The question unresolved by the lies of ommission in this documentary is what is the real comprison between the systems. Yes people can be under served in our system but Mr Moore never searches for the horror stories in the other systems. He puts himself in the position of Jane Fonda seeing only what she wants to see and declaring North Vietnam a wonderful place.

Unfortunatly this pandering to a narrow point of view focuses the debate on a particular change not on finding the best solution.There are many possible solutions and Moore's films are not meant to look at facts but to twist facts inorder to incite the passions of his fans thus closing minds to other possibilities.

The film looks at the congressional testimony but doens't challenge this new democratic congress to make simple laws well within their purview to improve the current system. Creating a CDC type org to determine which proceedures are medically valid and forcing all insurers to include them as covered alternatives. Medical insurance fraud policies which include harsh penelties and maditory prison time for the guilty always including the CEO, it's his job to know what is going on. Removal of malpractice from the current torte system and creating a special arbitration sysem with appropriate patient safegaurds. These are of course incomplete suggestions but could be fleshed out and combined with other ideas to solve the problem or at least improve our current imperfect system.

Again, unfortunatly, Moore only seems to feel happy when he can use other peoples problems to attack those he doesn't like. He can lie to himself and his fans and say I'm doing a great service when all he's doing is clouding the debate with misinformation and twisted facts.

You are missing the point of the review. Of course there are flaws in his methods, but Moore's overall point is secure: there is something wrong with our health care system, and other countries that we consider ourselves stronger and more powerful than do a much better job.

As far as "solutions," no one in this nation is going to work for those solutions unless someone calls them to action. (Much the way An Inconvenient Truth was criticized for hte same) That is what this movie seeks to do. With any luck, it will succeed.

If Moore's overall point is secure: in that there is something wrong with our health care system, then he has just made a two hour movie about something EVERY SINGLE american can tell you... the US healthcare system has gone to pot.

I DON'T believe that this was his overall point or his main point. He's pushing for universal healthcare. And he's pushing HARD.

is Universal care the way to go for the US? that's the real question at hand... I don't know the answer to this and I just finished an undergraduate degree in Health Policy. It could end up being the best thing that has ever happened for US healthcare.. and then we would have even more illegal aliens coming into our country.. Heck one day we might even out rank france for healthcare systems. When people talk about universal healthcare they always cite three countries; Canada, England and France. They never talk about countries that have universal healthcare that are ranked below us. For exmple: POLAND has universal healthcare; but where do they sit in the ranks... that's right number 50. they are 13 slots below us in rank AND they have universal healthcare. What I'm trying to get at is the fact that it could go either way for the US. It could be the best thing for us; or our healthcare could get even worse. Its a risk that has to be looked at.

Also, I don't think american's could really deal with the government controlling its healthcare. Since America's birth we have been known to be citizen's wary of how much power our central government actually has. We are known not to trust our federal government and second guess it every step of the way.

Honestly; I don't know if I want a government that's willing to send our troops half way around the world to a war that didn't need to be started in the first place; having control over MY healthcare. Even if the wasn't the war right now, just look at the commander-in-chief, we as the american people elected an idiot into office, not once but twice, and whether you are democrat or republican (I align myself with the latter) you have to agree that W. isn't the brightest crayon in the box. I know that 2008 will bring about a new leadership; but we elected idiots in the past and the present... I'm sure we could do it again in the future.

Also if you look at the societies that have universal healthcare you will see a commonality in that every citizen is invested in their own health to ensure good health of the country; thus reducing costs. Honestly when was the last time you saw an OBESE frenchman?

That said; I have a slight problem with Micheal Moore telling me that universal healthcare is the way to go. Honestly the way it looks to me right now is that he doesn't give a penny about healthcare in any form. This is because he's about 100 to 150 pounds OVERWEIGHT... that's right we're being drilled to about healthcare from an OBESE man. This film would be ALOT more convincing if he dropped the weight and took a real interest in his own health, because honestly if we go to universal coverage, I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for the triple bypass surgery he's going to need in ten years if he stays in the shape that he's in now.

Jane FONDA was in Micheal Moore's movie?

morganb:

The question unresolved by the lies of ommission in this documentary is what is the real comprison between the systems. Yes people can be under served in our system but Mr Moore never searches for the horror stories in the other systems. He puts himself in the position of Jane Fonda seeing only what she wants to see and declaring North Vietnam a wonderful place.

Unfortunatly this pandering to a narrow point of view focuses the debate on a particular change not on finding the best solution.There are many possible solutions and Moore's films are not meant to look at facts but to twist facts inorder to incite the passions of his fans thus closing minds to other possibilities.

The film looks at the congressional testimony but doens't challenge this new democratic congress to make simple laws well within their purview to improve the current system. Creating a CDC type org to determine which proceedures are medically valid and forcing all insurers to include them as covered alternatives. Medical insurance fraud policies which include harsh penelties and maditory prison time for the guilty always including the CEO, it's his job to know what is going on. Removal of malpractice from the current torte system and creating a special arbitration sysem with appropriate patient safegaurds. These are of course incomplete suggestions but could be fleshed out and combined with other ideas to solve the problem or at least improve our current imperfect system.

Again, unfortunatly, Moore only seems to feel happy when he can use other peoples problems to attack those he doesn't like. He can lie to himself and his fans and say I'm doing a great service when all he's doing is clouding the debate with misinformation and twisted facts.

have you seen any of Moore's documentaries? did you watch Fahrenheit 9/11? will you see Sicko?

She provided him with ethical and moral guidance on how to present his material. She was going to offer him film footage she received from the North Vietnamese on their healthcare system, but Moore wanted to save that for his next film.

This writer ignores the obvious correlation, which independent observers have documented, between socialized medicine in all the other leading economies of the world and such salient indicators as infant mortality, educational performance ... yes!(As a former teacher, I hope I don't need to argue that correlate), longevity, bankruptcies in the middle class, wage inflation ... you have to pay high wages if you don't want your workers to bankrupt themselves because of a broken wrist, or thrombosed leg, etc... All of which boil down to economic competitiveness in the world.

2007 Pocket World in Figures ("The Economist")

The USA Spends 15.2% of GDP on health (p.86). Highest spending in the world on health, with Switzerland next at 11.5%, therefore US citizens should enjoy the lowest infant mortality and greatest longevity in the world by far, right? Well WRONG!

Actually USA doesn't even appear on the list of the 25 countries with the lowest infant mortality rates, (p.83) behind Singapore, Iceland, Japan, etc, and yes, behind CUBA (21st), With the UK at 25th. Life expectancy ....? The USA is number 41st. Even if all that high spending benefited only the richest 25% of the population that should put the USA in the ratings but it doesn't because the health industry is the most inflated sector of the USA economy and should be investigated for price gouging. The inescapable conclusion is that health R&D in the USA is keeping citizens of dozens of countries alive more efficaciously and cheaply than it does for the citizens of the USA. "Go figger."

I have found over the years, most people that have profound issues with Michael Moore have never seen his movies.

For instance, several years ago, I directly worked with the quintessential gun nut (note: I am opposed to gun control; this guy was just the epitome of every NRA stereotype--e.g. not only do you have the right to own a gun, every American should own a gun...)

Anyway, we began talking about "Bowling for Columbine." I asked him if he had seen it and he stated emphatically that he had not. I went on to tell him that he should, that the movie was not about gun control, in itself, as many individuals had claimed (Moore, for instance, is a life-long member of the NRA). Rather, the film was an analysis of violence in the U.S., particularly gun violence, but violence in general. He concludes that much of the violence in the U.S. is not, I repeat, not the result of ease of availability of guns, rather the so-called climate of fear.

My co-workers response (mind you, he still hadn't seen the movie), "that's an interesting spin..." (meaning my spin on the movie, not Moore's spin...)

And so it goes. Many individuals will tell you about Moore's "errors of omission," all the while failing to admit they have never bothered to actually watch a Moore film.

This long essay could be distilled into a single question:

Why does Michael Moore hate America?

spruce said...

"I have found over the years, most people that have profound issues with Michael Moore have never seen his movies."

Why should I pay $8 to see something I'm pretty sure I'm going to disagree with, thus empowering Moore to make more political screeds that I'm pretty sure I'm going to disagree with?

Well,single payer government run health care sure seems to work for our military,I think it could work for everybody else in America too.

you've never seen any Michael Moore, right?
you've never met JANE Fonda, right?

I have not seen SICKO but have
met the nice lady and have seen the 2 Moore
movies prior to SICKO. So, if ya could
work from your personal experieces
you would gain some credibility

So you think he's lying!

But the end data supports Moores' contention. Very simply. The USA spend about a third more on health than does any other nation in the world. Nevetheless, people live longer in more than 40 countries across all races and lattitudes, and more babies die at birth in more than 25 countries. Leave Moore and his "hate" out of the equation. Is this an acceptable status quo?

(Source: "The Pocket World in Figures, 2007 Edition". Issued by "The Economist Magazine."

That should be: "fewer babies die at birth in more than 25 countries."