TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Michael Moore's 'Sicko'
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]
I haven't seen this movie, but I'd honestly take anything this man makes with a grain of salt. A good example would be how he talked about the Canadian system, which sucks, but apparently so much better than the American one. Apparently in the movie, he goes into the ER in London, Ontario and asks people how long they have to wait to get service, to which they reply "30 minutes"...is that correct? If so then that's bullshit. I've never, ever, ever, ever heard of anyone receiving care that quickly. My friend waited EIGHT hours with a bunch of cracked ribs to see a doctor.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by infinity HiGH I haven't seen this movie, but I'd honestly take anything this man makes with a grain of salt. A good example would be how he talked about the Canadian system, which sucks, but apparently so much better than the American one. Apparently in the movie, he goes into the ER in London, Ontario and asks people how long they have to wait to get service, to which they reply "30 minutes"...is that correct? If so then that's bullshit. I've never, ever, ever, ever heard of anyone receiving care that quickly. My friend waited EIGHT hours with a bunch of cracked ribs to see a doctor. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Michael Moore lets rip on CNN! FANTASTISC!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by SuspicionVandit does he have his next film project lined up? I've been reading on Digg that he's geared up to launch a full scale attack on "YOU" (in a letter directed at CNN) and other media outlets. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono Yeah, or I guess a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11. It seems as if initially the attention after the release of his films is on the topic but quickly becomes overshadowed by controversy and Moore's own actions. I wonder how long Moore will last before the controversy surrounding his films completely overshadow the content. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono Yeah, or I guess a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11. It seems as if initially the attention after the release of his films is on the topic but quickly becomes overshadowed by controversy and Moore's own actions. I wonder how long Moore will last before the controversy surrounding his films completely overshadow the content. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Orko He was not trying to be fair to the US health system, because he says its not fair to the people. Those were not stats, they were interviews, and he is just trying to hammer home a message: Socialized health care, is not the start of communism! lol |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ Shibby Aye. It's really a shame, because the importance of his work isn't only the points he has to get across, but the lumination his works create. It causes people to see what they don't want to see, and think in ways they may not have before. I believe this is partly why there is a backlash to many of his films: people fear the unknown, they fear change... but this is a natural progressive stage between shadows and truth. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by kush paintings No, actually people are terrified of his crazed approach to the documentary medium. Documentaries have a very interesting history, where many documentaries through time have taken a scientific approach to what they are studying. They offer more "illumination" on our world because they attempt to simply observe, rather than set out to prove points as does the traditional Hollywood narrative. Cases of Moore embellishing and outright lying to prove his points are well documented in many of the "documentaries" he has put together. I really hope he goes after news corporations, as it will possibly be the most hilarious enactment of the old saying "the pot calling the kettle black." |
| quote: |
| One sick flick Peter Foster Financial Post Tuesday, July 17, 2007 CREDIT: The Weinstein Co., Reuters Sicko. "There's no doubt that a documentary by someone of Michael Moore's stature will help the world see the deeply humane principles of Cuban society." -- Jose Ramon Balaguer, Cuban Health Minister Michael Moore has said he wants to make movies from which people emerge saying, "I don't believe what I just saw." He has certainly hit the mark with Sicko. His latest attack on the American way of life is, literally, incredible -- a typical combination of bent facts and leftist grandstanding. It's not that health-care policy is not an important issue in any modern society, it's that Mr. Moore does not address it in a serious way.  According to Sicko, what is scandalous about America's greater reliance on private health insurance is not that so many have no insurance, but that the system makes its profits by systematically denying the needs of its clients. Mr. Moore parades a pageant of woe across the screen: couples who have lost their homes, individuals who have lost their limbs, mothers who have lost their babies -- all allegedly due to the greed and heartlessness of a profit-based system that has the Washington political establishment bought and sold. The American system is contrasted with the socialized medical nirvana that allegedly exists in Canada, Britain, France and, most remarkably, Cuba. In these government-run systems, wait times are short, the most technically elaborate care is instantly available and doctors make house calls. Mr. Moore plays the heartstrings like a virtuoso. He doesn't just find sick Americans, he finds sick Americans who became sick as a result of working at Ground Zero in the wake of 9/11. He doesn't just find health care for them, he finds it in Cuba! The scene of him standing on a boat in Guantanamo Bay, demanding via loud hailer that his American heroes be given the same medical attention as al-Qaeda detainees, is a classic. When that-- obviously-- doesn't work, he takes his shipmates to Fidel Castro's Communist paradise for treatment, which is instantly, lavishly, and cheaply available. Somehow, Cuba's poverty and political repression don't make it on camera. However, the ultimate paradise portrayed by Mr. Moore is not Canada, England or Cuba. It is France, and, in particular, Paris. To refute the notion that state care goes with high taxes, a couple are brought forth who live in circumstances that would not shame Donald Trump, but whose combined income is reportedly US$8,000 a month. The French government even sends someone round to do new mothers' laundry! Mr. Moore's take on life in Paris is about as credible as that of a far better recent movie, Pixar's Ratatouille, in which a talented rodent establishes that "anyone can cook." Mr. Moore suggests that anyone can design a health-care system. Only those money-grubbing private health-care providers stand in the way. The fundamental problem, according to Mr. Moore, is that there is not enough "we" in the American system. The solution is simple: "true" democracy, in which the land of milk and antibiotics is achieved simply by demanding it -- screw human nature and history. To bolster this view, Mr. Moore brings on screen Tony Benn, the former English peer and Labour Cabinet minister who, significantly, is very much yesterday's man in his own country. The French system, too, is praised for its tendency to take to the streets. All this is opposed to an American electorate reputedly kept in its place by fear. There are profound issues at the root of Sicko that demand to be addressed, but aren't. If private health care is so awful, why do so many want it? Are there no preventable deaths or examples of malpractice under socialized systems? Moreover, the "right wing" argument is not against the universal provision of basic health insurance, it is against the state monopoly of health provision. Under a purely tax-based, state-administered system, rationing and lengthening wait times become inevitable. States systems also tend to become top heavy in administration, and to provide more scope for public-sector unions who are more concerned with their members' ease than with patients' welfare. The notion that profit should be made out of treating the sick seems to jar with a powerful belief that delivering care is a humanitarian duty. But the fact is that the self-interested principle that famously motivates "the butcher, the brewer and the baker," to the benefit of their customers, also motivates the physician, the nurse and the hospital owner/administrator. The basic moral issue is that under a purely socialized system your body, and your life, is no longer your own. The fantasy that lies behind Michael Moore's movie is that of the caring and competent state that eschews self-interest and provides efficiently for all its citizens' health needs. Where such delusions end up is not in the airbrushed fantasy of Sicko, but in the nightmare reality of Cuba. � National Post 2007 SOURCE |
Health Care Of the Canadian Rich and Famous
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Let it be known that, while we do enjoy our health coverage for the most part, it definitely is NOT without it's flaws and a source of constant debate. Having said that, we do have it good when it comes to having a choice of either using the provided government care, or funds pending, going to a private clinic if we choose. The government doesn't like saying we have a two tier system, or heavens even suggesting it, but in reality, we do. |
| quote: |
PJM Calgary: Why do politicians who pay lip service to Canada�s socialized health care system travel to the United States for medical treatment? PJM correspondent Heather Cook points out the hypocrisy of pols who oppose a two-tiered system for everyone but themselves. By Heather Cook On Thursday, September 29, 2005 a grinning Belinda Stronach stood beside George Smitherman, Canada�s Minister of Health and Long-Term Care to announce that the Southlake Regional Health Centre had been granted approval for a new world-class cancer care facility due to open in 2008. According to Stronach�s own web site: �Belinda is an Honourary Member of the Southlake Regional Health Centre Board of Directors and the past Honourary Chair of the Southlake �Nurture the Future� Fundraising Campaign that raised $16.5 million for our local hospital. She has been a strong advocate for bringing a cancer care facility to service the needs of our local community. The Regional Cancer Centre will enable residents to access life-saving diagnostics and therapeutics closer to home, and it will assist in decreasing wait times for certain urgently required services. The Cancer Centre will also help improve the quality of life for many individuals and their families in our community.� A wonderful addition to not just the area, but to the advancement of cancer treatment in Canada. Wonderful, in theory. Good enough, in theory. Stronach has been one of Canada�s most controversial politicians of recent memory. She was originally elected as a Member of Parliament (MP) in the Conservative Party of Canada and ran for the leadership of the party in 2004. However the Ontario businesswoman switched to the Liberal Party in 2005. (And I use the term business woman loosely since working for daddy is hardly a job one can get fired from for poor performance. In fact, she announced she was leaving politics this year and heading back to work at her father�s corporation, Magna.) Social scuttlebutt has linked Stronach to Bill Clinton, Peter McKay (current Conservative MP) and as a homewrecker in ex-hockey star Tie Domi�s marriage. But all seemed to be forgiven in the public�s eye when Stronach was diagnosed with breast cancer which required a mastectomy and breast reconstruction. The very treatable type of cancer (DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ) was thankfully brought under control, but not before Stronach flew to California on the advice of her doctor to receive surgery in June 2007. Canada�s Health Act is the backbone of the health care system that � in theory � guarantees �free� health care. But there�s no guarantee for when you will receive it, and it�s not actually free. Besides the health premiums which are legislated by the provinces, there�s an untraceable amount of tax dollars coming out of the pockets of Canadians to fund the endless pit of the health care system. The Canada Health Act also states that no one should pay for a health service in Canada if others get it for free. So no matter how bad you need surgery, no matter how much money you have, you still need to wait in line like the rest of us. So many who have the money to pay, do. In the US. This has lead to a rise in medical tourism that helps link up rich Canadians with American doctors. But what about politicians who spend their lives giving lip service to the Canada Health Act, only to offer up their wallets when personally affected? Well, consider Stronach�s 2004 interview with Canadian Broadcasting Corporation�s Carole MacNeil: Carole Macneil: � let me just ask you the question: how do you feel about a system whereby those who can pay, who can afford to pay, get access to the healthcare system faster than those who can�t? Belinda Stronach: Well, I think first of all, again, I said we should look at innovative solutions that respect the Canada Health Act and that respect universal access to good quality healthcare. That is the standard, that is the principle, and I think we should allow for the provinces to have the debate so that they can better meet the needs of their citizens. But respecting the principles of the Canada Health Act. Carole Macneil: Ok, and would having a system whereby if you could afford it you get speedier access, would that respect the principles? Belinda Stronach: No, that�s a two-tiered health system, which I said I�m not in favour of a two-tiered health system. But I am in favour of the debate that will look at innovative solutions, which will respect the principles of the Canada Health Act, that will deliver a better health care system to Canadians. Canadians know the healthcare system is not working when 40 cents of every dollar spent goes toward healthcare and those costs are increasing anywhere, from 8 - 10% a year, faster than revenues. I don�t have to tell you the fact, to tell you that the healthcare system in its current form will not be there for future generations. So we owe it to Canadians to have that debate, to say how can we now look at providing a better quality healthcare service? Let me get this straight. Miss Stronach doesn�t support a two-tiered health care system here, as long as she has the US to go to when she needs to access good health care. She�s supportive of the Canada Health Act and thinks we should all support its principles� in theory. Here�s an idea. How about you let me put my money down when I need to, right here in Canada. How about when my son is having asthma attacks and needs to go to an allergist you let me pay for one in my own city rather than get a referral to a specialist with a 12 month waiting list. But that would be un-Canadian. It would go against �the principles of the Canada Health Act.� Which is something that is reserved for rich politicians. |
10/10
What an excellent documentary. Moore does a great job with this one. I like how he makes the case that even people who can afford health insurance still get turned down because of stupid conditions set forth by their insurance company. They decide if you're sick or not.
He also explains that the word socialism is used as a tool by these same companies, lobbyists, and members of congress to dissuade the notion of establishing a universal health care system. They know that the general public don't like socialism so they associate this word with universal health care so the can keep making their money.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.