro's Lyndon Johnson biography- Master of the Senate. May or may not hold any interest for Europeans, but Caro is a fastidious chronicler, in this case of a man whose person was far more 'grey' than black and white, and, also, of a certain political period in American history. Interesting read, and in the end will be 4 (large!) volumes.
Frankly, way more 'Lyndon Johnson' than I need, but once I start, I feel an obligation to finish.
Far more grey than B & W...I like that.
As for finishing what have start to read, I know this feeling, awful, I resent the same, even if I crooked myself then, not reading very carefully and speeding as much I can..
There are very few books that I put away, closing them for ever..
We may be both wrong having too much respect of the written word..
This is very interesting Powermatic! I had no idea.
Google is our friend:http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/dbjas1.htm
Rod
book larnin' over here yonder in the Mossy State. WooHoo! I'm a hah skool gradu-ate!
(-:
.
.
The politics of this subject shouldn't even become an issue, and yet, somehow, the moment the conservative pundits decide to produce another wedge issue, their knee-jerk loyalists join in. I'd wager that had, say, Fred Thompson's name been attached to this very same film, Rush et al would have been busy discussing the grave problems we have with health care in this country. However, since it's Michael Moore at the helm-well, the responses below speak for themselves. It's politics all the time, and the real issues be damned.
At least it quieted the 'Great Immigration Problem of '07' for a day or two. You know, the way those darn Mexicans are ruining our country, and, oh, um, hola! ,um, Paco is it? By the way, when you were trimming with the weed eater last week? You forgot to do around the azaleas in back? Mooch-as gracias! Now, where was I.....?
What a country.
we are trained to try and separate our feelings of a student's performance with their work. The student who is a constant irritant to the classroom teachers can mark down academically.
Moore creates a lot of negative feeling amongst republicans which is odd because he is no friend to Hillary Clinton in this film making her look bad.
The thing that is interesting is that he already notes all of the socialistic programs in the US that work. The for profit medical systems does not work unless you make a LOT of money. And even then it can bankrupt low millionaires. I don't think you should go bankrupt and lose your home because you get in a car accident or you get sick. I can't imagine even a republican being on board with such a concept.
Moore has done his homework. Check out the article that illustrates what Sanjay Gupta said about one of his experts and Michael Moore had to say. In the age of the internet CNN is going to have a lot of trouble getting away with LIES
he picked a topic soooo worthy of examination and he even makes very legitimate assertions. but he then goes on to use a series of manipulative anecdotes and a few ridiculous stunts to make a piece of propaganda. he could have been completely honest and unamnipulaitivr and made as compelling an argument that health care in the U.S. is broken. I suppose such an approach wouldn't have been as entertaining but it is supposed to be a documentary.
Well Moore is more of a mocumentary film maker. Indeed, a true documentary would be more informative and deeper but then Documentaries are seen by 50 people. SO the point becomes do you want to have a film with lots of facts and in depth reports that nobody will see, or do you want to get to the heart of the matter - the big key element and speak to a large portion of the population. This is the difference between history books and popular historical books.
A large contingent of republicans are liking this movie as well. And I suspect the vast majority of Republicans might view Fahrenheit in a new light. Moore is not perfect by any means but I always find it odd that if someone presents people with say 10 fact and one is suspect that that allows for the other 9 to be deemed wrong out of hand.
Moore hires a team of fact checkers and I doubt he is going to run into any real issues with this film. The big attack is that "those other countries pay higher taxes" but Moore also says this. The fact is if you are in the top 10% of American incomes a socialized medical system will COST THOSE PEOPLE more money. So the multi millionaires and billionaires are going to have to pony up more cash.
Frankly, the top 10% will either eventually do it or the bottom 50% are going to lynch them and take it while the middle sits and does nothing - as usual.
But in this case, I think the meat of the subject is so compelling that a deeper look into the problem IMO would actually be more compelling than Moore's antics.
> > Moore is not perfect by any means but I always find it odd that if someone presents people with say 10 fact and one is suspect that that allows for the other 9 to be deemed wrong out of hand.
That is not my problem with this movie. you don't see me calling Moore a lyar. He is at his best wehn presenting facts in this movie. My complaint is the anecdotes as evidence and ridiculous pranks he pulls. Taking a boat to Cuba and asking for medical care over a megaphone was nothing other than a cheap stunt that demonstrated nothiong but moore's idea of irony. It was a waste of film and resources to make the film. The round table discussion in Paris was just plain stupid. That's the crap I hate in this movie.
> > Moore hires a team of fact checkers and I doubt he is going to run into any real issues with this film. The big attack is that "those other countries pay higher taxes" but Moore also says this. The fact is if you are in the top 10% of American incomes a socialized medical system will COST THOSE PEOPLE more money. So the multi millionaires and billionaires are going to have to pony up more cash.
Well now *you* are dealing with some *real* issues here. You see, I am on your side and Moore's side here. This is the stuff that should have been covered more. That is what frustrates me. There was sooo much material he could have used that wasn't anecdotal or prankish that could have been quite compelling if presented skillfully. And he does have those skills as a film maker. he didn't even go into the fact that one of the most dangerous places on earth is an American hospital and that 200,000 people die each year as a result of medical mal-practice or neglegence. Here in L.A. Kaiser is currently dumping patients in need of urgent care down on skid row in the middle of the night by taxi cab because they don't have a policy with them. To me that is a hell of a lot more compelling than Moore's punk pranks in Cuba or his round table in Paris. Some times substance is more meaty than style. This would be a classic case.
"Taking a boat to Cuba and asking for medical care over a megaphone was nothing other than a cheap stunt that demonstrated nothing but Moore's idea of irony"
On CNN he called it satire - he knows full well he is not going to be allowed in. Sure it's a stunt - it's satirical humour - whether all will find it funny or not is another matter.
"The round table discussion in Paris was just plain stupid. That's the crap I hate in this movie."
That is a form of storytelling within his mocumentary. How do the Americans living in France feel about their health care. First hand.
The issue is that he is using anecdotal stories with facts. I found the laundry bit hilarious.
"To me that is a hell of a lot more compelling than Moore's punk pranks in Cuba or his round table in Paris. Some times substance is more meaty than style. This would be a classic case."
Sounds to me you wanted him to make a movie about a different subject than looking at what he did make. He is not making a film about hospitals and how they're run he made a film about the insane idea of profit over medicine. He shows the results of that with LA Kaiser. There is no program because such a program is not profitable.
Cuba and Paris is to show viewers what it is like in other countries with satire. His films are not documentaries they are mocumentaries and he puts in those mock scenes. Compared to his other films this film has ONE under 3 minute scene on the horn, and the round table scene was a conversation which was also under 5 minutes.
I mean if people want "just the fact" then why even go to a movie? You can read a book. This is film for entertainment and education aimed at the masses and condenses the facts into an acceptable running time. Moore could have put tons more into this but it would have a 55hour running time.
And he extolls Cuba.
Very handy for a propagandist, that name, Slovenia, so reminiscent of "slovenly", "slob", etc.
But Michael Moore, the fiction filmmaker, is a highly dishonest man. Just for a moment take a detour into Christopher Hitchins' mind:
With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability.
Indeed. Now, back to that UN list.
A quick study of the situation reveals that their rankings are more-or-less determined by a populace's insurance coverage, the assumption being that without "insurance", whether national or private, there is little or no care: One key recommendation from the report is for countries to extend health insurance to as large a percentage of the population as possible.
A lesser-regarded factor is "responsiveness", and here we read: The nations with the most responsive health systems are the United States , Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden.
But all is wonderful in that beautiful communist isle of Cuba, medi-wise, one gathers. Cuba is a shining star just south of big bad capitalist America. But where on the UN's list does Cuba appear? Does Michael Moore, that big fat liar, ever tell you?
Ladies and gentlemen, Cuba ranks... 39th!
clark
There was one nincompoop who would call Moore LyingMikey on Outside. For three years I chased his ass, saying "Post the falsehood" Like yourself, he never actually found one, but he heard that other people may have heard about one from someonewho might have known something.
It is CNN who said that Michael Moore Ignored that and did not tell us. I guess you did not see Gupta the next day apologize to Moore about misquoting the numbers - He also apologized to Moore.
Gupta and CNN also agreed with Moore that on the whole the film is correct and that the US health care system is clearly broken. Gupta argued that wait times were better in the US especially elective surgery - Moore replied that that's easy to do when unlike in socialized countries they don't ignore 1/4 the population. The line is faster when 47 million people are removed from the line. Gupta had to sheepishly agree.
As a Canadian I don't have to worry about a single medical cost save some drugs (but only if I am earning enough to pay for them).
The argument is that Canada is taxed to death. Well that depends on what one views as taxed to death. Each Province is slightly different. There is a 7% tax on all Goods and Services (but not food or clothes and supplies for children). Then there is an additional 7 or 8% provincial tax on most goods. There is no provincial tax in the oil rich province of Alberta.
Federal Income tax is 15.25% on people earning less than $37,000.00 but the first ~$9,000.00 is tax exempt. From $37k - $73k the tax rate is around 22%. From $72-$120k is 26%, more than $118k it is 29%
Speaking to an American from Montana the rates are very similar except that he gets no medical.
When a man who loses two fingers has to choose which finger to sew back on "I'm sorry sir but your index finger will cost you $12,000.00 and your middle finger will cost $60,000.00 shall we do the operation?" "he could only afford the $12,000 so they threw the other finger in the trash bin."
Sorry but that is appalling to me. I can't imagine how a doctor can live with himself/herself in such an idiotic system.
And even Americans must know how morally and ethically bankrupt the drug industry is. I mean in Canada and American can come across the border and buy the same drugs at pennies on the dollar. Meanwhile George W and his cronies will say that those Drugs are not FDA or AMA approved. Since the drugs were made in the States to start with that is a ludicrous LIE. And even if the drug was made in Canada - we have some of the finest technology and research centers in the world - so if the drug was made in Canada they would be every bit as safe and probably more-so than ones made in the U.S. because they would be made as curatives not as dependent life long symptom reducers to increase profits for the big drug companies.
My wife and myself pay about 35% total income/SS... taxes, than we "chose" to pay extra 10% for retirement since SS will not be able to pay for food, that we have to pay about $250 per month insurance (and we are lucky that we have it and that is fairy cheap since my wife works for local government), plus few thousands out of pocket health related expenses.
Added, it is at least equal and probably more than Europeans and Canadians pay but they have (almost) total free health coverage, decent pensions and retiree health insurance, free good schools, large decent public transportation systems, affordable child and elderly care...
When, and if, I ever retire I will have to pay for health insurance and medications or at least lions portion of it, will have to add to pension from my savings etc. (if stock marked does not loose my money...). Primary and secondary schools suck although we pay quite a bit in property taxes. University you have to pay (and unfortunately have to say that quality is declining rapidly), public transportation is barely hanging on (and Chicago has one of the best in US), roads look more like battlefield.
Have to say, public libraries are free and great, at least in Chicago.
SOme people say they run 30K per year. They're not free in Canada but the tuition is about $2,000.00 for a 5 course load with maybe another $400.00 in books - that's about $5000.00 a year.
Needless to say that being about 3 hours from downtown Seattle we had a lot of Americans taking courses at my University. And they don't get the subsidized rate.
I just can't believe seniors have to pay so much...in Canada you still pay for some drugs - so there is an Americanization beginning to happen.
The nurses union gave out 1500 tickets to nurses to see the film - an attempt to get people in Canada to NOT vote for right wing agendas to Americanize it. Moore heard about it and paid the union for the tickets.
> > > "But Michael Moore, the fiction filmmaker, is a highly dishonest man. Just for a moment take a detour into Christopher Hitchins' mind:" < < <
I find it amusing that YOU extoll the virtues of Christopher Hitchens' "honest" mind when expressing an opinion on Fahrenheit 911, but one has to wonder if you share the inherent honesty of his views on a variety of other subjects. For instance, what is your opinion of his exposing the phoniness of religion and the depiction of Mother Theresa as a con artist who shilled for the Catholic church at the expense of those she claimed to be helping?
Do you agree with Hitchens on that topic? If so, fine (I probably have less problem with CH's views on religion than you), but as you're living in uber-Catholic Boston maybe you should read Hitchens' book Missionary Position before relying on him for a profound quote. ;0)
Christopher Hitchen's usually makes his points in an unflinching manner, but coming from the shock journalism school of aggressive reporting his biases leave little wiggle room. Furthermore, when he makes a mistake, he usually makes a whopper and he's loathe to admit it. Note: To make a bad pun, I think that's called "Hitchin' your cart to the wrong horse"!
As a staunch Bush war supporter from the outset he's been back peddling for years trying to defend his position in the face of mounting opposition to that misguided, mishandled war. Clearly, Hitchens opinion of Fahrenheit 911 should be taken in this light and with a large grain of salt.
> > > "But all is wonderful in that beautiful communist isle of Cuba, medi-wise, one gathers. Cuba is a shining star just south of big bad capitalist America. But where on the UN's list does Cuba appear? Does Michael Moore, that big fat liar, ever tell you?" < < <
Maybe you need to LISTEN to what Moore has said before spouting off insults and chauvinistic diatribes. Michael Moore stated emphatically that his film is an effort to point out what works and what doesn't. He made clear in a CNN interview that Sicko isn't aimed at comparing every good and bad aspect of every system, but rather an attempt to point out the best elements of health care from other systems and the worst elements in our's, the idea being to start a serious discussion of health care reform.
To be fair, we BOTH should SEE this film before commenting on it's merits, but if the general consensus is accurate, then Moore's approach should be lauded because what he has done is shine a beacon on the serious problem of means testing quality health care in this country. If the U.S. ends up with a broken system where essential health care is only provided to those who can afford high premiums and everyone else receives substandard care, then we'll lose the battle to nations with more compassionate, universal systems of care for their citizens.
AuPh
t
and all that, but ummm, it seems he hasn't done.. any.. editing..sir..I so hate to disturb you with another "fact", but, anyway, I'll let you get back to what ever you're doing behind your desk, sir, sorry, I'll be going now....
I so hate to disturb you with another *actual* fact. (Where do you get *your* "facts"? From Rush Limbaugh? Bwahahahahahaha!)
Would you like to see his earlier version? Glad to post!
In fact I have a slew of AP's numerous edited versions, which roll in like the tide until it stops. I have learned to wait a couple of days until the cycle is complete.
Would you like to see them too? Would it help you? Would it stop you?
clark
seriously. You are creeping me out
s
...and it's almost always on the ENTER key. ;0)
AuPh
Well, yeah, sure, send it over. If you're right, I'll apologize, and know, in the future, that the notation given at the bottom of the posts giving the date of any edits, is fallible. Or, I suppose you might have meant that he deleted a post, and rewrote it, which can certainly be called 'editing'. Either way, I'm not afraid to admit I was wrong.
However, he seems to have (now? at long last?) a good, solid, workable post, waiting for your reply and learned argument. I anxiously await.
.
.
.
The first round (and this guy often produces three or four -- I have those too, since you seem so very interested).
Hope this will wake you up in time for work.
Do NOT respond to this email.
It is being forwarded to you per your request by the Asylum.
http://www.VideoAsylum.com/films/messages/5/56561.html
Posted by Audiophilander
Baloney! Once again you demonstrate that you haven't done your homework.
------------------------------
> > > "But Michael Moore, the fiction filmmaker, is a highly dishonest man.
Just for a moment take a detour into Christopher Hitchins' mind:" < < <
I find it amusing that YOU extoll the virtues of Christopher Hitchens'
"honest" mind when expressing an opinion on Fahrenheit 911, but one has to
wonder if you share the inherent honesty of his views on a variety of other
subjects. For instance, what is your opinion of his exposing the phoniness
of religion and the depiction of Mother Theresa as a con artist who shilled
for the Catholic church at the expense of those she claimed to be helping?
Do you agree with Hitchens on that topic? If so, fine (I probably have less
problem with CH's views on religion than you), but as you're living in
uber-Catholic Boston maybe you should read Hitchens' book Missionary
Position before relying on him for a profound quote. ;0)
While Christopher Hitchen's usually makes his points in a profound
unflinching manner, but coming from the shock journalism school of
aggressive reporting his biases leave little wiggle room. Furthermore,
when he makes a mistake, he usually makes a whopper and he's loathe to
admit it. Note: To make a bad pun, I think that's called "Hitchin' your
cart to the wrong horse"!
As a staunch Bush war supporter from the outset he's been back peddling for
years trying to defend his position in the face of mounting opposition to
that misguided, mishandled war. Clearly, Hitchens opinion of Fahrenheit
911 should be taken in this light and with a large grain of salt.
> > > "But all is wonderful in that beautiful communist isle of Cuba,
medi-wise, one gathers. Cuba is a shining star just south of big bad
capitalist America. But where on the UN's list does Cuba appear? Does
Michael Moore, that big fat liar, ever tell you?" < < <
Maybe you need to LISTEN to what Moore has said before spouting off insults
and chauvinistic diatribes. Michael Moore stated emphatically that his
film is an effort to point out what works and what doesn't. He made clear
in a CNN interview that Sicko isn't aimed at comparing every good and bad
aspect of every system, but rather an attempt to point out the best
elements of health care from other systems and the worst elements in our's,
the idea being to start a serious discussion of health care reform.
To be fair, we BOTH should see this film before commenting on it's merits,
but if the general consensus is accurate, then Moore's approach should be
lauded because what he has done is shine a beacon on the serious problem of
means testing quality health care in this country. If the U.S. ends up
with a broken system where essential health care is only provided to those
who can afford high premiums and everyone else receives substandard care,
then we'll lose the battle to nations with more compassionate, universal
systems of care for their citizens.
AuPh
you might want to consider doing it more.
He doesn't like having his base opinions dissolved by acidic facts. :o)
AuPh
The US 37th/Cuba 39th issue has, by now, been done to the point of over-saturation, clarkjohnsen, so your big 'gotcha' punchline is a bit time-worn.Oddly, if you would actually see the film, you might note that he clearly does show the correct rankings-even though where we stand on the list relative to Cuba isn't germane to the point he's trying to make. He at no time says Cuba's health care system is superior to ours, only that there are facets of their system that clearly are better. I know, facts can be troubling, especially when they don't coincide with your political view. You might look to the current administration for ways to handle that pesky little problem.
And if your dramatic closing sentence makes you feel smug because our health-care system is rated two places higher than friggin' Cuba, you might want to lay off that hillbilly heroin that seems to be so popular with the arch-conservative crowd.
nt
...from the Boston Globe?
"As filmmaking, the disappointment is that it manages only C-level vision."
And you're the guy whose "unambitious" (the Globe again) product permits his cheap-shot "Rush Limbaugh" remarks? Who can't even differentiate a few sidebar remarks from actually "reviewing a film"?
By God I believe you are!
Quite the little heel-nipper too, I might add. What's your breed?
clark
How come no follow up for my answer to your attempted smear of my film?
Sorry-don't really see how this is a "cheap shot". Rather than post a lengthy list of all the major mediafat-ass, drug addicted, hypocritical blowhardsconservative commentators, I simply used the name of the most famous one to illustrate how, as I wrote above, they're using the 37/39 'controversy' to try to deemphasize the points Moore is making in this movie. You can supplant Rush's name with any other of your choosing, but the fact remains-it's not only no controversy, it's not even true.
"Who can't even differentiate a few sidebar remarks from actually "reviewing a film"?
Though you didn't call out in your subject header that you were 'reviewing' Sicko , you used the thread of a review, (mistaken) statements from the film, and other's comments about previous Moore films to add emphasis to the (very dramatic, by the way) Big Finish concerning the veracity of the film Sicko. For me, that's close enough, on this little blogosphere, to call it a review. Your definition may differ, but the point remains-see the actual movie before commenting. Then, at least, your words will have the weight of true criticism, as opposed to the knee-jerk, don't-have-to-see-it-cause-I've-heard-about-it bombast of, say, the Christian Coalition.
And btw, I'd love to have credit for any documentary film, even if it (only) received a 'C' from the 'Globe. Nice work Elliot.
Sorry, Clark, but you kinda walked into this one...And yes, the Boston Globe didn't like the film and although it was "recommended" by the NY Times they were also rather critical of it. Oh, and by the way, my hometown paper, The Washington Post, also gave it a bit of a thumbs down.
On the other hand it received a large number of professional rave reviews, has a "Fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and...
It was picked up for national distribution by Miramax, opened in over 70 cities nationwide, won over 15 festival awards, a National Emmy nomination, a Christopher Award (for creative work that "affirms the highest values of the Human Spirit), and was named "One of the Five Best Documentaries of 2004" by the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures." In the Palm Springs Film Festival in which appeared all five of that year's academy award feature doc nominees, my film was given the "Audience Award for Best Documentary Feature." It also played in heavy rotation on HBO for a year which means people wanted to see it.
Finally, if you check out the Amazon viewer ratings you will encounter a film which has, to date, received 42 viewer reviews. There was one 4-star review that called it "inspiring" and "a great documentary," and ALL the rest are 5-star reviews.
So, I don't have any problem taking the bad reviews along with the good...and I guess a lot depends on which review you look at!
Elliot
What film did you make? I don't come here a whole bunch.
"Paper Clips."
My wife who is a nurturing and altruistic soul also connected with Paper Clips.
No pun intended there I assure you.
Cheers,
J.B.
No film in history is going to be loved by all. Moore's films have a political viewpoint and anytime that happens you will have reviewers with a different political view that will very likely will give a negative review. Movie critics are not exactly up to the standard of journalists and that's not saying much as the journalists if Sanjay Gupta is a good representative are pretty biased paid off individuals. Film critics are often paid off and so why would it be any different for political reviews.
Documentaries like Hostory books present a writer/director's bias. Moore makes no pretense for his film - he is telling one side - his side in order to combat the hundreds of millions spent on the other side. I amazed the other side even has a supporter.
I am not sure I get the argument FOR having a paid insurance private medical HMO?
The arguments I hear make absolutely no sense. You get to pick your doctor or hospital? But we get to that in Canada and it's free. And the word free is slippery for Americans to understand because we are taxed but does it not make a bit more sense to pay a bit higher tax to hedge your bets? I mean basically the higher tax is a safety net so that you when your wife or yourself has a heart attack and the HMO tells you that you need $487,000.00 for the medical bills you don;t suddenly find yourself taking out three mortgages and selling your car and asking the kids to support you.
The taxes may cost a couple grand a year more but the gamble is not worth it. It's like a warranty on your life. It's about the only warranty in the world worth paying for. But for some reason people think it's more important for doctors to own three homes 7 cars and 19 televisions and in order for that to happen the balance scale has to hit many other people in a negative way to the other extreme.
"you might want to lay off that hillbilly heroin that seems to be so popular with the arch-conservative crowd."
Even I'm embarrassed for you.
clark
to stay close to a Young Gentleman, whose Strong Arms might prevent Injury from your Swoon.
Of course, no comment on the post itself, nor explanation for your incorrect 'fact-finding', just the usual laughable attempt at sly repartee. If only your writing skills matched your arrogant pomposity.
However, I can celebrate the fact that your eminence deigned to provide me with an entire line of body text , rather than the normal upturned nose, a haughty sniff, and an /nt/. I now know the pride felt by those on Nixon's enemies list.
vaya con dios
record for Sicko, too.
He and Gore are the greatest Americans of the past 30 years.
YOU are the sicko!
I watched the Gupta debate and the preceding Blitzer interviews. Moore didn't seem all too prepared and became a quivering mound of jelly, eventually stammering out an apology to Blitzer/CNN. Gupta conducted himself professionally but was equally slippery on his numbers. In the end, it was no more worthwhile than watching two wankers go back and forth on a message board.
I seriously doubt we'll ever see socialized medicine in the states. Does anyone honestly think they'll shut down a multi-billion dollar health insurance industry and hand it over to our government? End result out of all this (at best) is that we'll see hard core bureaucratic government regulations on HMO profit on which the HMO's will have their lobbyists get snuggly loopholes inserted. We're all fucked unless we are in the upper 20% of the nation's income.
Meanwhile, it's the 21st century, why the hell is the health industry dragging their feet on the digitization of basic medical paperwork?
Tom §.
I think that he is speaking to something lying underneath the issue. A lack of empathy and a fear of the government that other countries don't exhibit to this extent. I don;t think Moore is playing with the numbers and to be frank the numbers are secondary to the main issue. Whether it is $5k or $7K (and it's in there somewhere) it's too freaking high either way.
So the issue becomes - wait times -- Gupta conceded the point. The wait times are faster in the US for elective surgery BECAUSE 1/4 of the population is rejected. That will speed up the line. Moore made the point and Gupta conceded it.
But what both did not mention is that in Canada the emergency goes first and the elective goes second for a doctor's time. In the US the money goes first so Paris Hilton will get the toe nail fixed before the homeless person gets his heart surgery.
The point of any film or novel or art is to bring up social conscience and try to get people to act. Moore is doing his job - where are the Americans who are not doing their's?
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: