NationStates Jolt Archive

I saw Micheal Moore's new movie today. For those of you who don't know, it's about the American medical system and how horrible it is compared to other county's, specifically Canada's, the UK's, France's and Cuba's. It had a lot of anecdotes about people's health insurance and HMO nightmares, and how comparatively easy health-care works in the aforementioned countries. It also has some pretty neat interveiws with some very well spoken people, including a retired British Old-Labour parliamentarian and Che Guevara's daughter.

So, who's seen the movie, who's going to see it and who thinks that the United States is perfectly fine being the world's largest single-nation economy, but being thirty-fourth in health care?

I might go and see it, but mostly for entertainment value. I don't live and the US (and I most certainly don't want to), so their health care is not direct concern of mine. I think the state of its health care speaks volumes about the general value of the individual in the system, but as I said, it's no direct concern for me.
If the citizens of the US want a better health care system, I'm sure their superior democratic system will allow them to put politicians in power who'll take care of that. If they want to go on spending incredible sums on a mediocre care, it's up to them really.

I might see it, just because I watch a lot of movies on cable and rent, but I'm not planning to see it specifically - Moore isn't a credible documentarian, unfortunately. He's great at drawing interest to an issue, but not at creating any kind of insight, at all. :p

I might go and see it, but mostly for entertainment value. I don't live and the US (and I most certainly don't want to), so their health care is not direct concern of mine. I think the state of its health care speaks volumes about the general value of the individual in the system, but as I said, it's no direct concern for me.
If the citizens of the US want a better health care system, I'm sure their superior democratic system will allow them to put politicians in power who'll take care of that. If they want to go on spending incredible sums on a mediocre care, it's up to them really.

I can't tell if you're being entirely sarcastic about the American people's ability to change anything.

Most of the problems in the US can be traced to entrenched power structure that was apathetically allowed and sometimes whole-heartedly approved by the People fifty to thirty years ago. Unfortunately, an oft used tool of that power structure is to ensure that for the past thirty we remain just as apathetic and/or approving. Sometimes, I struggle on exactly where to place the blame.

Maybe we need the shit bombed out of us? Civilized you Europeans just fine, but then that doesn't explain the Canadians...
God, what is it about my People that makes us such bastards?

I might see it, just because I watch a lot of movies on cable and rent, but I'm not planning to see it specifically - Moore isn't a credible documentarian, unfortunately. He's great at drawing interest to an issue, but not at creating any kind of insight, at all. :p

Nope, but I find him rather entertaining. I don't consider his films documentaries, I consider them editorials.

Nope, but I find him rather entertaining. I don't consider his films documentaries, I consider them editorials.

That's probably the most accurate way to think of it, good call.

I can't tell if you're being entirely sarcastic about the American people's ability to change anything.

Most of the problems in the US can be traced to entrenched power structure that was apathetically allowed and sometimes whole-heartedly approved by the People fifty to thirty years ago. Unfortunately, an oft used tool of that power structure is to ensure that for the past thirty we remain just as apathetic and/or approving. Sometimes, I struggle on exactly where to place the blame.

Maybe we need the shit bombed out of us? Civilized you Europeans just fine, but then that doesn't explain the Canadians...
God, what is it about my People that makes us such bastards?

I might get a nice barbeque stoked under my ass for that, but here's my guess :

As a country, the US is both too big and to populous. Democracy works best in fairly small, homogenous societies (see Switzerland as an example), and will get increasingly difficult the bigger the population gets. I see that as one of the reasons why the minute a huge state gets more democratic, it starts fracturing up and pieces of it form their own states.
Democracy depends to a very large extend on informed citizens, and the larger the country the more complex the issues and the more difficult it is for the average citizen to acutally inform themselves.

Well I don't think anyone needs a documentary to show how shot up US for-profit health care is, but sure I'll watch when it comes to Australia, his previous work was good imo.

I can't tell if you're being entirely sarcastic about the American people's ability to change anything.

Most of the problems in the US can be traced to entrenched power structure that was apathetically allowed and sometimes whole-heartedly approved by the People fifty to thirty years ago. Unfortunately, an oft used tool of that power structure is to ensure that for the past thirty we remain just as apathetic and/or approving. Sometimes, I struggle on exactly where to place the blame.

Maybe we need the shit bombed out of us? Civilized you Europeans just fine, but then that doesn't explain the Canadians...
God, what is it about my People that makes us such bastards?

Maybe the world should adopt the 'America, where's that?' policy until you go away.

I might get a nice barbeque stoked under my ass for that, but here's my guess :

As a country, the US is both too big and to populous. Democracy works best in fairly small, homogenous societies (see Switzerland as an example), and will get increasingly difficult the bigger the population gets. I see that as one of the reasons why the minute a huge state gets more democratic, it starts fracturing up and pieces of it form their own states.
Democracy depends to a very large extend on informed citizens, and the larger the country the more complex the issues and the more difficult it is for the average citizen to acutally inform themselves.
I think that's part of it. The practices of corporate media, religiosity and an over-abundance of masculinity also play a role, and I do think there's something uniquely corrupt about American politicians.

I might get a nice barbeque stoked under my ass for that, but here's my guess :

As a country, the US is both too big and to populous. Democracy works best in fairly small, homogenous societies (see Switzerland as an example), and will get increasingly difficult the bigger the population gets.

I wouldn't expect too much of a BBQ-ing for that kind of criticism - it's been popular for at least 200 years. :p The whole states' rights/federalism issue never goes away.

Maybe the world should adopt the 'America, where's that?' policy until you go away.
What did I do?

I might go and see it sometime even though it doesn't really concern me, living in Scotland and all. I like his previous books and films and they're quite humorous although he does exaggerate at times. I've never actually paid for any of it however - I watched fahrenheit 911 in our english class, Bowling for Columbine on alluc.org and read Stupid White Men, idiot Nation and Dude, where's my country in bookshops.

What did I do?

I think he's using the other kind of "you," the collective - meaning ignoring the whole country, not you in particular. He probably agrees with you, if anything. ;)

I think that's part of it. The practices of corporate media, religiosity and an over-abundance of masculinity also play a role, and I do think there's something uniquely corrupt about American politicians.That's probably unavoidable when the tiny minority in power also happens to own all the wealth of the society, and all the means of informing the citizens. It's not exactly in their interest to encourage an interest in politics.

That's probably unavoidable when the tiny minority in power also happens to own all the wealth of the society, and all the means of informing the citizens. It's not exactly in their interest to encourage an interest in politics.

I think that kind of polarisation is one of the consequences of being a massive country with a massive population.

I might get a nice barbeque stoked under my ass for that, but here's my guess :

As a country, the US is both too big and to populous. Democracy works best in fairly small, homogenous societies (see Switzerland as an example), and will get increasingly difficult the bigger the population gets. I see that as one of the reasons why the minute a huge state gets more democratic, it starts fracturing up and pieces of it form their own states.
Democracy depends to a very large extend on informed citizens, and the larger the country the more complex the issues and the more difficult it is for the average citizen to acutally inform themselves.

That's a very interesting idea. But the biggest democracy on the planet (India) has nearly four times the population of the US. Does it suffer from similar (or proportionally larger) problems? Or is it something different altogether?

I think that kind of polarisation is one of the consequences of being a massive country with a massive population.

Really, though, I don't see what breaking up into smaller countries would do. There would still be an abundance of people who go to churches that tell them socialized medicine is evil and the masculine ideas of "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" and "looking out for you own" would still be a pervasive part of the culture. Not to mention, the same companies would still own the media.

That's a very interesting idea. But the biggest democracy on the planet (India) has nearly four times the population of the US. Does it suffer from similar (or proportionally larger) problems? Or is it something different altogether?

I think it's not exclusively the number of the population that poses the problem, but a combination of having a large population in a very big country. The only country I could compare that to would be Russia, really...
Truth be told, I'm not familiar enough with India to draw the comparison, but from the little I heard and read they're struggling with democracy and empowering the poorer levels of society.

I might get a nice barbeque stoked under my ass for that, but here's my guess :

As a country, the US is both too big and to populous. Democracy works best in fairly small, homogenous societies (see Switzerland as an example), and will get increasingly difficult the bigger the population gets. I see that as one of the reasons why the minute a huge state gets more democratic, it starts fracturing up and pieces of it form their own states.
Democracy depends to a very large extend on informed citizens, and the larger the country the more complex the issues and the more difficult it is for the average citizen to acutally inform themselves.

Actually, ironically, the efficient, homogenous democracy is exactly what our system was designed to not be. To really get into the whole argument, I'd have to send you to read the Federalist papers, and that's a fate I wouldn't wish on anyone. However, the US was built to be slow in reacting, to avoid allowing a single faction to take control of government.

moore makes points that need to be made. naturally he gets bitch and whined at for doing so. it goes with the territory. which doesn't do a damd thing to invalidate his points.

=^^=
.../\...

In regard to Sicko: I have not seen it, but I intend to see it. I am glad that the issue of Health Care is the issue that Moore chose to frame the left around this time, because it's a very popular cause.

That's a very interesting idea. But the biggest democracy on the planet (India) has nearly four times the population of the US. Does it suffer from similar (or proportionally larger) problems? Or is it something different altogether?It's not too different, according to a collegue of mine. It's a bit hard to compare though, as the place is a lot less coherent than the US, and control of wealth and information is a lot less entrenched in some regions.Really, though, I don't see what breaking up into smaller countries would do. There would still be an abundance of people who go to churches that tell them socialized medicine is evil and the masculine ideas of "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" and "looking out for you own" would still be a pervasive part of the culture. Not to mention, the same companies would still own the media.You mean the 5% who own and decide everything wouldn't change? :p

Personally, I doubt the reason these phenomena are less extreme in EU countries has much to do with size.

In regard to Sicko: I have not seen it, but I intend to see it. I am glad that the issue of Health Care is the issue that Moore chose to frame the left around this time, because it's a very popular cause.
Agreed.
Considering his past framing of the left around creatively edited clips of Bush and others, this is an improvement.

Personally, I doubt the reason these phenomena are less extreme in EU countries has much to do with size.

Hmm... what else, then?

Agreed.
Considering his past framing of the left around creatively edited clips of Bush and others, this is an improvement.

Well, it's more than that. The frame he introduced just in time for 2004 was one of national defense (and, as you said, a particularly obvious hatchet job, at that), and that was (and still is, relatively speaking) a strong point for the GOP in the polls. What he did (with the help of Howard Dean, whom I respect all the same) is put Dems on very weak ground. Health care is the polar opposite. With 60+% of Americans willing to give up more money in taxes for universal health care, it's a perfect frame.

That's probably unavoidable when the tiny minority in power also happens to own all the wealth of the society, and all the means of informing the citizens. It's not exactly in their interest to encourage an interest in politics.

One of the problems that the US faces right now is that we have a party that has been entrenched in government for over two decades and (as parties in power do) has grown corrupt. Worse, we've seen a growing wealth disparity. What has happened is comparitive political inefficacy. By reinforcing ethics laws, we can return things to a sane equilibrium. We're seeing a revolution in citizen media through the blogosphere, as well, which is helping in that regard.

Hmm... what else, then?Our wealth is far less concentrated in the hands of the few. Our political systems are far more open to participation, and far more inclusive of public opinion. Our politicians have, by and large, grown up amongst average citizens, and if not been dependent on, then at least used the same public services as everyone else.

And of course.. Lobbying is FAR more restricted.

Hmm... what else, then?
Like I've been saying, the culture has a lot to do with it.
How much time have ever spent in the US? I mean really in the US, like in an average sized town in middle America?
Well, it's more than that. The frame he introduced just in time for 2004 was one of national defense (and, as you said, a particularly obvious hatchet job, at that), and that was (and still is, relatively speaking) a strong point for the GOP in the polls. What he did (with the help of Howard Dean, whom I respect all the same) is put Dems on very weak ground. Health care is the polar opposite. With 60+% of Americans willing to give up more money in taxes for universal health care, it's a perfect frame.
Yep. We do love our bombs. :) Don't much like paying out the nose for a doctor's visit, though.

BTW, the only thing that got my "creative editing" senses tingling in Sicko was a Nixon recording.

Our wealth is far less concentrated in the hands of the few. Our political systems are far more open to participation, and far more inclusive of public opinion. Our politicians have, by and large, grown up amongst average citizens, and if not been dependent on, then at least used the same public services as everyone else.

And of course.. Lobbying is FAR more restricted.

True, all of them. However, as a society we didn't start out that way. If you look back a short while, wealth distribution was similar to the US, if not even worse in places, and politicians were almost exclusively upper class.
Now, some countries did change their political system (as did Germany, for example), but others, like the UK, didn't.
So none of the above really are a reason why the US should continue to be so polarised and - to put it bluntly - undemocratic.

Like I've been saying, the culture has a lot to do with it.
How much time have ever spent in the US? I mean really in the US, like in an average sized town in middle America?


None at all, I have to rely on 2nd hand accounts there. So all I'm really doing here is speculating, I'm not sociologist after all.
Culture, in my experience, is something that evolves. It will grow extremes in isolation, and will become extremely flexible the more contact it has with other cultures.

Oh... I didn't know the film was called Sicko... It's just I was watching the Daily Show the other day and it had Michael Moore on and it the rectangle at the bottom of the screen. It had his name and just below, in the space normally reserved for someone's job title or a description of who they are, it had the title of the film - Sicko. Made me laugh a fair bit... I just didn't know why Jon Stewart had had Moore labeled as a Sicko.

True, all of them. However, as a society we didn't start out that way. If you look back a short while, wealth distribution was similar to the US, if not even worse in places, and politicians were almost exclusively upper class.
Now, some countries did change their political system (as did Germany, for example), but others, like the UK, didn't.
So none of the above really are a reason why the US should continue to be so polarised and - to put it bluntly - undemocratic.You're right, of course. But although I'm a syndicalist and would love for the dead guys & girls that came before me to take the blame, I think ignoring two world wars that virtually wiped Europe off the map, is too big of a lie even for me :p

None at all, I have to rely on 2nd hand accounts there. So all I'm really doing here is speculating, I'm not sociologist after all.
Culture, in my experience, is something that evolves. It will grow extremes in isolation, and will become extremely flexible the more contact it has with other cultures.

Well, suffice it to say, if you'd spent any time in those places, the places I grew up in, you'd realize that progressivism isn't exactly on the majority's mind. It takes a lot of searching to find anyone who actually thinks about anything remotely important in a logical manner. It's not hard to understand why. Watch some US television (actually don't) which the average American spends three to five hours a day watching. The average programming encourages mindlessness and fear, especially the news.

Nope, but I find him rather entertaining. I don't consider his films documentaries, I consider them editorials.

That's probably the most accurate way to think of it, good call.

No, no it's not.

A documentary is a filmmakers argument. It has been from Nanuck of the North (which also contained the biases of the filmmaker), and has continued to be. Even when there was an aesthetic desire to remove the filmmakers authorship from documentary, to 'show life' with cinema verte films it quickly became evident that you could not remove the filmmaker from the film. Once you decide where to place the camera, where to cut the film, the filmmaker's choices shape the argument of the film. A documentary is no different than a book that presents a particular argument or point of view.

You are not required to agree with the argument for the film to be a documentary.

A documentary is not required to contain its counter thesis.

It amazes me that people will make excuses for a news channel filling 80% of its programing with opinion shows, and all but half of one of those shows of a similar leaning opinion, but a medium that has no history or practice of balance they'll immediately parrot the ridiculous notion that someone who makes arguments that they don't agree with doesn't actually make documentaries.

You don't like his films? Fine. Perfectly allowable. You disagree with his conclusions? Understandable. Have that discussion. But please, leave the ill-informed hackjob nonsense about the medium itself at the door.

You think it's inaccurate? So was Nanuck of the North. You think it's heavily biased? So are documentaries like "Industrial Arts" that try and convince you to take Industrial Arts courses. Hell, even Triumph of the Will is still a documentary.

Argue the argument, do not try and redefine the medium because you do not have the tools to address the real issue.

Saw Sicko, thought it was Moore's best film that I have seen. There was less vitriol than his last two outings. Defenitely reccommend it to everyone, even those who don't usually like Moore.

No, no it's not.

A documentary is a filmmakers argument. It has been from Nanuck of the North (which also contained the biases of the filmmaker), and has continued to be. Even when there was an aesthetic desire to remove the filmmakers authorship from documentary, to 'show life' with cinema verte films it quickly became evident that you could not remove the filmmaker from the film. Once you decide where to place the camera, where to cut the film, the filmmaker's choices shape the argument of the film. A documentary is no different than a book that presents a particular argument or point of view.

You are not required to agree with the argument for the film to be a documentary.

A documentary is not required to contain its counter thesis.

It amazes me that people will make excuses for a news channel filling 80% of its programing with opinion shows, and all but half of one of those shows of a similar leaning opinion, but a medium that has no history or practice of balance they'll immediately parrot the ridiculous notion that someone who makes arguments that they don't agree with doesn't actually make documentaries.

You don't like his films? Fine. Perfectly allowable. You disagree with his conclusions? Understandable. Have that discussion. But please, leave the ill-informed hackjob nonsense about the medium itself at the door.

You think it's inaccurate? So was Nanuck of the North. You think it's heavily biased? So are documentaries like "Industrial Arts" that try and convince you to take Industrial Arts courses. Hell, even Triumph of the Will is still a documentary.

Argue the argument, do not try and redefine the medium because you do not have the tools to address the real issue.

Documentary film is a broad category of visual expression that is based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to "document" reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film#Defining_documentary

An editorial is a statement or article by a news organization, newspaper or magazine that expresses the opinion of the editor, editorial board, or publisher.

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

I like Michael Moore's films, but I don't think he even attempts to document reality. He is commenting on reality instead, giving his take on it and presenting arguments for his personal position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film#Defining_documentary



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

I like Michael Moore's films, but I don't think he even attempts to document reality. He is commenting on reality instead, giving his take on it and presenting arguments for his personal position.I think Moore's films are still documentaries, even though I don't care for his style. In my opinion a film maker should not be heard in a documentary, let alone seen. It's meant to be a film about the subject, and not the film maker.

A documentary will always contain bias. The film maker's bias will show itself in either what he or she chooses to film or which questions to ask, or in the case of the style I prefer, which footage to include in the film during the editing process.

... argh can't think properly. There's some huge street cleaner vehicle outside making huge amounts of noise. I'll finish this later.

I'm not a huge Michael Moore fan if I'm honest .His previous films, and books, have been incandescent, unbalanced articles of anti-establishment sentiments.

I think Moore's films are still documentaries, even though I don't care for his style. In my opinion a film maker should not be heard in a documentary, let alone seen. It's meant to be a film about the subject, and not the film maker.

A documentary will always contain bias. The film maker's bias will show itself in either what he or she chooses to film or which questions to ask, or in the case of the style I prefer, which footage to include in the film during the editing process.

... argh can't think properly. There's some huge street cleaner vehicle outside making huge amounts of noise. I'll finish this later.

Well, one could argue that all forms of journalism will inevitably contain bias. However, I agree with you that a documentary ought to present the facts about the subject, and opinions of both sides equally. As Moore doesn't even attempt to do that, I don't think his films can be called documentaries.

I'm not a huge Michael Moore fan if I'm honest .His previous films, and books, have been incandescent, unbalanced articles of anti-establishment sentiments.His works are hardly that interesting or important ;)

I like Michael Moore's films, but I don't think he even attempts to document reality. He is commenting on reality instead, giving his take on it and presenting arguments for his personal position.
There is no appreciable difference. One cannot document reality in a way they don't see it. Reality is subjective. Reality to the idiots watching FOX News talk shows religiously think liberals are literally trying to destroy America and have no personal values nor moral fiber. Is that realistic? No. Is that absurd? Duh. Is it their reality? Yes. Reality is subjective, like nearly every other thing people pretend isn't.

There is no appreciable difference. One cannot document reality in a way they don't see it. Subjectiveness is, by definition and the word itself, subjective.

I appreciate a difference in degrees.

I think Moore's films are still documentaries, even though I don't care for his style. In my opinion a film maker should not be heard in a documentary, let alone seen. It's meant to be a film about the subject, and not the film maker.

A documentary will always contain bias. The film maker's bias will show itself in either what he or she chooses to film or which questions to ask, or in the case of the style I prefer, which footage to include in the film during the editing process.If there's always 'bias' in filmaking, why not just be honest abut it? Moore's appearence in his films makes his position clear. there's nothing whatsoever wrong with that. By erasing his own presence, he'd be making the exact same points (call them one sided, biased, exagerated, or whatever), but by a less open and honest method. Erasing the personal from communication (specifically academic communication, but i think the same argument applies) has been identified by language and writing theorists as a problem for a long time now.

I completely disagree that "both sides" of an issue need to be represented equally for a film to be considered a documentary. That's preposterous. Who would be the judge of this? Do educational films about evolutionary biology require the "other side" of creationism to be presented? Do films about deforestation and habitat loss require the "other side" of newly successful ranches using the land to be considered documentaries?

I appreciate a difference in degrees.
There is still not appreciable difference. Unless you plan to argue reality isn't subjective.
An editorial expresses an opinion, that is it's sole purpose - there are no requirements of facts, evidence, proof, or even logic. A documentary presents a view of the world using facts, evidence, and proof. Is it biased? Impossible not to be. Does that make it an editorial? No.

There is still not appreciable difference. Unless you plan to argue reality isn't subjective.

I was being too subtle I guess.
A documentary, in my understanding, is a piece of journalism that investigates a topic and presents the findings.
An editorial is a piece of journalism that investigates and then presents an opinion.

One is an attempt to inform, the other is a forum for one's personal opinon, and nothing else.

I was being too subtle I guess.
A documentary, in my understanding, is a piece of journalism that investigates a topic and presents the findings.
Do you then plan to argue that it is impossible for that to be biased? Do you assert facts cannot be presented in such a way as to argue a single person's opinion over another person's? That would be an entertaining assertion.

An editorial is a piece of journalism that investigates and then presents an opinion.
An editorial is the editor's opinion. Period. There is no investigation required. It is questionable if it is even journalism. An editorial is an old-school news blog.

I was being too subtle I guess.
A documentary, in my understanding, is a piece of journalism that investigates a topic and presents the findings.
An editorial is a piece of journalism that investigates and then presents an opinion.

One is an attempt to inform, the other is a forum for one's personal opinon, and nothing else.Come now Cabra, these can be one and the same. Maybe it's Moore's personal opinion that the american health system sucks balls, but there's plenty of investigated findings that show that. documentaries are all editorialized to one degree or another. Are YOU going to be the judge of what qualifies?

It makes more sense to just acknowledge that documentaries aren't necessarily "balanced" - whatever that means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film#Defining_documentary



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

I like Michael Moore's films, but I don't think he even attempts to document reality. He is commenting on reality instead, giving his take on it and presenting arguments for his personal position.
Oh, a broad statement on Wikipedia, that totally addresses all of the historical context of the documentary film form that I brought up, except that it doesn't. Learn to think beyond broad definitions or at the very least know when you're talking about something you know nothing about.

Unless you can argue that his films are complete works of fiction, the things he documents are reality. They are presented through his lens as part of his argument like every film ever made. Unless you want to create some new category of documentary in which no documentary ever made would qualify. As I already pointed out and clearly was too complex, even attempts to remove the voice of the filmmaker in cinema verte films like the Sayles Brother's Salesman failed because you cannot remove the filmmaker from the film. And most importantly, it has never been required and was only briefly a goal until, again, it was proven impossible.

He does in fact present the reality that supports his argument. That actually is the definition of a good documentary because it has a purpose. Your job as a viewer isn't to decide whether or not it's a documentary, it's whether or not you agree with the argument. To do the other is to be intellectually dishonest and admit you do not have the tools to address anything of any importance.

Well, one could argue that all forms of journalism will inevitably contain bias. However, I agree with you that a documentary ought to present the facts about the subject, and opinions of both sides equally. As Moore doesn't even attempt to do that, I don't think his films can be called documentaries.
There has never been, in the entire history of documentary filmmaking, the requirement that it include 'both sides equally.' You're thinking of News, documentaries are not News, they are a film, the work of an author presenting an argument.

Please please please stop talking about film if you don't know what you're talking about. If you disagree with what he says, talk about that. You will look less foolish.

I saw Micheal Moore's new movie today. For those of you who don't know, it's about the American medical system and how horrible it is compared to other county's, specifically Canada's, the UK's, France's and Cuba's. It had a lot of anecdotes about people's health insurance and HMO nightmares, and how comparatively easy health-care works in the aforementioned countries. It also has some pretty neat interveiws with some very well spoken people, including a retired British Old-Labour parliamentarian and Che Guevara's daughter.

So, who's seen the movie, who's going to see it and who thinks that the United States is perfectly fine being the world's largest single-nation economy, but being thirty-fourth in health care?

Micheal Moore deserves an academy award for sicko it was brillaint.
Micheal Moore is riduculed and hated because his enemies are afraid the average person might listen, he is very persuasive for three reasons he is brilliant he is entertaining, he is right.:headbang:

Micheal Moore deserves an academy award for sicko it was brillaint.
Micheal Moore is riduculed and hated because his enemies are afraid the average person might listen, he is very persuasive for three reasons he is brilliant he is entertaining, he is right.:headbang:Welcome to the forum! Just a friendly warning about the General forum: Full sentances and punctuation are strongly encouraged. People will understand you better and respect you more. Overuse of smilies is discouraged.

good luck and happy posting!

Come now Cabra, these can be one and the same. Maybe it's Moore's personal opinion that the american health system sucks balls, but there's plenty of investigated findings that show that. documentaries are all editorialized to one degree or another. Are YOU going to be the judge of what qualifies?

It makes more sense to just acknowledge that documentaries aren't necessarily "balanced" - whatever that means.

Sure they can.
I haven't seen "Sicko" yet, so I can't say much about it. But my background just won't allow me to call a simple presentation of opinion with next to no research a "documentary", sorry.
Yes, documentaries are biased. Of course they are. Every bit of news and journalism is. And I never claimed that there was a clear distinction between the two. All I ever said was that to my understanding, Moore's films so far have been closer to editorials than to documentaries.

Well, one could argue that all forms of journalism will inevitably contain bias. However, I agree with you that a documentary ought to present the facts about the subject, and opinions of both sides equally. As Moore doesn't even attempt to do that, I don't think his films can be called documentaries.

If I change tapes in surveillance cameras, am I making documentaries? Those tapes represent reality. There are several types of documentaries. Very often they don't try to present any opinions, there are no sides. Documentaries can be very subjective. Journals or diaries. There are actors and directed scenes in many documentaries. Your idea of documentaries sounds very dull. A strong personal view on the issue makes the film interesting. (IMO)

I like Grierson's definition: creative treatment of actuality.

Do you then plan to argue that it is impossible for that to be biased? Do you assert facts cannot be presented in such a way as to argue a single person's opinion over another person's? That would be an entertaining assertion.

*sigh*
Way to build a strawman. I never claimed that. I said that there is bias in every form of report, even statistics can be biased. It is not the bias bit that makes the difference between documentary and editorial.


An editorial is the editor's opinion. Period. There is no investigation required. It is questionable if it is even journalism. An editorial is an old-school news blog.

An editorial is an opinion, not necessarily the editor's, though. It is journalism, and if well-done it's good journalism, as it presents the reader not just with the facts, but also with ideas what to make of these facts. Suspicions, possible connections, relations, possible effects, etc.
Very much what Moore does in his films.

Sure they can.
I haven't seen "Sicko" yet, so I can't say much about it.
Yet you argue that it isn't a documentary. Have you seen any of Moore's works?

But my background just won't allow me to call a simple presentation of opinion with next to no research a "documentary", sorry.
A simple presentation of opinion without research? I thought you hadn't seen it?

Yes, documentaries are biased. Of course they are. Every bit of news and journalism is. And I never claimed that there was a clear distinction between the two.
Except in every post.

All I ever said was that to my understanding, Moore's films so far have been closer to editorials than to documentaries.
What is the difference between an editorial and a documentary? Is there even one to begin with? It is my understanding that any idiot walking around with his own camera documenting life for a purpose is making a documentary, or am I wrong?

An editorial is an opinion, not necessarily the editor's, though. It is journalism, and if well-done it's good journalism, as it presents the reader not just with the facts, but also with ideas what to make of these facts. Suspicions, possible connections, relations, possible effects, etc.
Very much what Moore does in his films.
Oh please. That would be every non-scientific journalistic article (and some of the scientific ones) but straight news reports.

Your definition of editorial is unnecessarily broad and sweeping.

*sigh*
Way to build a strawman. I never claimed that. I said that there is bias in every form of report, even statistics can be biased. It is not the bias bit that makes the difference between documentary and editorial.

An editorial is an opinion, not necessarily the editor's, though. It is journalism, and if well-done it's good journalism, as it presents the reader not just with the facts, but also with ideas what to make of these facts. Suspicions, possible connections, relations, possible effects, etc.
Very much what Moore does in his films.Meh, I think the newspaper editorial and film documentary are roughly equivalent genres: they both use reality and facts, (ucovered by journalistic investigation) presented in a deliberate manner to argue a point. I don't see any distinction. Clearly there is no requirement in either to present "both sides" equally. They might try to, they might not even try, but not everyone will always agree in any case.

As to Cabra's wikipedia links..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film#Modern_documentaries
All of Moore's films are cited as modern documentaries.
Oh, and I also liked how you quoted the article introduction but linked to the "definition of documentary." Clever.

In your linked section..
, Grierson further argued in his essay First Principles of Documentary that Moana had "documentary value". Grierson's principles of documentary were that cinema's potential for observing life could be exploited in a new art form; that the "original" actor and "original" scene are better guides than their fiction counterparts to interpreting the modern world; and that materials "thus taken from the raw" can be more real than the acted article.

Also, on the editorial link, try reading it.
An editorial is a statement or article by a news organization, newspaper or magazine that expresses the opinion of the editor, editorial board, or publisher.

Since Moore is affiliated with none of those, his films, by definition, cannot be editorials.

Sure they can.
I haven't seen "Sicko" yet, so I can't say much about it. But my background just won't allow me to call a simple presentation of opinion with next to no research a "documentary", sorry.
Yes, documentaries are biased. Of course they are. Every bit of news and journalism is. And I never claimed that there was a clear distinction between the two. All I ever said was that to my understanding, Moore's films so far have been closer to editorials than to documentaries.Then allow me to introduce you to an old concept: propaganda.

It frequently takes the form of a one-sided documentary, and/or ridicules conflicting points of view, if addressing them at all.

Bit Torrent technology has been invented, so I took Moore's advice and downloaded the film. And it's pretty good. Far less of the "Look at me! I've got me hand up the arse of a Democratic candidate!" and the "I don't know what the hell Socialism is, but let's get some!!" that a couple of his other works.
But it's still propaganda. Rather than present conflicting viewpoints, they're ridiculed. Factual information is underwhelming at best, etc ad fucking Latin.

But it's a great film. Go watch it, or download it if you don't fear the MPAA. Perhaps it'll encourage you to seek out some more thorough information afterwards.

I do not go to the theater for direct political statements.

I do not go to the theater for direct political statements.

I am very interested to hear why not ?

I do not go to the theater for direct political statements.
So you like good old-fashioned subtle political/social commentary?

So you like good old-fashioned subtle political/social commentary?Nah. He just avoids these damn newfangled moving picture things altogether. Political messages should be reserved for the recruiting posters, you know.

Right. Bad sarcasm, so shoot me. It's just one of those postulates that leaves random, innocend 21st century humans like me reeling.

I saw Sicko and I agree with it's central theme or message (or thesis?)...but I don't agree with his delivery......

Overall that was a pretty good film, and pretty informative

Obviously its full of complete bias then.

Im from the UK, family members are in the NHS. Its a load of crap that it's working well.

From pointless treatments to stupidly long waiting times, its a load of crap.

Though its "free" aside from the tax paid to support it. So meh..

From pointless treatments to stupidly long waiting times, its a load of crap.

Compared to an American emergency room? (Aka, the place the hospital provides for all the sick people to sit around and cough on each other for hours and sometimes slowly dieing)

Obviously its full of complete bias then.

Im from the UK, family members are in the NHS. Its a load of crap that it's working well.

If it is working well is not the question. If it is better than the US system is.

I wonder.. are simple inhalers truly $120 in the US ?

If it is working well is not the question. If it is better than the US system is.

I wonder.. are simple inhalers truly $120 in the US ?
I don't know as I don't have asthma, you would be better consulting Google, but I wouldn't find it shocking if they were (without insurance).

Obviously its full of complete bias then.

Im from the UK, family members are in the NHS. Its a load of crap that it's working well.

From pointless treatments to stupidly long waiting times, its a load of crap.

Though its "free" aside from the tax paid to support it. So meh..

The old British guy in the film said that taking away the NHS would be like taking away women's rights...people wouldn't have it and there would be "a revolution"...so the NHS must be doing something right...

the NHS must be doing something right...It does, simply by existing. There's plenty of room for improvements, however.

If the citizens of the US want a better health care system, I'm sure their superior democratic system will allow them to put politicians in power who'll take care of that. If they want to go on spending incredible sums on a mediocre care, it's up to them really.

Yep, if they want to spend huge dollars on mediocre care they can vote for universal health care. I live in Canada, and the Health Care here is awful. Wait times are absolutely outrageous, and it is far from free. We pay dearly for our precious crappy health care system, and get little in return.

Yep, if they want to spend huge dollars on mediocre care they can vote for universal health care. I live in Canada, and the Health Care here is awful. Wait times are absolutely outrageous, and it is far from free. We pay dearly for our precious crappy health care system, and get little in return.
What do you actually pay? How long do you wait and for what?

I'll rent it.

So you like good old-fashioned subtle political/social commentary?

Actually, yes. Give me even the thinnest plot, the crummiest story, the thinnest subtext for me to be in a theater. Please. Don't just talk at me about what you think is up. That's lametastic.

I can't stand Moore, but I still plan to see the movie and watch it with an open mind.

Actually, yes. Give me even the thinnest plot, the crummiest story, the thinnest subtext for me to be in a theater. Please. Don't just talk at me about what you think is up. That's lametastic.
This reminds me of the "Idle Hands" episode of Futurama (I assume it is called Idle Hands, it makes sense). Where the Robot Devil leaps on stage during Fry's show and announces that you can't just have everyone going around saying how they feel and then say "It makes me feel so angry."

Then allow me to introduce you to an old concept: propaganda.

It frequently takes the form of a one-sided documentary, and/or ridicules conflicting points of view, if addressing them at all.

Bit Torrent technology has been invented, so I took Moore's advice and downloaded the film. And it's pretty good. Far less of the "Look at me! I've got me hand up the arse of a Democratic candidate!" and the "I don't know what the hell Socialism is, but let's get some!!" that a couple of his other works.
But it's still propaganda. Rather than present conflicting viewpoints, they're ridiculed. Factual information is underwhelming at best, etc ad fucking Latin.

But it's a great film. Go watch it, or download it if you don't fear the MPAA. Perhaps it'll encourage you to seek out some more thorough information afterwards.

I think that part of what people misunderstand is why Moore produces his films the way he does. Both Farenheit 9/11 and Sicko are attempts to insert discussion into the political dialogue. Essentially, he's pushing the Overton window. Moore's real value is that he sets an agenda that Americans begin to pay attention to. Yeah, his films aren't the most factual pieces, but they are very good at starting a national dialogue, which is much more important.

This reminds me of the "Idle Hands" episode of Futurama (I assume it is called Idle Hands, it makes sense). Where the Robot Devil leaps on stage during Fry's show and announces that you can't just have everyone going around saying how they feel and then say "It makes me feel so angry."

Eh, all I know is I already pay a large amount of money every couple of months to go to this place where I get to listen to what other people think about politics, so I can get a piece of paper with my name on it someday. I don't want my academia to creep into my movies.

Well, it's more than that. The frame he introduced just in time for 2004 was one of national defense (and, as you said, a particularly obvious hatchet job, at that), and that was (and still is, relatively speaking) a strong point for the GOP in the polls. What he did (with the help of Howard Dean, whom I respect all the same) is put Dems on very weak ground. Health care is the polar opposite. With 60+% of Americans willing to give up more money in taxes for universal health care, it's a perfect frame.

prove that statistic and you win the thread.

prove that statistic and you win the thread.

The poll found Americans across party lines willing to make some sacrifice to ensure that every American has access to health insurance. Sixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E06E7D71631F931A35750C0A9619C8B63

You know, I've been both destitute and poor, and well off, and through it all, I have never had trouble getting medical care. It's like Michael Moore found an alternate reality. Cuba has a better health care system? Holy cow, couldn't be farther from the truth. The hospital shown in the movie was in no way indicative of any REAL hospital in Cuba. It's like they made it up in a set, or just showed the hospital for the privileged classes. And Canada? Can you say "Six month wait list for emergency heart surgery"?

What a crock. I can't believe you believe this guy.

And Canada? Can you say "Six month wait list for emergency heart surgery"?


Prove that.

And Canada? Can you say "Six month wait list for emergency heart surgery"?

Yay for Canadian Healthcare!

Dr. House on 22 Minutes (http://www.cbc.ca/22minutes/22_single_player.html?archive/2006-2007/nov_28/house&playerType=qt)

With 60+% of Americans willing to give up more money in taxes for universal health care, it's a perfect frame.

So we should have it just because 60+% of Americans want it?

I think that part of what people misunderstand is why Moore produces his films the way he does [...] they are very good at starting a national dialogue, which is much more important.Nicely put. I hope it was apparent I agree?

You know, I've been both destitute and poor, and well off, and through it all, I have never had trouble getting medical care.Then you're more fortunate than at least 18 million of your fellow citizens.

It's like Michael Moore found an alternate reality. Cuba has a better health care system? Holy cow, couldn't be farther from the truth. The hospital shown in the movie was in no way indicative of any REAL hospital in Cuba. It's like they made it up in a set, or just showed the hospital for the privileged classes.I think you're the one living in an alternate reality here. But do back up this nice fairy tale.

And Canada? Can you say "Six month wait list for emergency heart surgery"?

What a crock. I can't believe you believe this guy.Unless you mean a transplant, I doubt anyone ever waited that long in Canada. In the US, on the other hand, people die waiting just waiting to be diagnosed for such surgeries.

Interestingly, your society also lose billions from reduced productivity, simply because of lack of preventive health care (that's also the main reason for your low life expectancy, by the way). And while administration in modern health sectors hovers, on average, around 0.3cents per dollar, your stoneage system clocks in at around 30 cents per dollar. It's things like doctors and nurses having to sort through 1,700 different insurance plans before they can start treating patients that make that difference - nevermind the fact that evenmedical professionals can't possibly know which sort of insurance plan is the optimal one for them, because no single human can ever know all the relevant information to make such a decision, especially not with a thousand (or more) different variations to pick from

What you have is bollocks. It's obvious to anyone but those with an ideological axe to grind. I'm sorry there's a bit more to it than "Oh Noez! Iz Socialismz!1!"

I'm sorry there's a bit more to it than "Oh Noez! Iz Socialismz!1!"

Unfortunately, that part's the attention grabber.

So we should have it just because 60+% of Americans want it?

Yup. It's this thing called Democracy. You should try it some time.

Nicely put. I hope it was apparent I agree?

I thought you did. I was just backing up the point.

Unfortunately, that part's the attention grabber.Only if you're a stunted mental dwarf. Tonnes of shit is "socialized" in that manner. Everything that is the state is "socialized".

... I guess sometimes it's just best to try to forget how damn strange American society is.

... I guess sometimes it's just best to try to forget how damn strange American society is.

American political socialization is based on a different kind of community. Whereas European Parties are often the major centers of political socialization (something that I, as an American, just can't understand), in America, communities, often extra-political in their nature, are the major source of political socialization. What that means is that we are much less likely to have a sense of trust in our mechanisms of government. The result is a strong dislike of the socialization of industry. I am against the socialization of almost every industry for the same reason, but I (in a move that puts me left of most Dems) beleive it is a time for HMOs to die.

Yup. It's this thing called Democracy. You should try it some time.

What if the majority votes in favor of executing all people with red hair? Should that be permitted?

American political socialization is based on a different kind of community. Whereas European Parties are often the major centers of political socialization (something that I, as an American, just can't understand), in America, communities, often extra-political in their nature, are the major source of political socialization. What that means is that we are much less likely to have a sense of trust in our mechanisms of government. The result is a strong dislike of the socialization of industry. I am against the socialization of almost every industry for the same reason, but I (in a move that puts me left of most Dems) beleive it is a time for HMOs to die.I'm aware of that. I even think I understand the historical reasons for your ass-backwards socio-political organisational form, no offence intended, but I don't understand clinging to it today. Of course, I don't understand why everyone aren't syndicalists either...

The privatization thing is a slightly different discussion, I think. I'm not sure this is the proper thread to discuss it (and I'm off to bed in a few), but I'm of a very different opinion than you (and NL). Essentially because the most efficient companies i see are those where the role of stockholder is reserved for the public, thus preserving a balance between the eternal quest for greater efficiency, and an inexpensive quality product that doesn't conflict with the values of the consumers. Something very few, if any, real privatized companies, have managed (sanitation, power, railroads, elder care, mail, banks etc. are all sectors with nice, shiny examples of how vastly superior public ownership can be).

But hey, we knew we'd disagree on this. Anyway, nite nite KSP.

What if the majority votes in favor of executing all people with red hair? Should that be permitted?Of course it should. That's why you don't have a constitution.

... Rightwingers are funny.

Of course it should. That's why you don't have a constitution.

... Rightwingers are funny.

Ah, but where does the constitution authorize the government to implement universal healthcare: it doesn't.

And I'm not a right-winger, I'm an anarchist. I was just throwing his silly argumentation ("We should have it, because 60+% of people say so!") in his face.

Ah, but where does the constitution authorize the government to implement universal healthcare: it doesn't.

And I'm not a right-winger, I'm an anarchist. I was just throwing his silly argumentation ("We should have it, because 60+% of people say so!") in his face.Then why aren't you saying "If 60% want it, the government should enable those 60% to establish public health care for themselves"?

And really, why are you asking rethorical questions. If you view the government as an illigitimate entity, you'll obviously only condone acts that aid it dissolve itself peacefully - right?

But, always nice to see another anarchist. Have a good night.

Then why aren't you saying "If 60% want it, the government should enable those 60% to establish public health care for themselves"?

They should be allowed to. But that's not what would happen. The 40% of those who don't want it would be forced to have it, and pay for it.

But, always nice to see another anarchist. Have a good night.

You too.

I watched it. Even allowing for Moore's dramatisation and exaggeration....it still makes strong arguments.

Health care sucks here. In some issues it is even worse than India.

When I was in college there, I fractured two fingers playing soccer. I went to a Govt hospital where I got it attended to and got a cast and stuff...all for free (except a Rs 50 bribe..that's slightly above a dollar).

When I was in college here, I sprained my ankle and it got swollen into a scary size...I was worried if it was a fracture or not..so I went to the emergency and they took x-rays and stuff...and I got cleared. I was told that my student insurance will take care of it and blah blah. After a month or so, I got bill for $280 saying my insurance was rejected and I had to pay the bill. I tried to find why it was rejected...I was put on hold everytime to absurd lengths of time and eventually I gave up. :headbang:

Now my employer gives comprehensive health insurance...but I still feel for the poor who can't afford such high costs of treatment....and the other suckers who thing they are covered.

I'd like to see it.

I was being too subtle I guess.
A documentary, in my understanding, is a piece of journalism that investigates a topic and presents the findings.
An editorial is a piece of journalism that investigates and then presents an opinion.

One is an attempt to inform, the other is a forum for one's personal opinon, and nothing else.

This is where you're getting off track.

Documentaries are filmmaking, news is journalism. Magazine style news shows might look like documentaries, but they are in fact magazine style news shows.

Don't confuse the two.

To fit this new, and it is new, definition of documentary we'd have to remove the term from pretty much every documentary ever made.

Hoop Dreams? Nope, didn't show kids who have an easy time of assending to college or professional basketball, only the biased 'struggling' kids.

Brief History of Time? Why, that's just Hawkin's bias all the way through.

Nanook of the North? Forget it, just ask an Enuit.

Thin Blue Line? Way gone.

Fog of War? Crazy gone.

Hell, even March of the Penguins would have a hard time qualifying.

Fact of the matter is, this is a Red Herring for people so they don't have to discuss the subject matter raised in Moore's films. You couldn't do more to legitimize him, honestly. Attack his argument, don't try and redefine a form of film to the point that it's definition excludes the entire cannon.

What if the majority votes in favor of executing all people with red hair? Should that be permitted?

That's why we have a Constitution. It provides a means of governing in a real-life situation, and not fantasy-land, whilst allowing the Democratic process to occur in a manner that protects critical rights.

Got a problem? Leave the social contract: I hear antarctica is a good place to play lazer tag this time of year.

The thing that really gets me is that people talk about how expensive Universal Medicare is. Right now, US taxpayers are paying more per capita for a private system than Canada does for a public system. I’d call that a class A con job by someone and I’m glad I’m not buying. Hospitals don’t ‘function’ in the private system unless they can show high enough profits to satisfy investors. There are just some things that the private sector doesn’t do very well. Running health care is one of them.

Up here in Canada we’ve got some greasy people who want to privatize our health care up here, both in the medical and insurance fields, and in government. If you’re a doctor, hospital executive, or in the insurance industry, in it for the cash, it’ll be great, as long as you don’t get old, sick, or injured, but everyone else loses big time. It’s especially bad for employers because it means that employees will be shopping around for companies with the best health care plans, adding expense to the private sector at the same time as increasing the amount that taxpayers fork over to subsidize the new for profit system. I hope it never happens up here in my lifetime. We might as well privatize all our roads and put tolls on them all if we’re really interested in screwing ourselves infrastructure over.

Got a problem? Leave the social contract: I hear antarctica is a good place to play lazer tag this time of year.

I never signed any social contract.

You know, I've been both destitute and poor, and well off, and through it all, I have never had trouble getting medical care. It's like Michael Moore found an alternate reality. Cuba has a better health care system? Holy cow, couldn't be farther from the truth. The hospital shown in the movie was in no way indicative of any REAL hospital in Cuba. It's like they made it up in a set, or just showed the hospital for the privileged classes. And Canada? Can you say "Six month wait list for emergency heart surgery"?

What a crock. I can't believe you believe this guy.

So because you--a person with two posts and little credibility around here--never had a health care problem, Michael Moore is making it all up. Right.

I never signed any social contract.

So you're willing to leave it? Enjoy Antarctica.

So you're willing to leave it? Enjoy Antarctica.

Show me the social contract I supposedly signed, then we can talk about me moving.

They should be allowed to. But that's not what would happen. The 40% of those who don't want it would be forced to have it, and pay for it.It's the same if the 60% don't get their way. The differences are only that there's more of them, and that what they suggest will save lives, increase lifespans and increase productivity.

The 40% will, at most, suffer a slight to their ideology of choice. The ones rich enough not to benefit from public health care will, presumably, still be able to pay for private clinics, and the minimal increase in their taxes is readily off-set by the 250 billion USD increase in productivity it's projected to affect [NIH].

So there's no real cost for the minority you wish to protect, whereas there's huge all-round benefits for everyone, if you don't oppress the majority on this.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but you don't live in a society based on free association. You too.Thanks, I did. Until this fucking toothache woke me up.

It's the same if the 60% don't get their way.

Which is why I oppose coercive territorial monopolies (read: states) and support the peoples' right to self-determination, provided they refrain from violating anyone else's rights. If people want to form a community with universal health care, let them, provided they're not imposing it anyone unwilling.

Thanks, I did. Until this fucking toothache woke me up.

Shit, I hate those. Hope it gets better soon. :(

Which is why I oppose coercive territorial monopolies (read: states) and support the peoples' right to self-determination, provided they refrain from violating anyone else's rights. If people want to form a community with universal health care, let them, provided they're not imposing it anyone unwilling.We're in complete agreement on that. Too bad there aren't more anarchists in the world, but I suppose that has a lot to do with the kind of utter annihilation we're subject to whenever we start doing our own thing... Which I suppose is just another reason those fucked up monopolies shouldn't exist.. But I digress. What kind of anarchist are you? Shit, I hate those. Hope it gets better soon. :(Yeh, thanks. Me too.. Arse. Alright, I'll accept the award for Most Obvious Statement of The Year now :headbang:

... Coffee. That's what I need. And a damn straw.

We're in complete agreement on that. Too bad there aren't more anarchists in the world, but I suppose that has a lot to do with the kind of utter annihilation we're subject to whenever we start doing our own thing... Which I suppose is just another reason those fucked up monopolies shouldn't exist.. But I digress. What kind of anarchist are you?

Anarcho-capitalist. :)

Yeh, thanks. Me too.. Arse. Alright, I'll accept the award for Most Obvious Statement of The Year now :headbang:

... Coffee. That's what I need. And a damn straw.

Coffee sounds good.

Show me the social contract I supposedly signed, then we can talk about me moving.

Are you willing to lose the benefits of the social contract? If so, you receive no protection from those who would attempt to harm you, no right to use roads or to be a part of the public. Essentially, if you don't consent to the Social Contract you can leave society. Sorry, but society is almost everywhere. Enjoy Antarctica.

I just saw it. Informative, yes. It was spiked with a bit of Moore's prejudices, but I can say I'm damn glad I live in a country with a socialized health care system. The whole French setup surprised the hell out of me, though.
Oh, and I'll third on the toothache getting better. Nothing more annoying then a out-of-whack tooth. :(

Are you willing to lose the benefits of the social contract? If so, you receive no protection from those who would attempt to harm you, no right to use roads or to be a part of the public. Essentially, if you don't consent to the Social Contract you can leave society. Sorry, but society is almost everywhere. Enjoy Antarctica.

What social contract? You still haven't answered that.

What social contract? You still haven't answered that.

This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract_theories#State_of_nature_.26_social_contract

Don't play obtuse.

This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract_theories#State_of_nature_.26_social_contract

Don't play obtuse.

I'm not.

I'm not.

I would make sure that, before arguing political theory, that you actually knew the basics of political theory. To sumarize, the social contract is the central concept of consentual governance. Essentially, it states that, in exchange for being allowed to be part of society (which is seen as being no different than government, in this regard) you must accept the authority of that society. Now, in theory, by leaving society, you can leave the social contract. However, this is rather difficult, since we lack a frontier for those who are leaving society to go to, like they normally would. So, you're stuck: you either consent to be governed, move to antarctica, or eventually violate the social contract and go to jail.

This one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract_theories#State_of_nature_.26_social_contract)KSP that's a bollocks argument. You can't say someone has agreed to a social contract when the alternative is agreeing to that social contract. Consent is not involved.

I'd happily divorce myself from the one I'm tied up in at the moment, if I could establish my own without representatives of this, or another, coming at me with big guns. But that's not an option - not unless I manage to pull off a successful revolution to end this state, without another one (or several) usurping it's place (as is the SOP for states).

The very best I can hope for, is to work my ass off so I can afford to buy an out of the way island somewhere, and hope the state that governs it, don't decide to come after me. And even then I'm still made a slave of a social 'contract' I'd never dream of agreeing to, if I wasn't held at gunpoint.

EDIT: Thanks for the sympathy by the way.

KSP that's a bollocks argument. You can't say someone has agreed to a social contract when the alternative is agreeing to that social contract. Consent is not involved.

I'd happily divorce myself from the one I'm tied up in at the moment, if I could establish my own without representatives of this, or another, coming at me with big guns. But that's not an option - not unless I manage to pull off a successful revolution to end this state, without another one (or several) usurping it's place (as is the SOP for states).

The very best I can hope for, is to work my ass off so I can afford to buy an out of the way island somewhere, and hope the state that governs it, don't decide to come after me. And even then I'm still made a slave of a social 'contract' I'd never dream of agreeing to, if I wasn't held at gunpoint.

EDIT: Thanks for the sympathy by the way.

I do hope your tooth stops hurting soon, even though I didn't mention it.

At any rate, I don't write the rules, I merely look at the practical application of them. The Social Contract is a naturally occuring system. It is the resolution to all states of Social Chaos. The Social Contract is the reason that I am not an Anarchist: doing away with this Contract will merely cause the evolution of another, equally harmful one, so we may as well work to shape this one to be as positive as possible. Whether or not you want to consent to it, so long as you are a part of society, you have consented to it.

If it's any comfort at all, Locke notes that changing the terms of the contract is not only possible, but when the Contract is unjust, it is the duty of the people to change the terms of the Contract.

I do hope your tooth stops hurting soon, even though I didn't mention it.Heh, sorry. Just realized it came across like I was bitching for your sympathy :p
I wasn't, and don't worry about it. Found some painkillers & the wife made me some coffee, so I'm feeling all human & stuffs.

At any rate, I don't write the rules, I merely look at the practical application of them.
[...]
If it's any comfort at all, Locke notes that changing the terms of the contract is not only possible, but when the Contract is unjust, it is the duty of the people to change the terms of the Contract.More like a creative interpretation of them, though a common one. When it's impossible to absent from existing social contracts, there's no contract anymore - only chaos and oppression. And that's what covers every last inch of this and every other planet in our solar system, including the bit of ice you suggested earlier. There is no escape. There is no consent. There is no freedom. Only oppression.

I've moved around quite a bit. I've even managed to absent myself from one social contract, but immediately had another thrust upon me. Don't get me wrong, I'm fucking thrilled it's this particular one, but I resent the fact that I'm not a free man. Just like I resent the fact that my wife and I have a long struggle ahead not to rid her of her citizenship, but to replace it with one that's marginally less nauseating. Imagine that. Having to fight for years, just to adopt a different social contract.

But apart from that, I agree. Obviously. It's that or bedlam. So lets improve the oppressive regimes we've had thrust upon us. Let's improve them to the point that the social contract emerges as a meaningful concept. Let's fight the good fight for the right to be dignified human beings. It probably won't happen in my lifetime, but damnit I want to die a free man.

Heh, sorry. Just realized it came across like I was bitching for your sympathy :p
I wasn't, and don't worry about it. Found some painkillers & the wife made me some coffee, so I'm feeling all human & stuffs.

I didn't think you were. It occured to me that you might be, but I decided that that was completely unlikely.

More like a creative interpretation of them, though a common one. When it's impossible to absent from existing social contracts, there's no contract anymore - only chaos and oppression. And that's what covers every last inch of this and every other planet in our solar system, including the bit of ice you suggested earlier. There is no escape. There is no consent. There is no freedom. Only oppression.

I've moved around quite a bit. I've even managed to absent myself from one social contract, but immediately had another thrust upon me. Don't get me wrong, I'm fucking thrilled it's this particular one, but I resent the fact that I'm not a free man. Just like I resent the fact that my wife and I have a long struggle ahead not to rid her of her citizenship, but to replace it with one that's marginally less nauseating. Imagine that. Having to fight for years, just to adopt a different social contract.

It all depends on how you define freedom. In comparison to one of your ancestors 250 years ago, you're practically living in an Anarchic state. If anything, the current great opressor is not governmental in nature, but rather it is in the form of our neighbors, our peers, and our celebrities.*

But apart from that, I agree. Obviously. It's that or bedlam. So lets improve the oppressive regimes we've had thrust upon us. Let's improve them to the point that the social contract emerges as a meaningful concept. Let's fight the good fight for the right to be dignified human beings. It probably won't happen in my lifetime, but damnit I want to die a free man.

From the mortal sense, we are doing little, but every little bit helps, and though we shuffle off this mortal coil, others will benefit from our actions.


*That or making the mistake of trying to write a post listening to old Chumbawamba albums is keeping me from remembering the origional point I was going to make there.

I didn't think you were. It occured to me that you might be, but I decided that that was completely unlikely. Whew.It all depends on how you define freedom. In comparison to one of your ancestors 250 years ago, you're practically living in an Anarchic state. If anything, the current great opressor is not governmental in nature, but rather it is in the form of our neighbors, our peers, and our celebrities.*As long as we have neither right nor ability to exercise our autonomy, we cannot be said to be free by any stretch of the imagination. Not unless you're talking Newspeak.

But again I mostly agree with you. The past couple of thousand years have been a mostly unbroken march towards autonomy, and I don't doubt we'll have it some day. I just doubt it'll be soon enough for me to see it happen. The celeb/neighbours stuff, is just a side effect of the type of state one lives in, I think. Though a mutually supportive thing, by all appearances.From the mortal sense, we are doing little, but every little bit helps, and though we shuffle off this mortal coil, others will benefit from our actions.I think the reason we're doing comparatively little these days, is that the 'next step' towards autonomy, is autonomy. And nobody can begin to take that step before all our societies are ready for it. Anarchism very probably can't coexist with any states, because a functioning anarchy utterly destroys any sort of legitimacy the state might claim. So at the very least, there needs to be something comparable to long-running liberal democracies everywhere, before it can happen. And even then, it'll likely take more than a couple attempts before the idea takes hold.*That or making the mistake of trying to write a post listening to old Chumbawamba albums is keeping me from remembering the origional point I was going to make there.Hehehe, I know the feeling. I've just about left for work myself right now :p

It all depends on how you define freedom. In comparison to one of your ancestors 250 years ago, you're practically living in an Anarchic state. If anything, the current great opressor is not governmental in nature, but rather it is in the form of our neighbors, our peers, and our celebrities.*
I think you could say that companies could be a more major source of oppression than the actual government if you wanted. I think it would be really cool if there were anarchic states around and, in general, more diverse political systems. Right now,you can either have an indirect democracy where almost always only parties that are already major will ever win and you sometimes get about half the people actually voting in or a monarchy. or maybe a communist state or a theocracy and a few other things like civil war.
If the option is a case of 'stay here or move to the anarchist place' then it'd fine but as it is 'stay here or move to Antarctica' isn't much of an option.

I wonder.. are simple inhalers truly $120 in the US ?
Yeah, they are. My younger brother has pretty bad asthma, and thank God my family has insurance.

Yeah, they are. My younger brother has pretty bad asthma, and thank God my family has insurance.I wonder how many of the unlucky sods stuck on the bad joke that is UK unemployment benefits, have the good sense to fake astma and export a few inhalers to some needy Americans?

Yeah, they are. My younger brother has pretty bad asthma, and thank God my family has insurance.

I have solid insurance, and my inhaler (only for emergencies) costs me $25 when my regular prescription co-pay is $15. My guess is that it's pretty costly.

I have solid insurance, and my inhaler (only for emergencies) costs me $25 when my regular prescription co-pay is $15. My guess is that it's pretty costly.

I think that's about what we pay, except that my brother usually has to use his at least three times a week. That would get pretty expensive.
Not like it matters. They're still making us pay a three thousand dollar co-pay for emergency surgery that my mom had to have.

I think that's about what we pay, except that my brother usually has to use his at least three times a week. That would get pretty expensive.
Not like it matters. They're still making us pay a three thousand dollar co-pay for emergency surgery that my mom had to have.

That's the thing about the film--it's talking about people who have insurance (or thought they did) and who are denied in order to increase profits for the insurance companies. He didn't get into the Medicare or Medicaid or VA system, you notice. Why? Because those systems generally work pretty well. Sure, there's the occasional problem, but overall, they're doing a good job with providing care for a reasonable cost. And they're run by the government.

And yet, we can't have government health care for everyone. Jeez.

My inhalers are only about $10 in copay, since my folks have health insurance, but if it weren't for that, I'd be one miserable bastard.

Yeah, they are. My younger brother has pretty bad asthma, and thank God my family has insurance.

Do you have any idea why they are so expensive ? I am quite certain the production costs are far lower, and surely manufacturers compete ?

Only if you're a stunted mental dwarf. Tonnes of shit is "socialized" in that manner. Everything that is the state is "socialized".

... I guess sometimes it's just best to try to forget how damn strange American society is.

Yeah. Anyone who leans to the left is called a socialist by the hardliners. I fucking hate hardliners. Liberal ones too. They scare me.

Do you have any idea why they are so expensive ? I am quite certain the production costs are far lower, and surely manufacturers compete ?
1) The Drug Lobby prevents the American government from negotiating for lower drug prices and since only a fraction of the country has socialized medicine that they pay for, they don't give a damn.
2) The Drug and general corporate lobby and Republican ruled Washington has made it so corporations can't be held liable for price gouging, especially the medical ones.
3) There is no real competition, and there definitely won't be in the future with the Supreme Court just now ruling that manufacturers are allowed to set minimum prices for their goods.

Do you have any idea why they are so expensive ? I am quite certain the production costs are far lower, and surely manufacturers compete ?

Well, first off, inhalers are a low-competition market in an exploitative business. Second off, they have been able to manufacture a shortage for some time now, to jack up the prices.

To me, Micheal Moore is that guy who you agree with, but still think is retarded.

Seriously, this guy lost a debate to Bill O'Reilly. That is really hard to do, people. I mean really freakin hard.

I voted "Saw it, informative, poignant" and "I hate Michael Moore." I like him better than I did before this film, though.

God, what is it about my People that makes us such bastards?

A sense that they can never do wrong and everything they do is right. Combined with rampant capitalism and corporatocracy.

I think that's part of it. The practices of corporate media, religiosity and an over-abundance of masculinity also play a role, and I do think there's something uniquely corrupt about American politicians.

An over-abundance of masculinity? What are you talking about? If anything, American society and culture has been excessively FEMINIZED by the news media in the name of "political correctness" and "sensitivity" and "tolerance" and "multiculturalism". All these so-called "poor oppressed minorities" are so thin-skinned and HYPERsensitive you could blow smoke through them, because the news media have brainwashed them into believing that they are "oppressed" and "downtrodden" and a bunch of other nonsense.

If anything, American society and culture need MORE manliness and masculinity, and less (MUCH less) political correctness/"sensitivity"/whatever you want to call it.

rampant capitalism

If only that were true. What the U.S. has is mercantilism/corporatism, mixing the worst of capitalism with the worst of socialism.

The biggest problem pertaining to the US healthcare system, in its current incarnation, has everything to do with its relation to the consumer. As it is currently structured:

-The individual consuming the service (health insurance, in this case) is not the same individual who is out on the market selecting the service based on all the relevant factors. Instead, that individuals employer selects an insurance provider based almost entirely on cost, rather than any of the other rationales that people have when making a purchase. I fully believe that this makes the health insurance industry entirely unresponsive to the demands of the consumers, because the person complaining is usually not the one paying.
-The previous problem is exacerbated by the fact that if an individual does manage to force their way through the workplace bureaucracy (which is no mean trick) and achieve exemption from the company health insurance scheme, they are usually compensated for how much they would have cost the employer as a member of the bulk purchase program. Thus, this amount is far from sufficient to cover an individuals healthcare costs if they attempt to handle the market on their own.
-Because of the initial contradiction of the individual selecting and paying for the service being different from the individual consuming the service, and therefore the selector/payer only caring about the cost, healthcare providers focus on that one single element of their business, typically to the detriment of all other elements of their business, including product delivery. As a result, cost cutting measures hit product delivery increasingly hard, in order to stay competitive, in a market where quality means nothing to the selector/payer, this is a very bad thing.
-Further, health care insurance providers are notoriously bureaucratic and sluggish, and adapt more slowly than any normal market would find acceptable. If the processor industry reacted as fast as the healthcare providing industry does, we'd be gawking at processors that run at 128 megahertz, wishing that we could afford a computer with one of those.
-Finally, due to the overly bureaucratized nature of the health insurance industry, it is extremely difficult for an individual to shift providers. It can take weeks or months to carry out such a transition, and if you're caught in the gap with a major medical emergency, you're boned.

My long term solution is a major restructuring of the market, to turn it into a normal, services delivery market. Make the firms accountable to the individual customers for price and quality, not to the customers employers and their constant concerns about cost and overhead. Further, consumers should have certain rights offered them, such as protections from being arbitrarily dropped out of fear of an expensive upcoming procedure, should be instituted. You've drawn a contract with your provider, and you pay them even if you're healthy, they should not be able to drop you just because you become ill. Also, an emergency coverage program should be available, lest some external event impact the delivery of the service you have paid for.

This will cause massive dislocation within the industry, though, and as such I would propose an expensive, national health insurance program would cover this transition, until individuals are able to bring their own insurance on-line.

An over-abundance of masculinity? What are you talking about? If anything, American society and culture has been excessively FEMINIZED by the news media in the name of "political correctness" and "sensitivity" and "tolerance" and "multiculturalism". All these so-called "poor oppressed minorities" are so thin-skinned and HYPERsensitive you could blow smoke through them, because the news media have brainwashed them into believing that they are "oppressed" and "downtrodden" and a bunch of other nonsense.

If anything, American society and culture need MORE manliness and masculinity, and less (MUCH less) political correctness/"sensitivity"/whatever you want to call it.
*yawn*

An over-abundance of masculinity? What are you talking about? If anything, American society and culture has been excessively FEMINIZED by the news media in the name of "political correctness" and "sensitivity" and "tolerance" and "multiculturalism". All these so-called "poor oppressed minorities" are so thin-skinned and HYPERsensitive you could blow smoke through them, because the news media have brainwashed them into believing that they are "oppressed" and "downtrodden" and a bunch of other nonsense.

If anything, American society and culture need MORE manliness and masculinity, and less (MUCH less) political correctness/"sensitivity"/whatever you want to call it.

Yeah, because unquestioned white male dominance for the first 200 years of the country's existence wasn't quite enough. :rolleyes:

Yeah, because unquestioned white male dominance for the first 200 years of the country's existence wasn't quite enough. :rolleyes:
Well god forbid they give any power to the Liberal Democommies, or women. I mean who knows what would happen if there was equality...

I might go and see it, but mostly for entertainment value. I don't live and the US (and I most certainly don't want to), so their health care is not direct concern of mine. I think the state of its health care speaks volumes about the general value of the individual in the system, but as I said, it's no direct concern for me.

i want to go see it because it is my concern. the NHS, despite flaws, is a fantastic public service over here, and anything that demonstrates its benefits over privatised healthcare systems is good ammunition in defence of the NHS.

I wonder.. are simple inhalers truly $120 in the US ?What is the average salary of a Cardiologist in your Country?
What is the average salary of a Dentist in your Country?
What is the average salary of a Dermatologist in your Country?
What is the average salary of a Gynecologist in your Country?
What is the average salary of a Surgeon in your Country?
What is the average salary of a (insert any medical profession here) in your Country?

any country..

well, Michael Moore knows how to turn an innocent mind around, that's for sure. I saw the way he talked about Cuba, that his Health System is way better than the one in US (and it is!). But he "forgets" to say that the rest of the system is crumbling. cuba is mostly composed by shacks (go take a tour to the middle of havana) and cars taken right out of the 60's.

- journalist - "it is said that most girls resort to prostitution to pay the university fee"

- fidel - "see? even prostitutes go to university!"

no comments

i want to go see it because it is my concern. the NHS, despite flaws, is a fantastic public service over here, and anything that demonstrates its benefits over privatised healthcare systems is good ammunition in defence of the NHS.

Well, the film certainly should provide much defense for the NHS.

I must say that without the British NHS, I would be in despair. If I had to personally pay for all the treatment I've recieved and appointments I've attended, I can tell you that I'd be pretty miserable right now, financially and physiologically.

What is the average salary of a Cardiologist in your Country?
What is the average salary of a Dentist in your Country?
What is the average salary of a Dermatologist in your Country?
What is the average salary of a Gynecologist in your Country?
What is the average salary of a Surgeon in your Country?
What is the average salary of a (insert any medical profession here) in your Country?

any country..

£81,744 is the average for medical practitioners in the UK apparently making it the 2nd best paid occupation

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/08/salarygraphic2_692x570.jpg

£81,744 is the average for medical practitioners in the UK apparently making it the 2nd best paid occupationis that like 160000 dollars?

is that like 160000 dollars?

$164,811 and 62 cents to be precise.

I'm a big fan of Michael Moore and I'll definatly see Sicko when it opens here in Australia.

I spent a few days in hospital last year here in South Australia and it didn't cost me or my parents a cent (my X-ray, ultrasound and PET scan were all free). So I recovered quickly and was able to go back to my part time McJob quickly and make more money for the boss man, so free public healthcare often makes for a more productive (that means money!) society, rather than the other way around. People who think socialised healthcare is communism should go somewhere like North Korea. That's communism.

$164,811 and 62 cents to be precise.I think its overkill
Imagine the crisis in education costs.. if the UK teachers average income was $120000.

I think its overkill
Imagine the crisis in education costs.. if the UK teachers average income was $120000.

Sorry i'm not sure about your point here. Is it that you feel that teachers and doctors should be paid equally or?

Sorry i'm not sure about your point here. Is it that you feel that teachers and doctors should be paid equally or?I think teachers should be paid ~3/4 of doctors.
and ~1/2 of specialists.

I think teachers should be paid ~3/4 of doctors.
and ~1/2 of specialists.

For what reason?

Although according to the link I gave teaching professionals do make half

Although according to the link I gave teaching professionals do make halfyour link says
teachers make 24k
and "Higher education" teachers make 40k.

in the US "higher education" teacher is a "professor" and commands a Phd education, isn't it the same in the UK?

For what reason?fairness and balance.

If you grossly overpay a particular sector.. you will create an artificial demand for that field.. and you would be forced to impose "Quotas" on the Medical schools.

it would also create an the artificial inflation of fees and rates to everything "medical" related.

For example a $20 chair would be sold at $60 if its stock code is changed to "medical"
at least this is what is happening in this side of the pond.

your link says
teachers make 24k
and "Higher education" teachers make 40k.

in the US "higher education" teacher is a "professor" and commands a Phd education, isn't it the same in the UK?

i'd say higher education teacher in the UK would be a university lecturer, probably with a Phd, yes... but not always Phd. they're just not all called professors (only the heads of department are called that from my experience, but that's a guess)

fairness and balance.

If you grossly overpay a particular sector.. you will create an artificial demand for that field.. and you would be forced to impose "Quotas" on the Medical schools.

it would also create an the artificial inflation of fees and rates to everything "medical" related.

For example a $20 chair would be sold at $60 if its stock code is changed to "medical"
at least this is what is happening in this side of the pond.

Teachers however have much longer holiday periods, less time at university to build up debt, less responsibility, etc

Here's my take, in light of recent events:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/sicko.jpg

i'd say higher education teacher in the UK would be a university lecturer, probably with a Phd, yes... but not always Phd. they're just not all called professors (only the heads of department are called that from my experience, but that's a guess)

I know in the US folks are generally considered lecturers up until they acquire tenure, at which point they become professors.

I know in the US folks are generally considered lecturers up until they acquire tenure, at which point they become professors.

And at that point, they're almost impossible to fire.

fairness and balance.

If you grossly overpay a particular sector.. you will create an artificial demand for that field.. and you would be forced to impose "Quotas" on the Medical schools.

it would also create an the artificial inflation of fees and rates to everything "medical" related.

For example a $20 chair would be sold at $60 if its stock code is changed to "medical"
at least this is what is happening in this side of the pond.

There's already a quota on medical schools in the US--it's called "really fucking hard to get through." Look, I'm in education--I teach at a university--and much as I love my job, if we're talking about getting paid based on the difficulty of the work we do, no way do I deserve 3/4 of what a doctor makes. If I screw up, and mismark a paper, no one dies. That's not the case for a doctor. Doctors get paid a lot more for the work they do, and they should. I don't begrudge them a penny.

There's already a quota on medical schools in the US--it's called "really fucking hard to get through." Look, I'm in education--I teach at a university--and much as I love my job, if we're talking about getting paid based on the difficulty of the work we do, no way do I deserve 3/4 of what a doctor makes. If I screw up, and mismark a paper, no one dies. That's not the case for a doctor. Doctors get paid a lot more for the work they do, and they should. I don't begrudge them a penny.

Nice to know you don't buy into the Marxist idea of value.

God, what is it about my People that makes us such bastards?Your one 2000 Supreme Court handout and 2004 election that resulted in that pox-ridden excrement you call a president, and his sycophantic, sniveling droves of fiending defenders you have in rightwing media and voting populace.

Give or take ...

I saw Micheal Moore's new movie today. For those of you who don't know, it's about the American medical system and how horrible it is compared to other county's, specifically Canada's, the UK's, France's and Cuba's. It had a lot of anecdotes about people's health insurance and HMO nightmares, and how comparatively easy health-care works in the aforementioned countries. It also has some pretty neat interveiws with some very well spoken people, including a retired British Old-Labour parliamentarian and Che Guevara's daughter.

So, who's seen the movie, who's going to see it and who thinks that the United States is perfectly fine being the world's largest single-nation economy, but being thirty-fourth in health care?

<Note: I have not read any posts in this thread other than the first. As such, my post may be redundant. I also have no interest in involvement in this thread further than this post.>

I am curious as to how the Nations of the Earth are ranked in terms of healthcare. Is that in terms of how many people are covered? How many people survive treatment? How quickly people are treated? How people feel about their hospitals/doctors/treatments/insurance/etc? To simply state that a nation is ranked 34th, with no mention as to which factors are taken into account is highly suspect.

(EDIT: Also, seeing as we have nearly 20 million illegal immigrants who have no healthcare, that could also skew data. Those illegally in the States shouldn't be here in the first place, and are not entitled to any government services whatsoever, in my humble opinion. Heaven forbid, though, that our government deal with the situation in a manner not egregiously in opposition to this nation's Constitution or historical values.)

As an American, with a relative who has 30 years of experience in our medical system as a Nurse, and speaking of 'Anecdotes', I have heard far, far more horrifying stories as to the number of people who either are forced to wait months for critical operations, or who die from that wait, in Europe.

As we in America have witnessed over the past four decades, our enormous bureaucracies are incapable of any large-scale management. This has been witnessed most clearly in the overload of the State Department with Passport applications, and the subsequent inability to issue them, as well as in the fiasco that was FEMA's response to Katrina, and so forth. Traditionally, in the American Free Market, healthcare was the private concern of the individual. Of course, emergency services were mandated to be provided if due recompense could not be made.

However, this was a viable system while the Employers and Corporations paid wages which would allow a man to support a rather large family, living comfortably, on a single wage. This situation is largely unseen today, due in part to rampant inflation in the prices of Energy and Foodstuffs, as well as growing corporate greed stemming from moral deficiency.

(EDIT: As to a single wage, what with the precipitous declines in birthrates all across Western nations due primarily to sexual irresponsibility and subsequent abortions, as well as changing cultural norms not resulting in famililial situations in which to properly and stably raise the next generation, inculcating them with patriotism and virtue, and with the downward pressure on wages caused by illegal immigration and unwise trade practices with foreign nations, as well as the politicisation of Unions, the ideals of militant feminism which have fundamentally destroyed our culture and heritage [though this is not an endorsement of mysogynism], and the failure of our school systems to adequetly prepare the Young for their future roles in our Society, I do not advocate communist/socialist mandates of wages. These serve merely to depress economies. What is necessary is a fundamental reversal of the underlying moral degredation of our modern Western world. But this is another debate.)

In the States, healthcare is provided on an as-needed basis, with no waiting for Doctors' appointments beyond the length of a month (most Medical providers keep computerized appointment programs limited to a single month in advance). Necessary procedures are often performed within a week or two. The motives for such quick rendering of services is as follows:

Healthcare providers are mostly corporations, working for profit (this is not a rule. There are many non-profit establishments, such as University/other state Hospitals, charity hospitals, etc). As such, to keep customers flowing, services must be rendered quickly, necessitating minimal bureaucracy slowing down the treatment process. Secondly, there are such hospitals as the Catholic Healthcare system, Shriners, and other charity hospitals who seek to serve those who cannot otherwise afford such treatments as may be necessary merely out of goodwill or religious/moral intent.

In any case; inefficiency, including slow treatment times, unnecessary staff, unnecessary equipment & c., are not conducive to customer services/relations/loyalty. As such, future income is greatly harmed, and the business cannot succeed.

As for Moore's example of Cuba's socialist healthcare system, as well as the use of Che Guevara's Daughter and a British National, surely one cannot believe these examples to be unbiased?

Castro himself sent to Europe for Spanish doctors; the Dictator did not trust his own healthcare system! Secondly, the healthcare given to foreigners is of a different nature, more immediate, comprehensive, & c., so as to leave visitors with a good impression of the nation. Many thousands of Cubans have fled to America for its opportunity, and its speedy and accurate healthcare system.

In any case,

I hope what little I have said here may serve to enlighten some; It is very likely, though, judging by the preponderance of pseudo-liberal 'progressive' groupthink I have observed on these forums, that what I wrote here will not have any effect upon its readers. I may be wrong, but such is life. At least American healthcare has healed my ailments and injuries.

There's already a quota on medical schools in the US-....I know, my post is sarcastic-in-a-way because its already happening.

if we're talking about getting paid based on the difficulty of the work we do, no way do I deserve 3/4 of what a doctor makes. maybe you dont ;)


Doctors get paid a lot more for the work they do..Nurses work harder, yet they get paid a fraction.


If I screw up, and mismark a paper, no one dies. hmmm.. So what you are saying is that Soldiers and Policemen deserve at least half a Million a year, employees at the Nuclear plants one million.. and Air-traffic controllers deserve at least 4 million a year?
What is Bush salary again?

Here's my take, in light of recent events:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/sicko.jpg

...I don't get it. :confused:

...I don't get it. :confused:

Several doctors are suspected to be involved in the recently attempted terrorist attacks in Britain.

...I don't get it. :confused:

listen to this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/comedy.shtml?radio4/nowshow) and it will all make sense :)

<Note: I have not read any posts in this thread other than the first. As such, my post may be redundant. I also have no interest in involvement in this thread further than this post.>


Go found a church.

I started reading, thought of one or two things worth replying to - then remembered your opening gambit. You didn't come here to discuss, but to preach. Fine - go do that.

Go found a church.

I started reading, thought of one or two things worth replying to - then remembered your opening gambit. You didn't come here to discuss, but to preach. Fine - go do that.
Yeah, I don't get it. Why come to a public discussion forum, if you only want to post a rant and run off? Just get a blog.

Yeah, I don't get it. Why come to a public discussion forum, if you only want to post a rant and run off? Just get a blog.

:o

I'm shocked! Bottle "get a blog'd"... :o

But agreed. Sure, you can admit you didn't care enough about any of the issues to see if anyone else had made a valid point yet... sure, you can admit that you are so egocentric that you feel you have an important enough opinion to just throw it out there with no thought that opinions are like assholes. But, to actually front up and say you have no interest in reading any replies, either?

If he or she has any balls, they must be iron.

:o

I'm shocked! Bottle "get a blog'd"... :o

But agreed. Sure, you can admit you didn't care enough about any of the issues to see if anyone else had made a valid point yet... sure, you can admit that you are so egocentric that you feel you have an important enough opinion to just throw it out there with no thought that opinions are like assholes.
Sometimes I like to fancy myself dictator of a perfect tiny world in which everybody agrees with me or perishes. At those times, I go post on my blog. Then I ask Himself to post some contradictory replies to my post, so I can immediately delete them to silence disent.

Ahh, all better.

Sometimes I like to fancy myself dictator of a perfect tiny world in which everybody agrees with me or perishes. At those times, I go post on my blog. Then I ask Himself to post some contradictory replies to my post, so I can immediately delete them to silence disent.

Ahh, all better.

I used my blog to disprove the existence of God.

I set up the premise that reality is godless, and invited a response... but then I changed the settings so I could vet the replies. Third time I denied him posting priviliges he just said "Fine, You Win" and ceased to exist!

What is Bush salary again?

$400 000

Nurses work harder, yet they get paid a fraction.


How do you decide who works harder? The hours or what?

I might get a nice barbeque stoked under my ass for that, but here's my guess :

As a country, the US is both too big and to populous. Democracy works best in fairly small, homogenous societies (see Switzerland as an example), and will get increasingly difficult the bigger the population gets. I see that as one of the reasons why the minute a huge state gets more democratic, it starts fracturing up and pieces of it form their own states.
Democracy depends to a very large extend on informed citizens, and the larger the country the more complex the issues and the more difficult it is for the average citizen to acutally inform themselves.

<Note: Hmm. Well, I noticed this thread very late last night (it could also be said, very early in the morning), and wrote that quickly merely to get my point out, thinking that I would likely not visit the thread again. I did. And I read through (for the most part) the thread. I'll thus enter into debate.>

The Federal Government of the United States is a Republic. So are, for the most part, the governments of the States. However, the States and the Counties/Cities, though Republican in the nature of their governmental structures, true democracy is more evident in the forms of recalls, petitions, propositions, & c.

The 'problem', so to speak, with our Republic, is that there are too few true variances of opinion. The majority of our Representatives fail to represent the wishes of their constituencies, and are concerned foremost with their own political power, and, as has been brought up, the continued ignorance of the Populus of the States.

Indeed, our Government has become more akin to an Oligarchy, with a setup in place to prevent any true government of the people, for the people.

Now, the statement 'For the People', which is so prevalent within discussions of our Republic and National Pride, has been interpreted as an endorsement of socialism. This, however, is not true. What is not understood by a great many Native-Born Americans is that Liberty carries with it enormous responsibilities:

To keep awares of the Dealings of the Government;
To remain Active and Vociferous concerning these dealings;
To exercise fully the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution & its Amendments;

Though these are only a few, they are greatly necessary in these times.

However, the blessings of liberty are hard work. The sense of entitlement felt by many Americans, and even those here Illegally, are greatly misplaced, and have been furthered by unconstitutional social programs. Many of our Citizens cry out for Gasoline price controls; What is not realized by those holding such opinions is that the Government has not the responsibility for economic engineering; Indeed, the Liberty we enjoy grants this: The freedom to work and to find work so that you can afford to pay for whatever market value is placed upon Gasoline is the truth of Liberty's implementation. <This statement, however, does not endorse price gouging. There are fine balances to everything, as implied in my first post.>

To paraphrase Montesquieu (as the man is known; by his Title. Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu), the greater the number of opinions, and the number of groups holding these opinions, the longer Freedom & Democracy are preserved. However, as corruption and amalgamation bring forth fewer and fewer opinions and groups amongst the government, until all are of one mind, then is freedom most endangered.

The problem is not the fracturing groups of differing ideals; the problem is the inability for consensus to be reached on any issues, whereby government is paralyzed. As such, there are necessary commonalities, though not to such an extent as to promote corruption and ostracism of new and varying opinions. Such necessary commonalities include prioritization of the persuit of the greatest good for the greatest number, along with the implementation of the will of the greatest number of the People (with the understanding of the People that the preservation of the greatest number of freedoms is the highest pursuit), along with the altruistic relinquishment of persuit of personal power, adherence to the guiding principals of the Founding Fathers as expressed within their writings, including the Declaration of Independence, as well as the Constitution, and the common belief in a Moral and Ethical Code, which has traditionally been those of the Judeo-Christian heritage of our People. It must never be forgotten that our America was colonized for the express purpose of Religious freedom by Protestants fleeing Anglican persecution.

There are many issues facing America today; facing its people; facing its government; facing every aspect of Its being. There are many root causes, though the very basic few can be traced ultimately to Moral degredation. Say what you will about Morality, but it has served this nation and its people well.

Without morality, our politicians seek only power and wealth; our corporations and their Leaders seek only greed; those in the media and other focal points of our Culture seek further Degredation to aid them in their quests for power and destruction of our Nation and its Heritage; and those idealogues in our Education systems who seek to keep the new generations of our Youth in ignorance (by God's Grace, though, this youth has not been so blinded) so that they, as voters, shall continue to vote into office ineffectual and corrupt politicians, communists, socialists, and others who hate all that this nation has, and does, for stand.

wow. I'm a real thread-killer.

wow. I'm a real thread-killer.

Have you really been here that long?

Have you really been here that long?

'Here' as in, posting in this thread? Or 'Here' as in, On Nationstates for three-plus years?

You killed the thread! You bastard! *stabs*

I liked it, and I intend to start a thread inspired by it. But it's going to be a fun thread, I promise! :D

It was a fairly clean documentary, using his voice for the most part as the over all unifier instead actually being on camera-instead letting each section speak for itself. Each one was built on the last, by raising a possible objection from the previous and answering it in the next.

While there were still stunts, they were limited to the two (taking care workers and anyone else profiled to Cuba and sending money to a critic for his wifes medical bills-the latter being very short.)

I guess you could qualify a third 'stunt' in that one of his subjects told his provider that he intended to be filmed by Moore for his documentary and the provider reversed its decision and approved the needed procedure. Moore didn't actually engage in any of the 60 Minutes/Roger & Me style ambush interviews or pressuring anyone like what was implied in the letter-but it does show that if they don't fear lawsuits or their conscious, they do fear bad publicity. Now if we could wield that power without waiting for Moore to have us involved in a documentary.

As usual it just starts the conversation. But it was pretty clean.