Michael Moore Making Sense...

[erictheobscure]

Originally Posted by ATLHARP

but health care is the responsibility of private individuals

This is a case of begging the question.

[Corona Gigante]

THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH

Data released today [August 29, 2006] by the Census Bureau show that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage. “The number of uninsured Americans reached an all-time high in 2005,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It is sobering that 5.4 million more people lacked health insurance in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001, primarily because of the erosion of employer-based insurance.”

Census data show that 46.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2005, an increase of 1.3 million from the number of uninsured in 2004 (45.3 million). The percentage who are uninsured rose from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005. The number of children who are uninsured rose from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005.

“The increase of 360,000 in the number of uninsured children is particularly troublesome,” Greenstein said.

More...

[Kayak_Rat]

Originally Posted by Wang Lung

Michael Moore = moron

I prefer the above.

[SilvrBck]

Michael Moore is to movies what asshats are to Club Stogie. Trolls. They stir up crap to get a rise out of people. In MM's case he makes money and becomes famous. I have to believe those are his only motivations. If he truly wanted change, he would present a much less biased, comprehensive, stuntless case which would be much more powerful than the swill he puts out. It's a troll philosophy and people keep feeding him.

[erictheobscure]

Originally Posted by SilvrBck

Michael Moore is to movies what asshats are to Club Stogie. Trolls. They stir up crap to get a rise out of people. In MM's case he makes money and becomes famous. I have to believe those are his only motivations. If he truly wanted change, he would present a much less biased, comprehensive, stuntless case which would be much more powerful than the swill he puts out. It's a troll philosophy and people keep feeding him.

For better or for worse, a historical perspective tends to refute the claim that "less biased" forms of discourse effect more change.

[SilvrBck]

Originally Posted by erictheobscure

For better or for worse, a historical perspective tends to refute the claim that "less biased" forms of discourse effect more change.

That may be the case. I just believe he undermines his credibility by being so biased. I consider the source with everything I hear and believe there are always 2 sides to every coin. If he truly wants change, there are much more effective ways to bring it about. IMHO.

Edit*: But that probably wouldn't make a very entertaining movie!!!

[Junior]

Originally Posted by Corona Gigante

[B] “It is sobering that 5.4 million more people lacked health insurance in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001, primarily because of the erosion of employer-based insurance.”



More...

Let me start this by agreeing 100% that the uninsured is a major problem. I can see this from both sides as having been an employee, and an employer. I think a lot of that stems from the Health Insurance companies. For the last 3 years our premiums have increased every year by double digit numbers. Last year it was a 100% increase in premium over the last year. I’m not one for government regulations, but if something is not done no one will be able to afford health insurance.

[gefell]

I watch most of his films, but rarely agree with his views ! On health care problems, it cost me around $600 a month for a famnily of 4 fairly healthy people.

[smokemifyagotem]

MM

[adsantos13]

IMHO Moore is to the left what someone like Bill O'reilly is to the right. Both are basically propagandists. In either case, just because you disagree with someone most of the time doesn't mean they cannot at least some of the time be right about some things.

I guess what Im trying to say is no matter which side of the political spectrum you find yourself, it is a disservice to attack the messenger without first listening objectively.

Calling MM a limousine riding fatass, or O'reilly a phone sex pervert gets us nowhere.

[Fat Old Sun]

Originally Posted by adsantos13

Calling MM a limousine riding fatass, or O'reilly a phone sex pervert gets us nowhere.

It's so much fun though

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by adsantos13

I guess what Im trying to say is no matter which side of the political spectrum you find yourself, it is a disservice to attack the messenger without first listening objectively.

Is it OK to attack the messenger after you have listened objectively and still find their argument is a steaming pile of sh#t?

[SteveDMatt]

Originally Posted by Junior

Let me start this by agreeing 100% that the uninsured is a major problem. I can see this from both sides as having been an employee, and an employer. I think a lot of that stems from the Health Insurance companies. For the last 3 years our premiums have increased every year by double digit numbers. Last year it was a 100% increase in premium over the last year. I’m not one for government regulations, but if something is not done no one will be able to afford health insurance.

Do you believe this is a problem created by the insurance companies or the health care system?

There are so many uninsured people going to ERs for treatment (because they can't be refused there). When they don't pay, everyone else's fees increase to fill the void of the unpaid account.

So again, in my mind, the people who do have insurance are the ones being screwed by the people who don't have the ability to provide for themselves.

So is the resolution to provide for those who can't provide for themselves, or to continue to allow the problem to escalate? Will this problem not continue to grow as more and more people lose their benefits? Do we tell hospitals to turn uninsured people away?

Junior, this isn't a bash on you, as I tend to agree with you. I am just using your post as a starting point for my rant.

How about the fact that prescription drug companies can waste money advertising to people who can't go out and buy their product without a prescription?

There are many problems with the health care system. I don't believe there can be one easy fix.

[Mr. Pink]

I love the way he assesses Canadian health care by interviewing a couple of happy Canadians. Must be true then. I'd have asked the Canadian Dr's since it'd be easier as they all try to get work in the US!

[adsantos13]

Originally Posted by icehog3

Is it OK to attack the messenger after you have listened objectively and still find their argument is a steaming pile of sh#t?

Of course, as long as you combine the insults with your refutation of argument