An anonymous tipster alerted us via the News tab to a possible racist/scandalous/nebulous slip of Michael Moore’s tongue. I sat through the entire, excruciating 10+ minute video at Breitbart.tv, only to discover that the controversial part is at the end; the video I posted below features the last eleven seconds of the entire segment and contains the relevant moment.
Link: sevenload.com
Well? What do you think? Racist or immature? Mispronounced or intentionally mangled? Or is this much ado about nothing? Comments on Breitbart were hot, heated and divided about whether or not Michael Moore started to channel Apu. What say you?
What if Sanjay Gupta had been Muslim? Like, say, Sanjay Khan? Would Moore have elongated the first syllable then? Think about that.
You should learn more about your department…you too can pack (more than parcels) on the job.
Oh, Vikram, I’m packing, no doubts there! Unfortunately, I have not risen to the level of a postal inspector.
Did your arm cramp up, preventing you from quoting the full quote? Here’s a link back to the original. You’d never intentionally misquote someone, and not even provide a source to backup your claim, no that would be too irrational. It must have been a cramp, so I hope everything gets better.
Nope hand is just fine. Thanks for asking though. So sweet.
And yes France and the entire Euro Zone has far higher unemployment than the US. It’s actually considered fairly rude to ask someone what they do for a living over there because in some places you have a 1/5 chance of them not doing anything just living off the public dole. Don’t know what exactly you’re taking umbrage at your post was fairly snotty “and they also have more of that other thing, whats it called, oh yea”. Or is it that I didn’t provide a link to regarding European unemployment.
Salil Maniktahla, Neither gun owners like myself nor the police protect you. I protect myself. Moore is a non issue please ignore him. If some Americans, black or white mangle my name I do not take offense, simply correct them.
I am not an expert on this issue, but from the snippet on CNN as well other pieces I’ve read by people who tend to be reliable on the empirical data, many European countries have a lower per-person cost as well as better treatment. If that is indeed the case, the discussion of taxes is a bit of a red herring.
Front page on DIGG: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/56459/
Everybody hates Sanjay Gupta – not for being Indian, but for fudging numbers and claiming they’re more accurate than Moore’s.
seems to be true. I underwrite specialty insurance for high-risk business and the smartest way to keep your business profitable is to have eagle-eyed claims people and extremely tight coverage forms–the combination serves to deny virtually any claim that comes in the door.
Healthcare is generally written by the big players, so underwriting profit is less of an issue (given the often gigantic investment portfolios and income common to the bigger companies), but nothing gives investors/share-holders confidence like a carrier that can consistently deny claims stemming from chronic causes (chronic diseases/ailments) and potentially avoid an Asbetosis/Silicosis-like phenomonon that sunk Lloyd’s in the late 80s.
I didn’t think Moore’s pronunciation of “Gupta” was racist, it’s pretty much the way it’s pronounced in America. What did strike me as slightly off was the way he said “find aaout” twice. If anything, that was “channeling Apu” in a way – the singsong voice, the hard T’s.
Then again, you can find whatever bias you want in someone else’s voice inflections, if you’re searching hard enough for it.
Michael ‘Who’?
That’s right cuz the Devil’s in the details.
Guess we could cut Micheal Moore some slack on that pronunciation, after all Sanjay Gupta just did a hit piece on him before that!
dear god! Are all you desis in states this sensetive?? I replayed that friggin’ clip 10 times and I still don’t know what was racist about it. I thought I was going to hear “paki” or “sand nigger” but i was disappointed. He just said “Sanjay GOOPTA” in a fusturating manner. You can see how Wolf gets under people’s nerves. You should post Wolf’s interview with Musharraf. Musharraf owned Blitzer in that interview. I’m laughing just thinking about it. And btw I HATE SANJAY GOOPTA as well, he is a definition of a coconut. Give me Satindra Bhindra all day erry day!
Did anybody catch Larry King? Sanjay Gupta got played bigtime! Did you see the faces he was making. I think Michael Moore set him straight on every point. What I can’t understand is why CNN would make him look like an ass and he works for the channel? He really got played.
Dr. Gupta just displayed his ‘republican slant’ on the health issue (especially the expert he chose to display in his piece). He may be an expert in neurology and/or medical practice, but is out of his league when it comes to the American health care system.
In fairness to Sanjay, at least he showed up to debate Moore face to face unlike the other CNNers who have not answered for their dereliction of journalistic duty on the Iraq war. Wolf Blitzer had no answer to Moore’s accusations of CNN and Wolf’s conduct in the early days of the war and how F911 was pooh poohed by some of them.
Also it is possible Sanjay was just chosen as the presenter in the piece and CNN provided him with the experts to use.
seeing sanjay gewtas face cringe like that was priceless… he also got another hole…
blitzer one day, gewpta the next.. is couric next?
Gupta had nothing, qualming about a $7000 per capita spending vs $6000 per capita spending, when the cuban spending is $251, and claiming the “true numbers’ will give the bright, insightful American people the correct information to make a true decision about who pays more per capita, then in the same sentence saying over and over again how universal health care shouldn’t be called ‘free’ because the dumb American people wont know their taxes will go up, and actually think they’re not paying in some fashion for medical care.
SiCKO highlighted a case of a 2 year old girl getting denied treatment because it wasn’t an in home network, resulting in her death. As bad as infanticide? maybe not. De facto 2-year old-icide? quite possible.
But almost all Indian/brown folks, maybe with the exception of Fareed Zakaria, have to lean a bit to the right, if they’re on TV as part of the MSM. otherwise, they’d be a threat.
and it’s readily apparent here that CNN used tricks to block the SiCKO’s showing of Cuba’s ranking on the WHO list. And yet, no one would ever accuse CNN in generating ‘propaganda’ to discredit Moore. And because people have that innate reluctance to define it as such – is the exact reason it is a form of propaganda.
No. And you would have known that had you read even a fraction of the comments.
I saw the Larry King piece, and frankly it was a bit silly. While arguing over whether the numbers are accurate (and to be honest, a $20 difference is not tremendous to me in light of a several thousand dollar difference), Gupta was really able to avoid talking about the real issues in Sicko: the crisis in American health care. I understand where he was coming from, but he did a great job of keeping the conversation from going anywhere. They spent nearly the entire time arguing over the valuation of U.S. health care vs. the valuation of Cuban health care. It’s clear that Gupta thinks universal health care is a joke/bad idea, but I’m glad that Moore was able to talk about it a bit at the end (discussing how even if you raise taxes it would offset private health spending). These were the concerns that I thought were most important for Americans to hear, not a debate on whether the BBC or HHS provides a better estimate for U.S. and Cuban cost estimates.
To clear up a bunch of points. Nice to see you take your ball and go home HMF with your undebatable definition of propaganda. While wikipedia is admittedly the end all to all knowledge, other dictionaries and other thinkers have had other definitions of propaganda, some of which are closer to how its used colloquially. For example:
merriam webster- 2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person 3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
http://www.historians.org/projects/giroundtable/Propaganda/Propaganda8.htm
free dictionary- 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
(Sicko is definitely a systematic propagation of healthcare related data, even if its right. Furthermore, if you look at Moore’s collection of documentaries, its hard to come across with any other view besides the idea that they act as propaganda against US policy and the US government (bowling for columbine is the most obvious as it is filled with errors and deceptions but each documentary has a varying degree of deception))
Encarta- 1. publicity to promote something: information put out by an organization or government to promote a policy, idea, or cause 2. misleading publicity: deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread [Early 18th century.
So spare us your unimpeachable clarification of why we’re all using the term propaganda ignorantly.
As for Moore and extending the ‘oo’ in Gupta. Many people who don’t see anything at all and say other people pronounce it like he said in the clip would be more believable, if he hadn’t already said Gupta’s name in a different manner over a HALF DOZEN times previously in the segment. Moore was unhinged in that first interview, which causes him to hit the ann coulter level of insanity in some statements he makes. In the second interview however on larry king he was much more calm and better about it though it was amusing to see him complain about Gupta’s ‘diatribe’.
And HMF, please don’t be the liberal shill that discredits all of us that believe Sicko does promote the right message and some type of universal health care should exist. CNN was wrong for covering Cuba when doing the report. It was a good point by Moore. But about the numbers, its incredibly disingenuous as a supposed documentary to start cherry picking numbers from different sources from different years, with some of those sources unsourced in the first place (as the BBC report was). You do realize the currency of a documentary is the facts it uses right? And that such cherry picking and contextualization does precisely intend to mislead or at the least fit the the narrative tone. Secondly, you have it exactly the opposite. Americans first are a heterogenous group intelligence wise and it is incredibly important to mention that health care as Moore described it isn’t in fact free. Gupta just asked for clarity on each particular point where he wants the facts on the numbers and a clarification on how healthcare is paid for. This doesn’t assume people are stupid/dumb, it assumes quite reasonably that people are likely to be informed on the issue and base decisions regarding it mostly by sicko and not by too much outside research. Most documentary viewers don’t immediately go and search out an expansive set of facts on an issue after watching a documentary about it. Even more don’t look for the opposite point of view (look at how many watched inconvenient truth vs the great global warming myth), so its incredibly important to not use deceptive terms. Saying something is free does- that makes it seem like the govt has the money but chooses not to spend it on healthcare, not that only a raise in total taxes would ensure that any such system would be solvent in teh long run. Moore could have made this point but have made multiple points about it such as reduced defense (read: Iraq) spending could cover part of the bill, healthcare premiums may essentially be more than the extra taxes (I don’t know how true this claim is as I haven’t seen any studies on the issue), or that the increased quality of living would be worth the tax increase. Either way, its disingenuous to just claim its free.
As for the story about the two year old, you realize an anecdote or even set of anecdotes doesn’t provide proof for a systematic problem right? The statistics in this particular case overwhelmingly do, but emotional appeals and outrage over individual incidents is more useful in trying to convince an emotional jury (though only on a minor league state court type level) and not so useful in a structured and fact based debate.
are you people serious? Manju even linked to the study that analyzed links to politically leaning sources which characterized a media source as liberal/conservative. There’s a similiar study also done by a bunch of yale scholars (i can link to it if y’all want). Regardless of whether the headlines on drudge are sensationalist and usually right leaning the material according to these studies are left leaning.
By the way, film nyc, there has been substantial criticism of the substance of moore’s films and his statements and a quick google search can reveal that so take your strawmen elsewhere. By the way, who’re ‘they’? Do you mean the ignorant and evil individuals who don’t realize that you and HMF know whats best for them (and the world) and are the paragon of logic?
This has been my point all along. In the end, it is still Michael Moore’s collection. You can pull definitions of propaganda all you like, but from a historical POV, it’s used to describe the actions a large corporate/government, that take on a multi-faceted approach, as I said before, print, media, broadcast, movie. Propaganda is not a program in the Matrix, it is the Matrix.
That it may be, but Gupta’s insistence on such a minor point dodges the big issue, and indeed it does imply the American people are not erudite enough to intuit this fact. Which contradicts his earlier implication that $6000 per capita vs $7000 vs $7400 (the projected # by the HHS) causing the nuanced, well-studied American population to make a much better informed decision.
Regarding the “free” point. How many things in life are free? Exactly. Understanding that a universal/gov’t sponsored health plan would likely induce taxes, or a redirection of taxes from war efforts, in my book doesn’t qualify as searching out “an expansive set of facts on an issue”. It’s pretty much common f’cking sense.
By the way, when anything, I mean anything is sold, positive points are presented, and negative points are downplayed, minimized, or in the Bush admin’s case, outright ignored. It’s true for cargo pants or health plans. Remember the Ronny Reagan record? Playing upon communistic fears using the word “socialized” with all kinds of negative connotations. Certainly there wasn’t any care taken there to avoid deceptive terms.
Remember the quote by Tony Benn, “if you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people”
No, but a systematic problem will repeatedly give rise to these horrible anecdotes.
<
blockquote>But about the numbers, its incredibly disingenuous as a supposed documentary to start cherry picking numbers from different sources from different years, with some of those sources unsourced in the first place (as the BBC report was)
Michael Moore didn’t use the BBC report exclusively for Cuban health care spending per capita, he used the UN Human Development Report, here And that’s… the awful truth.
lots of criticisms that didn’t hold any truth, or are you talking about Ann Coulter and Michael Savage? Or too much Drudge Report and WorldNet Daily? Remember when the right wing was critiquing Moore’s claim of the US government flying Bin Laden’s family out of the USA following the attacks?? Well, recently released FBI documents show this to be true:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070620200413.fd64rwmy&show_article=1
And, I found that through a quick Google search…
Both Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko have extensive factual backups.
Am I the only one who thought Gupta came across more refined than Moore did in the debate? I agree that Gupta was nitpicking with his dissention ($7,000 vs. $6,000…Come On…), but he came across more calm and put together (if you could ignore those little facial twitches).
And not to complete discredit myself here but Sanjay Gupta is one hot specimen of man.
I don’t know what you mean by “refined in the debate” If you mean his hair was better combed and he interrupted Michael Moore less than vice versa, then sure. But Michael had the advantage of facts and common sense, secondly MM’s “persona” has never been calm, collected and sophisticated, he’s always played the part of the simple, common man, T-shirt and baseball cap, the proletariat if you will.
Why do you think him and Rudy Bakhtiar are (in Rudy’s case, was) on CNN?
I thought Sanjay Gupta came across as a utter fool, where Moore had the facts on his side. But, I guess when you’re trying to shill as much as possible for Big Pharma and the Bush administration, this is what happens. And Moore acted appropriately, given the lies being told by Sanjay.
True, Michael Moore may have that “slob” look compared to button-down Sanjay, but i definitely don’t consider him a “hot speciman of a man”.
hell no!!!! no trace of racism there at all!!.. its just foolish and hyper to claim something like that
re: HMF 223
This has been my point all along. In the end, it is still Michael Moore’s collection. You can pull definitions of propaganda all you like, but from a historical POV, it’s used to describe the actions a large corporate/government, that take on a multi-faceted approach, as I said before, print, media, broadcast, movie. Propaganda is not a program in the Matrix, it is the Matrix.
Um, you were the first one to post the snarky and inarguable definition of propaganda–I just showed you were wrong to try to claim some type of ownership on the definition of the term. As for a historical point of view, you’re simply wrong. You’re looking at it through the lens of anti-corporatist/libertarian/anti-establishment which is the alfred lee/chomsky/herman view (it’s a brilliant model but its certainly not the only one), however historically there have been literally dozens of scopes through which propaganda is viewed. Read technological society by Ellul for the mass media/technology lens, or Judith Rich Harris youth socialization lens, or farther back into history to realize its use in war which wasn’t attached to notions of corporatism. So its silly to try to claim a particular narrow definition of propaganda is the only correct use.
That it may be, but Gupta’s insistence on such a minor point dodges the big issue, and indeed it does imply the American people are not erudite enough to intuit this fact. Which contradicts his earlier implication that $6000 per capita vs $7000 vs $7400 (the projected # by the HHS) causing the nuanced, well-studied American population to make a much better informed decision.
Regarding the “free” point. How many things in life are free? Exactly. Understanding that a universal/gov’t sponsored health plan would likely induce taxes, or a redirection of taxes from war efforts, in my book doesn’t qualify as searching out “an expansive set of facts on an issue”. It’s pretty much common f’cking sense.
Your point is logical and does pose an interesting question to me, why do i set standards for a perceived dumb american populace and then an informed one right after? The only problem is I’m not actually PRODUCING THE DOCUMENTARY, so the claim that the conflict there falls on me is silly. Michael Moore however did produce Sicko and is responsible for its content. The point isn’t what assumptions you make about the American public, its simply that as a documentarian part of ones mission is to provide all the facts and context possible and do so in a truthful and consistent manner. Moore’s exact reply to Gupta’s criticism of cherry picking sources for the dollar figures was the typical bush bash and that he was taking the latest figures the US provided. Doesn’t it seem to be a disconnect then if he doesn’t use the numbers for the two countries from one source where both are available and instead compares two numbers from two different sources which by his own admission are 3 years apart in date?
Similarily, just claiming, ‘well people know taxes will go up’ or they’ll have shift money from other areas is an extreme copout. The level by which tax rates differ between the US and other industrialized countries used as models is astounding (though admittedly some of this goes to other areas such as fully funded education systems, and massive social security/welfare programs–though most countries also have much lower defense spending percentages): France has 2% lower corporate taxes then America, a top income tax level which is more than 13% higher than the US and a VAT of 20% while the US has not VAT. Here are a couple more countries in those same areas: UK -5, +5, 17.5 Spain 0, +10, +16 Norway -7, +16.3, +25 Japan -5, +2, +5 Germany +3.34, +7, +19 Canada +1.1, -6, +5 http://www.worldwide-tax.com/
In the land of amazing health insurance, sweden, a single person with no kids pays almost 48% in income taxes! Even with recent tax cutbacks due to poor economic performance, sweden still is one of the only places where taxes are over 50% of the GNP!
You can check out this Greg Mankiw post on what these taxes reduced to one figure would mean for the taxpayer (though its slight dated) http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/07/tax-rates-around-world.html
In any event when looking at those numbers, the US actually has one of the higher Corporate tax rates, and doesn’t burden its regular people with what are typically regressive VAT’s which get passed to the consumer. Imagine if that type of information was included along with the idyllic scenes of healthcare Moore put out! That’s what I mean by its unfair and deceptive.
As for Cuba as a paragon of health provisions, that is an incredible joke– http://therealcuba.com/Page10.htm I know a person like filmnyc might immediately look at the page and regardless of content disregard it, but it’s links and selections are from an impressive and respected array of sources ranging from scholarly research at UNC, centers for human rights, to the wash po so it really behooves a person who’s interested in a critical look at the issue to visit the links/pictures.
Finally, HMF, because I’m afraid I’m obscuring this–I agree with you and Moore about healthcare. I just don’t like the methods he uses some times. What I would like to see is something like what Spitzer is doing where he’s extending medicare for at risk folks or at least some guarantee for every individual for emergency medical service (i’m tired of hearing those anecdotes of people dying waiting to get treatment). These are necessary and good first steps to ensure everybody has minimal coverage before the consequent argument between a more expansive system and high taxes. You’re also right about the fact anecdotes provide a powerful and useful punch when combined with substantive facts/statistics in an argument, which in this case they do–but on their own they reek of manipulation.
Both Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko have extensive factual backups.
as well as a vast number of criticisms from all political spectra (though its the substance of the sources that matter–which is why i’m ok with moore’s site for backup) (not to mention you won’t hear about the successful american programs like medicaid, medicare etc which is what the US should be modeling in sicko):
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html http://www.chron.org/tools/viewart.php?artid=687 http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=1150 http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp http://slate.com/id/2102723/ http://www.factcheck.org/article294.html http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/2004/06/fahrenheit-fact-no-14-legislative-sons.html http://davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.html http://www.factcheck.org/new_evidence_supports_bush_military_service_mostly.html http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/2004/06/fahrenheit-fact-no-10-unocal-gave-up.html Moore has invented newspaper headlines http://moorewatch.com/index.php/headline_news/ http://moorewatch.com/index.php/lies_damn_liesand_f9_11/ http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/bowling.htm
By the way, about that ex Vandy professor with all those damning connections to big healthcare companies, it turns out they had license to a medical software program which his company worked on in the past–i’m sure a lot of SM readers will be surprised that they’re now going to be inextricably linked to every sub prime lender shark or major investment bank by the same logic http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article.php?id=10021 .
Let’s not glorify a guy who has the right idea about some issues but in the end is a complete dolt.
Produce your proof. Every link I’ve provided, and even definitions you’ve provided support my claim of systematic, group oriented propogation of ideas. The general point here is, if someone puts out a movie, film, pamphlet, whatever, and everyone rushes out to discredit it, it doesn’t really function as any kind of propaganda anymore. But when you hear from umpteen different directions that Iraq has weapons of mass distruction (gov & mainstream media, print, talkshows, radio) and don’t really question it right away (that’s why mainstream media is called ‘mainstream’) thats what truly is propaganda.
They’re not available, on michaelmoore’s website they state they used the most recent data, if cuban projected #s for 2007 were available they’d use them. Either way the difference is so staggering, Gupta’s harping on it show’s hes got no where else to go.
Sicko never hides from Cuba’s ranking, it was CNN that used their logo to cover it up.
I’ve read all the criticisms, 90% of them are nitpicking, dodging the real issue, or have a problem with Moore’s editing/opinion. Most critics have ties to right wing thinktanks or corporations and have vested interests in discrediting Moore. Every objective statement in each of Moore’s films are true, his opinions are just that. Opinion.
Lemme get this straight. It’s a copout to suggest that people living in any kind of society will understand that calling something “free” doesn’t mean they’ll pay for it in another way? Because so many things in our world are free correct? Yeah, I can see that. Every morning I wake up and have to turn down all the free sh*t people give me, from money to cars to stereo systems. It’s a real hassle, I wish people would start charging for stuff again.
I watched it twice to find something to be offended about, but had to read the comments here to figure out what his offense was. Funny pronunciation of Gupta? Are you kidding me? That’s what we’re being offended by now?
Try this. Write down Moore’s name on a piece of paper and ask a native brown person to pronounce it. I bet it’ll come out worse than Michael’s version of Gupta.
When I read the post, I thought it was some sort of cheap shot at trying to get Moore to respond/apologize or pay attention to SM or something. Nothing offensive in the whole segment that was aired. We’d be better off discussing the real issues he brought up, which some SM-ers have.
For ce:
“Let’s not glorify a guy who has the right idea about some issues but in the end is a complete dolt.”
Can’t believe I spent so much time reading a post by an idiot like you. In the end, the “idiot” you don’t think we should applaud just might do a lot more for the proletariat in the US than you typing away at a mind-numbing rate on SM. I’ll take the latter idiot. Thank you very much.
There is no dearth of armchair philosophers in this world. Few have any execution at all.
Beyond the whole right-left whoever is an idiot deal, my argument is the following:
1) The system is not efficient as it stands. Patients, doctors, and nurses (the primary customer and dispenser of medical services) are not happy. This means change is inevitable.
2) A top down universal health care model (Canada, France, Britain, etc) that is championed by folks like Moore is not a realistic model for the United States where the population is far larger and more diverse.
3) Federal government, if anywhere in the healthcare loop, should be involved in places like the FDA and preventative medicine (Vaccinations, diet standards in schools, etc).
4) Any type of government sponspored health plan if decided upon, should be at the State level at most. It’s a federal structure and trying to make everyone happy on results in a FUBAR system with none. Our federal structure allows states and lower forms of government to make their own laws, rules, regulations. It should stay there if people decide to do so building agreement at more socially sustainable levels (kinda like public schools. Yes, they have their issues, too).
5) As this country grows larger by the day, people need to rely more on a federal approach rather than bringing ANY social model that requires concnsus at a federal level.
Michael Moore is an egostical idiot just like all the other talking heads accross the political spectrum. It’s always their agenda and vision, which is quite ok with me. But that doesn’t mean it’s completely right or as simple as people project it to be.
HMF, maybe you make a Moore-like movie on propaganda and enter it for next season’s On The Lot?
Please tell me the logic behind this. Unless there’s a large segment of the population underpaying for taxes. China has socialized medicine, (they have socialized everything else too, and I’m not suggesting that for the US) and their population is 3 times the size of the US.
Secondly, how does diversity play into it? Not that it’s extremely different in the first place:
Demography of England: Ethnicity White British: 86.99% White Other: 2.66% British Asian: 4.79% Black British: 2.31% Mixed: 1.31% White Irish: 1.27% British Chinese: 0.45% Other: 0.44%
Demography of United States:
White American, 74.7%, or about 215.3 million (the definition of White includes European Americans, Middle Eastern Americans (e.g. Arab Americans, Iranian Americans), Central Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans who reported as White in the 2000 Census) Black American 12.1% or 34.9 million Asian American 4.3% or 12.5 million, American Indian 0.8% or 2.4 million Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0.1% or 0.4 million Some other race 6% or 17.3 million Two or more races 1.9% or 5.6 million
He’s full of himself, there’s no denying that. But when he provides point by point backup, where as Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh are repeatedly caught time after time making egregious factual errors, you simply cannot make a sweeping statement to say they are all the same.
Moore seems to be guilty of the very same social/economic inequities he skewers in his “documentaries”
Yet his web site is hosted by:
Nice.
Only if I can include a rectal exam scene.
Just because China has socialized medicine doesn’t mean is it at a level or care you’d want in the United States. This goes into the whole quality vs quantity arugment. Where do you draw the line? For different populations, it stands at a different location. Hence let it play out through the federal structure.
Replacing one form of inefficient model for the other (insurance company hoops to government hoops) simply won’t work. Great Britain has backlogs for medical care and so, as I’ve read in news reports, do other nationalized systems. Great Britain, while percentage wise does break down fairly similar to our demographics is less populated that the USA, and to be honest, their National Health Services has several issues.
Socialized [insert the system here – government, care, education] works through solid agreement of participating members. Scandinavian countries where diversity is less, popluation is educated and smaller, can work with such a system. This is why villages and townships in the USA (divided along whatever lines) are more likely to have a community that agrees on something together, vs states or people agreeing with folks in Texas with something. Larger numbers and more diverse opinion set (based upon factors such as socio-economics, culture, race, political viewpoint, religion, etc).
You’ve got a narrow viewpoint of diversity it’s not only racial, but socio economic, rural-urban, political, etc. etc. as noted above. Essentially, the United States is a difficult to place to build ‘one’ vision beyond the fundamental principles that govern us.
I can make that statement, but it depends what we’re talking about. Sure, MM is a documentary film maker, therefore whatever he does is colored through that lens. Rush is a radio talk show host, Bill is a cable TV host, Ann is a female incarnate of skeletor and a book author/op ed person. They ALL do what is necessary to ensure they’re positioned a top their respective mediums and preach to their choir.
The all make my head hurt, because frankly there simply isn’t enough quality or depth in their analysis for their respective mediums (television, film, op eds, radio, whatever). Above all, they’re hypocrites.
I can make that statement, but it depends what we’re talking about. Sure, MM is a documentary film maker, therefore whatever he does is colored through that lens. Rush is a radio talk show host, Bill is a cable TV host, Ann is a female incarnate of skeletor and a book author/op ed person. They ALL do what is necessary to ensure they’re positioned a top their respective mediums and preach to their choir.
The all make my head hurt, because frankly there simply isn’t enough quality or depth in their analysis for their respective mediums (television, film, op eds, radio, whatever). Above all, they’re hypocrites.
Wait…
There is a difference of 10% between GB and the USA. Add to that the classification of several people as white, who really aren’t, means the USA IS more diverse and significantly so. Plus, what about the growing Spanish speaking populations?
Bottom line: Socialist models break down with diversity COUPLED WITH larger numbers (covering the ground what my previous post said). While UK has gone to the nationalized health plan, overall the movement has been away from the suffocating socialist policies that afflicts places like France. India is a good example of why a socialist system for the country at large was detrimental post-independence (not medicine, but overall). Certain states have heavier communist influences and that is ok, it’s a federal structure.
Oh sure, a friend of mine worked for Greg Palast, Greg had much scorn for Michael Moore for taking much of his research regarding the Florida Voting anomalies, LIke I said Michael is full of himself, but to say he’s the left’s “Ann coulter” is proposterous. Yes, I know you can make that statement, but you’d be wrong in doing so.
Sure I acquiesce the difference, but don’t see how that plays into bringing about a downfall of universal health care.
And yet not a single person in any one of these industrialized nations that does health care correctly would ever dream of switching to a fully privatized, for-profit system. A system that requires corporate redtape to be hurdled before a medically sound decision can be acted upon. So spare me the tired “waiting time” and “higher taxes” excuse.
I didn’t say he’s the left wing Ann Coulter now, did I? I implied each are annoying in their own ways. In other words, they push their personalities over everything. I don’t give a shit of how/less accurate these personalities are with that. It’s about them, first and foremost. I’d rather read a dry as hell boring study, with real information, than something ‘entertaining’.
Not a single person? Are you sure? Also, where did I say that the current model is doing it’s job effectively – it isn’t. But try all you want to establish a government sponsored unversal health care plan in the image of Europe or Canada. Trying to build consensus (or even set up a model here) that is anything close to that will result in pure shit sandwich of a system. Why do people want EVERYONE to follow a plan from top down. I don’t see why California can do soemthing of that nature, while Texas and Illinois can do their own. Each area has a unique set of requirements.
Yea, while taxes may not be a big issue to you, they are to me and millions of other Americans. If it were that easy, successive American administrations would have already ratched it up to European levels. I DON’T want more taxes, I DON’T want to wait in line for surgery for years, I DON’T want to jump through government hoops aka public infrastructure Red Tape as a replacement to insurance bullshit, I DON’T want reduced quality in health care, I DO want enough incentive in the system to where doctors can make money for their skills. I’m not a doctor nor rich by the way.
I didn’t say downfall. Just said you’d be replacing one inefficient system for the other. You’re trading problems, not necessarily creating a solution. I’m using economics and the theory behind why socalism works/doesn’t work here. In an effort to create something people will be happy with, trying to get EVERYONE in a nation of 300 million and growing more diverse by the day, to get on the bandwagon AND HAVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MANAGE IT TO THE QUALITY WE WANT, just won’t work. Seriously, which large federal government agecency is even ‘efficient’.
So ‘spare me’ the flippant attitude. If you don’t think higher taxes and waiting for care aren’t issues for Americans, so be it. If you think putting money into a government managed system (Social Security, Medicare, etc) is going to a sustainable solution, so be it. Maybe it’s a libratarian in me talking, but I don’t want to pay for someone on the other side of the country, especially via an inefficent bureaucratic government.
I’d rather have the federal government focus on preventative medicine, which pretty much everyone can agree on, and do a better job at it. Vaccines (yes, anti vaccine people exist, but they’re a insignificant minority) and resources for acute problems (SARS, Bird Flu) etc are more important to me. Epidemics can break societies. Funding for research to protect the larger population from any acute disease is top priority to me.
Socialism on a large scale is inefficient as any top down large scale operation. California is about the same population as Canada. If Californians want a system, why make people in Texas or say Michigan pay for it. States and people within them have the ability to make those decisions themselves. Let each state compete with each other. No need for all 300 million to be lumped under one system and the feds manage it. Seriously, if they can get slow/cumbersome immigration straightened out FIRST, I’d even entertain more challenging problems.
You’re glossing over the fact that MM provides substantive backups where as none of the other (right wing) talking heads do, and use “giving you a headache” as the criteria for comparison. My 3 year old cousin and stock footage of Nazi germany death camps give me a headache, but by no means are they the same thing.
Watch Sicko. The doctors are fed up with this system more so than anyone else, because their incentives for higher pay are not their skills, rather their ability to deny care to patients. With gov’t sponsored care (a la HR 676) the doctor would be able to practice medicine and spend less time haranguing with an insurance company over copay and more time saving lives (and in the Indian context, upping their stock on the Indian Marriage market ticker)
But then at least everyone would be covered, and no one would really be any worse off. We already pay the highest per capita towards health care, simply to line the pockets of the insurance company. I wouldn’t be completely against a state based system, if every state was on board. That is, say I live in NJ, but for some reason spend some time in Georgia or Texas and get hurt there, my NJ state insurance should be applicable.
Show me a statement, article, or press release by any group, or foreign organisation that calls for a complete removal of their govt sponsored health care for a private, profit based one, using the miniscule wait times and super efficiency of the American system as an example. You won’t find it.
Yet you pay for their postal service, you pay for their national park upkeep, among other things.
Another link, detailing CNN & Gupta’s shortcomings.
But compared to documentaries, I’d rather take a multi part PBS episode, less sensationalistic, far far more comprehensive, and actually interesting. Like I said, it’s irrelevant. Whether he provides more or less back material isn’t the case – it’s still loaded vs. a more well thought, detailed documentary.
That is an assumption. It may be a push or slightly better for certain locations, or worse. Insurance companies should be reigned in, but not necessarily replaced by the government. Increased oversight and certain rules/regulations would need changes, including ridiculous lawsuits and a better tracking system of good/bad doctors.
Sicko isn’t a conclusive study, is it? So, you’re telling me a cardiologist or oncologist makes less than a general practitioner? Or within groups of similarly skilled doctors, one will make more if they deny care? Can doctors here give any further information on how true this is, system wide?
Nice, why do you keep twisting words? Plus, there isn’t anything wrong with profit or private. It’s how we th people set the playing field within which they operate. I also find it interesting that you move from claiming ‘not a single person’ to ‘press release by any group, foreign organization, statement, or article’. Things go in cycles. Once a government system breaks down, people ask for privatization. When that breaks down, people ask for the government.
Thanks. I know that. We also pay for the military, immigration, college loans, etc, etc. etc. I didn’t say that there isn’t a place for government to manage the nation. But you see, postal services, national parks, college loans, and infrastructure are issues that are pretty basic and are relatively more simple. They are not of the same complexity a national health care system would be.
Why people have a hard on for creating a national model, instead of letting one develop, with stronger consensus locally, is beyond me. If a model is being created, it should be small, then scale it up to it’s most efficient point.
Here is some more food for thought. Why should I pay for some fat ass that didn’t exercise, check his/her nutrition, eat right, whatever and then suffer from heart disease? Or a host of other individual decisions which affect individuals themselves, yet the cost would be borne by society? Smoking, alcohol, drugs, etc.Would they be kicked out of the program for making society pay for shitty personal choices?