I think Michael Moore is a very clever man and an example of a true American success story. He has so little personal appeal, yet through creativity and work, has made himself very wealthy and a celebrity to boot.
I am amused by the media adoration of Michael Moore. I am amused at how the media takes Moore at face value, seemingly without realizing that he has seduced them with smoke and mirrors.
I've never personally experienced the health-care systems in Cuba, but during various visits to France - which does NOT have socialized medicine - and Sweden, which does ... and having paid my National Insurance during the 40 years I've lived in the UK, I can without smoke or mirrors tell you that the health-care I've received over here has been superb. No one here is under the illusion that it is 'free.' What it is is 'free at the point of delivery.'
When I was in my early 20s in NYC, I was thrown out of the emergency room because I couldn't pay to be admitted. Fortunately I collapsed on the pavement outside the hospital, and doubly fortunately I knew a doctor on the staff of the hospital who demanded I be admitted. I was told later that if I hadn't been I would have died.
I have never been refused treatment in the UK and I've never had to pay for it at the point of need. My National Insurance payments were made on a pro rata basis when I was in employment - even though it was mostly freelance. Unlike the private health care services offered here, there are no National Health Service restrictions on treatment for maternity, mental health, or chronic conditions. Care is for everyone, regardless of income. It represents a society which looks after its weakest members by offering a first-rate service to everyone.
It seems to be arguing against social medicine because:
a) the writer has discovered that its not actually free.
b) systems of social medicine are less than perfect.
c) Cuba has other problems.
The first point is simply crass. It is an insult to anyone's intelligence.
The second point: all institutions are, to some degree or other, imperfect. That does not mean they should not exist, it means that constant efforts should be made to improve them and make them as functional as possible. Certainly our National Health Service in Britain seems to us vastly preferable to your system and the repugnance of refusing sick people basic medical treatment because they cannot afford it.
Finally, yes Cuba does have other problems, but that does not mean its medical system is not good, does it? Medicine and education are two areas of remarkable success in Cuba compared with most of Latin America. Things there would no doubt be much better had Castro taken over a well-functioning prosperous island. Instead he took over a country impoverished and corrupted, financially and morally, by US exploitation, and that, together no doubt with a fair number of mistakes along the way, explains why Cuba today is less than perfect.
If America really cared about the shortages in Cuba it could always cancel its long-standing reprehensible trade boycott which is specifically designed to create those shortages.
At Cannes, several British, French and Canadian reporters criticized "Sicko" as making their countries' health care systems as far rosier than they really were. Moore asked if there was any reporter from those countries who would prefer the US model of health care.
Crickets.
The problem with private health insurance is that the purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits for its shareholders. The best way to do that with medical insurance is to deny coverage.
quote:�We�re much less willing to have government make decisions for people than is the case in Canada and Europe,� Ginsburg said. �It�s a cultural difference.�
- from the linked article.
That, in a nutshell, is horseshit. Americans are entirely willing to let the government, as an example relevant to this group, allow which words can and cannot be said on TV, which most countries don't. They are willing to let government set maximum highway speed limits, which several countries don't. Many insist government alone be allowed to make decisions as to abortion, right-to-die, school prayer, gay rights, etc. etc.
Canadians aren't willing to let private corporations decide who is medically treated and who isn't. And Americans, given that stark choice, would agree.
At Cannes, several British, French and Canadian reporters criticized "Sicko" as making their countries' health care systems as far rosier than they really were. Moore asked if there was any reporter from those countries who would prefer the US model of health care.
Crickets.
The problem with private health insurance is that the purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits for its shareholders. The best way to do that with medical insurance is to deny coverage.
quote:�We�re much less willing to have government make decisions for people than is the case in Canada and Europe,� Ginsburg said. �It�s a cultural difference.�
- from the linked article.
That, in a nutshell, is horseshit. Americans are entirely willing to let the government, as an example relevant to this group, allow which words can and cannot be said on TV, which most countries don't. They are willing to let government set maximum highway speed limits, which several countries don't. Many insist government alone be allowed to make decisions as to abortion, right-to-die, school prayer, gay rights, etc. etc.
Canadians aren't willing to let private corporations decide who is medically treated and who isn't. And Americans, given that stark choice, would agree.
A very good point. I am unsure which countries you are referring to as not censoring/regulating TV. Doesn't the CRTC in Canada do this? And the Broadcasting Standards Commission in Britain?
And are you personally against speed limits? Are you German?
My one experience as a non-American with US health care was odd: I was admitted to an emergency room in spite of having no I.D. to speak of; I was with a powerful friend who vouched for my bona fides, as it were, and he assured the admissions person that I was a legal resident and a student and that the University would pick up the tab for my treatment. I have no idea what might have happened had I been there on my own. Maybe I'd have been refused treatment and would have left, bleeding all over the street. Bill Bryson wrote a delightful book about hiking in the Appalachians and in that book he talks about the myth that there is no free health care in the US: he walks into a county hospital for treatment. So I don't know what to think, and Michael Moore is nothing if not provocative, sometimes just for the sake of it.
And although many canadians don't want private health care, there are lots who do...mind you, if the government allowed more foreign doctors to set up practice rather than drive cabs just because they weren't trained in canada, the health system in Canada would not be in the awful state it's in.
It is illegal in all 50 states for a hospital to deny emergency medical treatment based on the patient's inability to pay, whether the hospital is public or private. They do have the right to kick you out once you've been stabilized and are well enough to go to a cheaper facility that you can afford, but if it's an emergency they have to treat you. That doesn't mean it doesn't sometimes happen, as Bafta can attest to. But it's completely against the law and the consequences for a hospital that does that can be severe. Probably the best way to respond to that is to just flat-out refuse to leave...I'm trying to imagine police officers handcuffing someone who's in dire need of medical treatment and escorting them from the building. It might happen, but the scandal would be unreal.
(Actually, it did happen recently in LA, and it was quite a scandal. But it was a hospital which has a reputation for being one of the LAST places you'd want to go if you're already sick, and it's now in danger of being shut down...the details from that story are pretty sickening, but it's not the norm)
quote:Originally posted by ragingfluffA very good point. I am unsure which countries you are referring to as not censoring/regulating TV. Doesn't the CRTC in Canada do this? And the Broadcasting Standards Commission in Britain?
Can't speak for Britain, but I've seen BBC programs that have dropped the f-bomb and or included nudity.
In Canada, the main purpose of the CRTC is not censorship, (for example, "Sopranos" has been shown on Canadian free TV uncut and unbleeped. A Toronto station shows soft-core porn on Friday late nights, and has done so since the early 70's) but ensuring Canadian content and distribution of ownership.
quote:And although many canadians don't want private health care, there are lots who do...mind you, if the government allowed more foreign doctors to set up practice rather than drive cabs just because they weren't trained in canada, the health system in Canada would not be in the awful state it's in.
What awful state? Compared to whom? Additionally, not one political party in Canada would go further than saying they want a two-tiered system. That would allow those who want to pay extra for private medical coverage. And most are opposed to that.
quote:Originally posted by ragingfluffA very good point. I am unsure which countries you are referring to as not censoring/regulating TV. Doesn't the CRTC in Canada do this? And the Broadcasting Standards Commission in Britain?
Can't speak for Britain, but I've seen BBC programs that have dropped the f-bomb and or included nudity.
There is in Britain a Broadcasting Standards Authority to ensure fairness in news coverage (in my opinion the only reason to have such an authority)... they also have a "watershed" (9:00 pm) after which it's pretty much anything goes on British terrestrial TV in terms of nudity, violence and language (interestingly, the word "motherfucker" is banned, YES, BANNED, on British TV, but the word "cunt" is not)
What awful state? Compared to whom? Additionally, not one political party in Canada would go further than saying they want a two-tiered system. That would allow those who want to pay extra for private medical coverage. And most are opposed to that.
I'm not saying it's a terrible system (it's still probably one of the best in the developed world) ...but is there not a chronic shortage of doctors and nurses? Is it not the case that in many communities the doctors have lists of patients and they're basically full and you cannot get on??? And is there not a move in Quebec towards privatized health care? Please correct me if I have been misinformed on this....I mean no offence to your fine country and I like your beer.
I guess I didn't read the article as being about what was wrong with socialized medicine as much as it was about what was wrong with the way Michael Moore represents things in his documentaries. He can basically get away with saying whatever he wants by qualifying it as "Every fact in my films is true. And yet how often do I have to read over and over again about supposed falsehoods? The opinions in the film are mine. They may not be true, but I think they are." Moore manages to overlook that inconsistency when presenting his films.
I am totally willing for the government to institute a program for health care that doesn't require one to either be disabled, elderly or too poor. There's an entire demographic out here that doesn't qualify for anything, has a legitimate medical need for treatment, and can't get health insurance due to its overwhelming cost to an individual who doesn't have the opportunity to participate in an employer sponsored insurance program. I know. I'm one of them. I simply can't afford the $500-$600 a month for health insurance as a private individual. Come on, how many people can?? Yet, I have health issues that require treatment and medication. My medication would cost around $500 a month as well. And who can afford that?? If it weren't for the two drug companies who provide my medication for free, based on my income, I'd be dead now.
There are a lot of us out here - single, self-supporting, middle aged, unchilded and ineligible for any type of programs that could help. I'm all for a system that provides care equally. It might keep me from dying of a stroke.
I'm even one of those left leaning liberals who seem to be the bane of our American society. But I don't entertain the thought that Michael Moore speaks for me. He's too scary for that.
I am amused by the media adoration of Michael Moore. I am amused at how the media takes Moore at face value, seemingly without realizing that he has seduced them with smoke and mirrors.
I tend to agree with Moore's 'opinions' on many things, but I have no respect at all for the way he presents his arguments. He stops short of lying, but deliberately manipulates facts and presents them in such a way that viewers form their own delusions.
One example I recall of Moore creating a delusion in viewers without lying was in Fahrenheit 9/11. He wanted the viewer to believe that members of the US House of Representatives sent the poor and underprivileged to their potential deaths in Iraq but were NOT sending members of their own families. Moore showed that only one Member had a family member serving in Iraq. OK, so lets do the maths (2004 data obviously). Population: 300 million. Soldiers in Iraq: 150,000. One in every 2000 Americans is in Iraq. Average family size of 4, that means one in every 500 US families has a family member in Iraq. There are 435 Congressmen, and one of them has a family member in Iraq. So where's the issue? There isn't one. Moore knew that House members were fairly represented in Iraq but chose to manipulate the viewer into a false belief that they weren't. (I worked this one out after watching the movie, as it didn't smell right).
Moore used global gun-death statistics to similar effect in Bowling for Columbine when he presented absolute figures and 'forgot' to present gun-deaths per capita which would be the only useful data.
The Bush administration used a similar approach with Iraq - 9/11. I don't believe that they ever stated that Saddam/Iraq was responsible for 9/11 (so they didn't lie about it), but whenever Iraq was mentioned they made sure they mentioned 9/11 as often as they could so that the masses formed their own delusional belief about Iraq's responsibility for 9/11. I recall that about half of America believed this for at least 2-3 years, and yet nobody actually lied to them. 150 million Americans formed their own preposterous delusions with the help of their government.
Oh yeah, and Joseph Goebbels liked to use the word "cockroaches" when talking about Jews. I don't believe he ever said "Jews are cockroaches", he didn't need to. He just mentioned them in the same sentence, and when someone asked him about Jews he used cockroaches as a metaphor. This was quite effective.
So I have no respect at all for Moore, he's far more like Bush than he'd like to admit. He has no respect for the truth. He happily presents data in such a way that the viewer forms their own delusion about reality. One doesn't need to lie to be deceitful.
I think Michael Moore's movies are best enjoyed as propaganda and not so much as convincing arguments. That's how I tend to watch them, he's quite a talented filmmaker and I think good agitprop is hard to come by, and there's at least a little of something to be enjoyed in his surprisingly thoughtful Bowling for Columbine and his not-thoughtfull-at-all Fahrenheit 9/11. That said, even accepting that, I didn't really enjoy Fahrenheit 9/11. Too many cheap shots and innuendos, the seams began to show. His films are political cartoons, nothing more and nothing less.
I think Michael Moore's movies are best enjoyed as propaganda and not so much as convincing arguments.
That's the way I see them. Unfortunately I suspect much of his audience believes his movies are informative documentaries rather than propaganda.
I think the feature-length propaganda films we're being fed these days are a reflection of 'news' in general. News isn't informative and balanced, but is a blend of politics, propaganda and entertainment. It's manufactured for certain sectors of the 'market' and aimed at holding that market in the interests of future revenue, by telling that market exactly what it is that they want to hear. I'd say revenue is Moore's primary objective.
I'd guess that this 'propaganda disguised as journalism' may be largely responsible for increasing polarisation and segmentation of some Western societies (this is fairly evident in the USA) where some people would not be seen dead watching a Moore 'documentary', and others would not be seen dead listening to Rush Limbaugh. They know who is going to ALWAYS tell them what they want to hear and listen to them exclusively.
Balanced reporting is quite hard to find these days. There's not enough money in it.
Do you think that it may be possible that Michael Moore realises that the market for straight informative documentaries in American cinemas may be just a tad limited?
Do you think that it may be possible that Michael Moore realises that the market for straight informative documentaries in American cinemas may be just a tad limited?
Probably. But, there was already enough of a case to hang Bush et al (their deception and incompetence) for inclusion in Fahrenheit 9/11 by sticking to the facts, without the need to resort to propaganda and deception. Although I've no idea how this would have affected the box office take if people realised it didn't contain propaganda.
My guess is 'journalists' have become so used to 'manufacturing' stories that they can't help themselves. At any rate, I won't be bothering to see any more Moore flicks, I find them neither informative nor entertaining.