SiCKO - See it today - Bring tissues and your passport?

[PCE said:
el_Prez]
Could be that many people are on to Michael Moore's bullshit propaganda and don't want to put another dollar in his pocket. Seriously, I'm not going to watch another MM film but does he offer a solution to American health care that does not border or cross the line of socialism (that is if he offers a solution at all)?
That's one of the problems I have with Moore; he doesn't really offer any realistic solutions. If the government is as awful as Fahrenheit 9/11 shows them to be, why would you trust them with overseeing hospitals and healthcare?

I guess I just wonder how much of his movie was true. With Moore you never know how staged a scene actually is. How did he get into Cuba, anyway? Don't they arrest you for going there (or is that only if you go by plane?)?
 
Maphusio said:
Oh yes! You caught me! I was lying about my father... *rolls eyes* Please don't slander my father, thank you. My point being, that its quite odd those whom took the test were found to be in serious need of medication for their screwy emotions when they are in fact all quite stable emotionally.

Wasn't calling you a liar. I was simply stating that Bipolar and Unipolar are similar and becuase SSRI's are known to be very safe to take your grandmother could have been the victim of a mistake that is easily made by heathcare professionals.

Maphusio said:
So by your theory, the majority of the people paying to see this movie are paying because they don't want to pay... ?!

No I'm saying younger people are on to MM's bullshit. There are a few who have said so on this thread.

Maphusio said:
Come on pally, you seriously think this will lead us down a worse path than the one we are all ready on? Wait a tink, you have indicated that you don't see any problems with our current health care system. Write me when your 70 attempting to afford medical insurance since the government has 0 plans for senior citizens medical aid past 2019.

I think my country is pretty great as it is. As I've said before, I can afford medicle insurance - and I've already been in a situation where it was pretty vital to my well being and I came out on top.
 
[PCE said:
el_Prez]
No I'm saying younger people are on to MM's bullshit. There are a few who have said so on this thread.

Him being a sensationalist doesn't make the issues untrue though.
He's just an idiot.

By that logic, because of that stupid global warming movie that Al Gore made, then global warming isn't happening.


I call bullshit on both Michael Moore and Al Gore for staining two very legitimate fights.
But if there's one thing I've learned about America...honest non-sensational documentaries don't affect change.
Its the sad truth of people, and they may very well be doing this the only way they think it'll work.
Sensationalism works, even if it's twisted and unethical.


I blame our education system for this one.
 
Dark Helmet said:
[PCE said:
el_Prez]
Could be that many people are on to Michael Moore's bullshit propaganda and don't want to put another dollar in his pocket. Seriously, I'm not going to watch another MM film but does he offer a solution to American health care that does not border or cross the line of socialism (that is if he offers a solution at all)?

That's one of the problems I have with Moore; he doesn't really offer any realistic solutions. If the government is as awful as Fahrenheit 9/11 shows them to be, why would you trust them with overseeing hospitals and healthcare?

Ahh, I don't trust them with my health care. Fortunately for them and myself neither of us wants to have anything to do with one another. Once this lying scum bag of a president is out of office(taking the administration with him) a different power will be in place. I hope, one that has things like medical and education in mind.

Dark Helmet said:
I guess I just wonder how much of his movie was true. With Moore you never know how staged a scene actually is. How did he get into Cuba, anyway? Don't they arrest you for going there (or is that only if you go by plane?)?

I provided a link a post or two back answering your question. Are you questioning SiCKO? or another one of his films?

[PCE]el_Prez... I think you and I are going to have to disagree with each other on this one. I'm tired of apparently misunderstanding you and playing the clarification game.
 
Maphusio said:
Dark Helmet said:
That's one of the problems I have with Moore; he doesn't really offer any realistic solutions. If the government is as awful as Fahrenheit 9/11 shows them to be, why would you trust them with overseeing hospitals and healthcare?

Ahh, I don't trust them with my health care. Fortunately for them and myself neither of us wants to have anything to do with one another. Once this lying scum bag of a president is out of office(taking the administration with him) a different power will be in place. I hope, one that has things like medical and education in mind.

Dark Helmet said:
I guess I just wonder how much of his movie was true. With Moore you never know how staged a scene actually is. How did he get into Cuba, anyway? Don't they arrest you for going there (or is that only if you go by plane?)?

I provided a link a post or two back answering your question. Are you questioning SiCKO? or another one of his films?

[PCE]el_Prez... I think you and I are going to have to disagree with each other on this one. I'm tired of apparently misunderstanding you and playing the clarification game.
The CNN link? I didn't see anything saying how he got into Cuba, though he could probably get a permit or something. I'm not up on the facts regarding Americans being allowed into Cuba.

I remembering seeing an interview with Michael Moore where he says his ultimate goal is making an entertaining movie that will make people feel good about spending two hours and $9 on. Well, okay, but that doesn't exactly sell me on his movies being entirely fact-based.

I enjoyed the movie, but I am also aware that he is biased, and he may be framing the stories in a certain way, and not showing where the other shoe drops. I think universal health care is a great idea (my dad, extreme left type, is a doctor and has been pushing for it for a long time, so I've heard all the arguments for it), but is it really realistic? I dunno. If it takes five hours at the DMV for me to get my license photo taken, how long is it going to take at the emergency room?

SiCKO was an all right movie, I like it (now I'm getting redundant), and think he's generally a pretty good at juxtaposing heartbreaking stories with footage of the villains (insurance companies in SiCKO, Paul Wolfowitz and co. in Fahrenheit 9/11), but that's not exactly the formula for a non-biased movie. It's entertainment (propaganda might be too strong a word), not information, though admittedly the media has blurred these two categories.

Generally I feel Moore relies too much on emotions rather than a fact based presentation, and doesn't really have solutions to problems. From my (very limited) experiances in the world, the truth is rarely as simple as "Bush is bad and wants oil" or "Universal health care is awesome sauce, we need more free stuff from the government". I think many people who dislike the idea of universal healthcare will not see this movie, and people who do want it will see it. Kinda like Fahrenheit 9/11 didn't have much impact on the election (imo). People see what they want to see. :|

Well that was a whole lot of rambling. :clap: Sorry. I guess, to summarise, I do agree with most of his points, but I feel his backround and presentation will not sell people on his cause who are not already on board. Though I think this movie was a little less left-wing (I am a bit to the left, for what it's worth) since it's not directly supposed to influence an election or anything.
 
Maphusio said:
Once this lying scum bag of a president is out of office(taking the administration with him) a different power will be in place. I hope, one that has things like medical and education in mind

Maybe someone can come in and improve America's health care program, however, I wouldn't hold out much hope for a canidate that runs under the flag of the socialist party.
 
[PCE]el_Prez said:
Maphusio said:
Maybe someone can come in and improve America's health care program, however, I wouldn't hold out much hope for a canidate that runs under the flag of the socialist party.

You mean the democrats?

Fuck socialism as a form of government, but thats not to say that in some aspects its not better.

Moderation is key.

Take the best parts of all forms of government and create an amalgamation, thats CLEARLY the best way to go.
 
xdarkyrex said:
Take the best parts of all forms of government and create an amalgamation, thats CLEARLY the best way to go.

If that ever happens, or if a party like the libertarians ever win a presidential election, I will do somersaults through the street naked. Unfortunately, I'll never get the opportunity to do that because a huge fraction of Americans either vote Democrat or Republican because they think they're one or the other. Talking to my peers about politics whenever they bring shit up makes me want to cringe. They usually don't even know that 'liberals' and 'conservatives' are just other names for the two parties.
 
Makagulfazel said:
xdarkyrex said:
Take the best parts of all forms of government and create an amalgamation, thats CLEARLY the best way to go.

If that ever happens, or if a party like the libertarians ever win a presidential election, I will do somersaults through the street naked. Unfortunately, I'll never get the opportunity to do that because a huge fraction of Americans either vote Democrat or Republican because they think they're one or the other. Talking to my peers about politics whenever they bring shit up makes me want to cringe. They usually don't even know that 'liberals' and 'conservatives' are just other names for the two parties.

I hate how liberal means Socialist and conservative means anti-progress pro-imperialism these days.

We need a less polarized system, because I ain't left or right wing, I'm up wing! :?

Libertarian needs its own spot on the political spectrum considering it is entirely unique from both liberal and conservative in todays modern associations.
 
I recall seeing something, I think in the economist, that pointed out that privitized health in America costs nearly twice as much (as a share of GDP) than does public health care in Europe.

I keep hearing all this "America is the greatest" but can't help thinking if this is all just a lot of propaganda that is fed to keep America happy while the country slowly goes down hill. As much as I'd like to say this is the fault of W, I think this has been happening for quite awhile. When I think of the problems the US faces domestically and abroad, it seems the problem isn't a president (and I hate Bush) or any particular issue but rather a systemic failure. That health care is so expensive, that the US can't win a war in Iraq, that the US government has ignored the melting the north and south poles while big oil has made record profits, that the US has to build a wall to stop illegal immigrants- are all symptoms of the same fundamental problem of governance. That problem is the significant inequities of political power and economic opportunity between the little guy and those who control capital.

The problem is not big or small government. The problem is bad government. And unfortunately I don't see an answer in the future. None of the candidates represents the kind of leadership that's needed.

And as much as I wish Europe might not be experiencing the same thing, I fear your future is likely to go in the same general direction.
 
welsh said:
I recall seeing something, I think in the economist, that pointed out that privitized health in America costs nearly twice as much (as a share of GDP) than does public health care in Europe.

I keep hearing all this "America is the greatest" but can't help thinking if this is all just a lot of propaganda that is fed to keep America happy while the country slowly goes down hill.

Have you ever thought that most of the people saying "America is the greatest" actually ARE content? I think the good majority of Americans are content with the way things are. There are some people - most likely poorer individuals - who think America is in turmoil becuase they can't afford health insurance.

In America today if you have a good job and can afford many of the luxiuries those with money can afford - you are just enjoying capatalism - whats wrong with that?
 
[PCE said:
el_Prez]
welsh said:
I recall seeing something, I think in the economist, that pointed out that privitized health in America costs nearly twice as much (as a share of GDP) than does public health care in Europe.

I keep hearing all this "America is the greatest" but can't help thinking if this is all just a lot of propaganda that is fed to keep America happy while the country slowly goes down hill.

Have you ever thought that most of the people saying "America is the greatest" actually ARE content? I think the good majority of Americans are content with the way things are. There are some people - most likely poorer individuals - who think America is in turmoil becuase they can't afford health insurance.

In America today if you have a good job and can afford many of the luxiuries those with money can afford - you are just enjoying capatalism - whats wrong with that?

Well, the measure of a great government is how it treats it poor and unhealthy, yeah?

I forget who said that.
Benjamin Franklin or something?

The point is, capitalism isn't the problem. It's the bloated government.
 
xdarkyrex said:
Well, the measure of a great government is how it treats it poor and unhealthy, yeah?

I forget who said that.
Benjamin Franklin or something?

The point is, capitalism isn't the problem. It's the bloated government.

I'm just waiting for dissing one of the founding fathers. Really.

Also, prez, such enjoying the "capitalism" was quite commonplace you know where? During the darkest years of communism in Poland.
 
Anything bloated is bad. Gluttony is, afterall, one of the seven deadly sins. But then so so bloated corporations that get away with some serious violations of law because the government looks the other way.

This argument of "big government" is bad, is a lot of republican crap. No economy that enjoys the benefits of a globalized economy can sustain a small government anymore, of only because the demands of economic policy and participation in a global economy requires a bureaucracy capable of managing it. You like the cheap goods from Walmart? Do you realize that the US imports virtually all manufactured goods that you use from abroad? And the fact that we are importing poisonous food from China is a consequence of weak government oversight.

Everyone bitches an moans about government, but everyone forgets two things-

(1) that government is essential for the creation of the markets. A market is essentially an act of collective action and a public good, that would not be possible without a government to regulate it. On a more personal level, what government functions would you like to do without- protection of the food and drugs you consume so that you are not poisoned- FDA. Safe airways, railways and highways- Department of the Treasury. Protection of the environment- EPA. Defense? Foreign Affairs? Monetary regulation? Guarantees that fraud doesn't happen on stock exchanges? That your bank deposits are safe? Seriously- don't you realize that the quality of life you enjoy depends on the government that provides you these services.

And what happens when the government contracts- well lets look at the Iraq war and how so much of the money being wasted on that war is spent on government contractors who provide virtually all the services necessary to sustain our army. And now we can't fight that war because its because its becoming too expensive and our army is exhausted? How? How much fucking money can those contractors suck up.

Which leads to the second thing people forget-

(2) Power hates a vacuum. If government did not provide the oversight and public services that make your life so wonderful, someone else would- and because the state doesn't exist, those someone's would take advantage of their market power to extract as much money from your wallet as they could.

This is why weak states often lead state collapse in the worst cases. In our case, the weakness of our state means we can't get shit done.

Seriously- Iraq- we've lost 3,000 soldiers there. That's nothing. We lost more on 9/11, we lost more on Omaha beach and we lost nearly 20 times that amount in Vietnam. No, the reason we pull out is because the war is too expensive. Why- private contractors.

Personally, I think those guilty of corporate crimes belong on deathrow. Government contractors guilty of corruption are guilty of treason.

And you blame bloated government? That bullshit came up during Reagan, who gave us a huge deficit that we're still paying for. Now Bush, another person who talks bloated government, is increasing our debt for the next generation to pay for.
Why?

You guys blame government, but government doesn't have brain of its own, act on its own accord or even have consciousness. While I might accept the notion of a bureaucratic class loyal to its own perogatives, that class is dependent on other classes in a democracy.

The question is what class controls? Government's are institutions, but those institutions are created by social groups that fight over political dominance and the distribution of wealth.

So when the government gives money to private corporations like KBR and Halliburton and other contractors to fight a war in Iraq, and at the same time fails to provide our guys the equipment they need or cuts funding for education, or reduces its protection of our environment, or derugulates so that companies can get away with more bad behavior- who suffers.

Not the companies, but you and me.

Who had benefitted from the tax cuts?
Not the poor and middle class but the rich and powerful?

Is it any wonder that the level of economic inequality between rich and poor in the US is almost the same as Turkmenistan and Cambodia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

And things are not getting better. 85% of the US is lower middle or worse-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States

So Prez, while you are happy living with your insurance card, and .45 next to you, you should also realize that the US is rapidly falling apart and the debt that W gives you will hang over your children's children's head like the blade of the grim reaper.

Honestly, the thing that pisses me most about this bullshit is that it often comes from young people who haven't worked an honest day in their life.

Think about it- A college grad at 25 is making about $32K. After taxes you are probably talking $25 take home. Education debt (because you federal grants for education have been cut) for a lot of college grads is upwards of $50. Figure that you pay about $120 per $10K of debt means that you are paying out $600 a month in school debts ($7,200 per year). Rent is around another $800 per month ($9,600). Food and utilities will run you around $700 per month- ($8,400). Total- about $25,200 per year. Not much surplus after that is there?

And you want to cut back on the few public services the government affords you?

Oh and alot of those public services are being privatized to non-government groups- like having prisons run by corporations, highways run by construction firms, education run by churches.

You don't think those groups love the idea of small government. Small government means more money to them. In the meantime, we, tax payers, lose out. Those folks, much like the private contractors that support our troops, are not accountable to anyone except those that own them.

Oh and why is the government so bloated? Perhaps because much of its budget is spent on paying off its debts- bonds and borrowing. Why is the debt so high- because the government doesn't want to tax the rich.

Congrats- welcome to america- who controls? Bush's base isn't the top 1% but the top .1% of the population. They get tax breaks, you get fucked.

And what do the rich want? To stay rich and if that means fucking you out of every dime, that's exactly what they will do.

And because they have privileged access to the state- becuase W talks to the rich but drives past the poor, they get to control what the government does. Not you and me.

So much for American democracy.

[PCE said:
el_Prez]Have you ever thought that most of the people saying "America is the greatest" actually ARE content? I think the good majority of Americans are content with the way things are. There are some people - most likely poorer individuals - who think America is in turmoil becuase they can't afford health insurance.

In America today if you have a good job and can afford many of the luxiuries those with money can afford - you are just enjoying capatalism - whats wrong with that?

Prez, as much as I like being an American, I think its very foolish for Americans to wave a flag around the world and claim we're the greatest thing since Swiss Cheese when we have such huge problems in our country.

I wish it were true, but its not. We're not the best country in the world in terms of standard of living and we're damn awful when it comes to education and our inequalities are huge. And they're not getting better, not with the Republicans in office (and the Democrats are not much better).

So instead of jumping on a stump and claiming "we're the best" I would rather we, as a country, shut the fuck up and actually do it. But that's not happening. Instead, we're getting our asses kicked in Iraq by a bunch of third world religious whackos because our government was too arrogant and foolish to plan for a war carefully.

We're going to blame Bush for this. But its not all Bush's fault. He might be the single biggest asshole we've had as president in 100 years, but he's too fucking stupid to have screwed this up on his own. No, the problem systemic. We need to fix our problems at home.

I am also a capitalist, but uncontrolled capitalism is a recipe of exploitation and tyranny. To argue that against control of the state is to abandon the role of government in preserving the quality of life over everyone, and to assure that those principles that we have as Americans are maintained.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happines. The right equality under law and all the other civil liberties that we enjoy and the benefits that we pay taxes for, deserve to be upheld and protected. Not just for the rich and powerful, but for everybody.

I love being an American. There is no country I'd rather be a part of. But frankly, if American's can't open their eyes and see how fucked up things are getting in their own country, then they deserve a world in which China and Russia call the shots.
 
Seriously- Iraq- we've lost 3,000 soldiers there. That's nothing. We lost more on 9/11, we lost more on Omaha beach and we lost nearly 20 times that amount in Vietnam. No, the reason we pull out is because the war is too expensive. Why- private contractors.

You're taking the war casualty figures out of proportion. This ignores the technological differences, differing contingent size, costs of sustaining such a force et caetera.

Just a note, because otherwise I agree.
 
Wow, quite a rant.

I hope you didn't get too much of that out of my "government is bloated" comment, because I was referring to the efficiency of government, not the size of it.

For the most part I agree, I'm a capitalist, but I believe it should be heavily regulated, as I see America being raped by its super-corporations at this point in time.

When it comes to social liberties though, I'm more of a libertarian.

I guess that makes me a moderate over all.
 
Ah, not really a rant but a statement.

Honestly, the American bureaucracy has generally been pretty efficient, its just weak. The desire to slow down government growth had meant that few federal agencies have hired the necessary staff to maintain normal functions and must now rehire retired members- at executive pay- to continue to function.

Is that fucked up or what?

That FEMA screwed the pooch in Katrina- one has to remember that FEMA did very well in hurricanes in Florida before Katrina hit. One also needs to consider that FEMA was being absorbed by Department of Homeland Security- another effort by the Bush administration to destroy the institutions of government through centralization of power.


Mikael Grizzly said:
Seriously- Iraq- we've lost 3,000 soldiers there. That's nothing. We lost more on 9/11, we lost more on Omaha beach and we lost nearly 20 times that amount in Vietnam. No, the reason we pull out is because the war is too expensive. Why- private contractors.

You're taking the war casualty figures out of proportion. This ignores the technological differences, differing contingent size, costs of sustaining such a force et caetera.

Just a note, because otherwise I agree.

Actually Griz, I am not. 3,699 dead, some 26K wounded. I agree, the butcher's bill is high. http://icasualties.org/oif/

But, and this is going to sound really callous, but these guys are in a volunteer army, and when you join you go where the government sends you. It's a professional job and if that job means that the government makes you cannon fodder, so be it. If you want to think of this in terms of an investment- you've got to think of three factors- Land, labor and capital.

Land- is the cost of real estate. In this sense we could think of land in terms of benefits extracted from the land = oil. But since the war, the insurgents/terrorists have managed to regularly disrupt oil so we should think of opportunity costs of lost oil revenues.

This is actually important as the value of oil was supposed to offset the costs of war. Had the won gone well and the oil flowed, the profits of oil would have off-set the capital expenditure. But that didn't happen.

Labor- this is the men and women getting killed. Now while we know the number of dead and wounded US, we have no real numbers for contractors (beause of that whole accounting thing) and no idea of the number of Iraqi dead. In the US, the contractors are generally speaking the same as US military just more expensive labor. While we all cry about lost life, "you can't put a dollar figure on life."- bullshit, we do it every day in a hundred different ways.

Example? The cost of a new safety precaution? The amount of money one receives in a tort claim for wrongful death or injury? The amount of cyanide that the government will allow in your water supply, the risks that a new drug will cause a lethal allergic affect in a proportion of patients. We actually have actuarial data that helps calculate the value of life.

So capital- well according to this-
http://www.costofwar.com/

The costs is roughly $407 billion.

But that's just the beginning.

Added the value of lives lost plus the wearing down of troops, plus opportunity costs, and then add in the factor of costs of intangible externalities- national prestige, force projection, confidence of allies, alternative missions, danger of loss in Afghanistan, etc- and the war has proven too expensive to maintain.

(Imagine that money going into something more useful- like investment in economic growth?)

Now why is it so damn expensive? Because the war was poorly planned based on "most optimistic" assessments without real calculation of "worst case scenario."

What kind of fuckhead arrogant schmuck plans for a war based on the idea of everything going right? Because of American self-perpetuated myths that "US can do no wrong" that "they will welcome us with open arms" and that "The US is bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq." This is that whole, proud america struts self as the best, nonsense.

Bullshit.

Oh and then there is the whole "have faith in the market" crap- which came up with the idea that Iraqi healthcare should be privatized to benefit from market competition? What? There's a fucking war on and you're fucking with these people's opportunity for health care? Did we shut down the hospitals in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

Taken from a factor analysis-
Land- loss of oil exports-
Labor- a modest loss of life for a war that's lasted about 6 years (since 9-11)
Capital- $407 billion is huge.

But to be perfectly honest, I think the American people could eat this bill. After all, its really just 1/5 of a budget for any of the fiscal years while Bush was in office.

Most people don't know this but the government of the US spends more money each year than the total GDP of Germany. That goes to show big the US economy (about GDP $13 trillion) is. Nonetheless, the US economy had been beaten by the EU as of 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Add that to quality of life indexes-
http://www.mercerhr.com/qol
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Human_Development_Index

The US is often underperforming those European countries- which usually end up taxing at a higher rate than the US.

Of course the argument is that those countries don't have the military power that the US has, which true.

But if the US government serves class interests, than what about the military?

History is prologue-

"I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purifly Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested... . Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. We Marines operated on three continents."

- General Smedley D. Butler US Marines
 
Oh my, welsh, I want to make sweet love to you (if it wasn't for the fact I am taken) for your posts... would you mind if I spread your word around?

Seriously. You're awesome.
 
Welsh said:
..........
TL DNR

Sorry. Maybe its the alcohol in me right now but...
Sure America has problems.... however, In my lifetime - I will experience the bare minimum of the the U.S.'s cons. Maybe thats why I'm blindly patriotiic (I'm not but i can see how some might think so)
 
Let me see...
oh hello this is my first post, i'm new here. I will present myself in the "welcome post" later, for now, i want to post here. And sorry for my bad english, i'm amateur on this, my raw language is spanish... of course i'm a "sudaca", or southamerican.

After have read all the post, i still can't conceive how mostly of the americans can believe that the payed education and healthcare is the only possible. Here in argentina, we have both free, and it's not the better of the world, but it's pretty good. I dare to speak that the public Superior education (i mean University) is better quality than the payed one...

So, how a country can get to this...

Any country can get to this if the Taxes go to education and healthcare, opposite to support a war, that is carry your country to industrial recession. Except for war industries.

In an external Point of view, almost all that i see that come from Michael Moore, it's like the program, it's an "Awful truth".
I mean, when he goes to ask a businessman about a dark businesses, why can't he get answers, if MM is a liar?
 
Back
Top