Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Community Forums
 General Discussion
 Sicko
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 13

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 07/02/2007 :  05:19:19  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Go see it. Act on it. Michael Moore has even stated that he doesn't care if you download it.

I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/02/2007 :  05:33:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Gorgo

Go see it. Act on it. Michael Moore has even stated that he doesn't care if you download it.



I saw his first movie Roger and Me before he was famous. I have seen none of his other films. He presented outright lies and amazing distortions of reality. He is nothing more than a man getting rich from selling silly lies to "believers", nothing different from evangelist preachers.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 07/02/2007 :  06:04:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I wasn't sure if I was going to go see it, but Jeromes assessment convinced me it must be worth seeing.


If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9675 Posts

Posted - 07/02/2007 :  07:50:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by furshur

I wasn't sure if I was going to go see it, but Jeromes assessment convinced me it must be worth seeing.

Me too.

Jerome hasen't provided a single thread of evidence that what he is saying about Michael Moore is true. So I will disregard his words as merely the rants of a delusional boy.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13462 Posts

Posted - 07/02/2007 :  08:08:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Jerome:
He presented outright lies and amazing distortions of reality.

Of course, all documentaries have a point of view. The interesting thing about Jerome's accusation here is that it has been leveled against every Michael Moore movie, that is, until Sicko came along. (Even Fox news gave it a good review.) Thing is, Moore has consistently asked what lies he has told or facts that he made up, and no one seems to be able to deliver on those. There are absolutely manipulations on his part to make his point, but again, he does his research. So far no one has made those accusations about Sicko.

Showing that our health care system is broken is not really something that we don't know. But we rarely get to see how it happened and follow the money right to those who would keep it that way. There is a conspiracy here that would probably make Jeromes day if he actually watched how the whole healthcare thing works.

Of course, it's the obvious solution to the problem that will make Jeromes head explode.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Gorgo
SFN Die Hard

USA
5310 Posts

Posted - 07/02/2007 :  08:21:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Gorgo a Private Message  Reply with Quote
He is nothing more than a man getting rich from selling silly lies to "believers", nothing different from evangelist preachers.


I think in the past he's been sloppy, and disorganized, and I think some of his points are not well made, and sometimes he's just downright rude for no apparent reason. I don't think he lies, and some of his supposed distortions are usually, maybe not always, but usually, well explained on his web site.

I think what this movie does very well is show that the people of the U.S. are stupid for not taking advantage of their democracy. It is quite different from his other movies in that while it might be a little disorganized, he does not get in people's faces, and his point is easy to understand.

I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter



Go to Top of Page

Robb
SFN Regular

USA
1223 Posts

Posted - 07/03/2007 :  07:26:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Robb a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Consider this review:

http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/

"President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off."

"The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings—not exactly an original point—the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many."

"So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them."



Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13462 Posts

Posted - 07/03/2007 :  07:37:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well Robb, I also have to consider the source. Christopher Hitchens was and is still for the war. That was hardly an unbiased review.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Robb
SFN Regular

USA
1223 Posts

Posted - 07/03/2007 :  09:40:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Robb a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

Well Robb, I also have to consider the source. Christopher Hitchens was and is still for the war. That was hardly an unbiased review.
Why do you feel it had bias?

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13462 Posts

Posted - 07/03/2007 :  16:00:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Robb

Originally posted by Kil

Well Robb, I also have to consider the source. Christopher Hitchens was and is still for the war. That was hardly an unbiased review.
Why do you feel it had bias?
Hitchen's does spin, for the war, on Fox. Do you really think he could deliver an unbiased review of a film that he doesn't agree with to a point that he actively spins against what the film advocates? Give me a break.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 07/03/2007 :  18:59:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I've let this percolate a while. I wanted to be completely fair to Moore's film.

I will admit I have not seen it in its entirety. But here are the major flaws it has.

1) It presents the abuses detailed as commonplace or the norm instead of the exception.

2) Their criticism of First Health does not contain salient facts concerning the case. Specifically, that the denial came from the employer. First Health was just providing worker's comp coverage for the employer. Moore fails to mention it so as to mislead the public.

3) Moore holds up Cuba's health program when he is comparing the worst US care to the healthcare for the elite of Cuba.

Moore's work is highly suspect and misleading on these and other counts.

US healthcare is definately screwed up, but not to the extent Moore would have us think. Neither is his proposed solution for socialized medicine a valid alternative. US healthcare is spurred on by innovation and damaged by abuses both insurance wise and legal. A more fitting solution would be to reform healthcare and cap non-economic damages to a reasonable level. Quite a bit of the cost problem is due to the price of malpractice insurance. Add to that record storage costs as well as other overhead (such as the price of doing business with Medicare and other bad debt classed insurances), and the cost passed to the consumer becomes quite large.


Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/03/2007 :  19:43:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

I've let this percolate a while. I wanted to be completely fair to Moore's film.

I will admit I have not seen it in its entirety. But here are the major flaws it has.

1) It presents the abuses detailed as commonplace or the norm instead of the exception.

2) Their criticism of First Health does not contain salient facts concerning the case. Specifically, that the denial came from the employer. First Health was just providing worker's comp coverage for the employer. Moore fails to mention it so as to mislead the public.

3) Moore holds up Cuba's health program when he is comparing the worst US care to the healthcare for the elite of Cuba.

Moore's work is highly suspect and misleading on these and other counts.

US healthcare is definately screwed up, but not to the extent Moore would have us think. Neither is his proposed solution for socialized medicine a valid alternative. US healthcare is spurred on by innovation and damaged by abuses both insurance wise and legal. A more fitting solution would be to reform healthcare and cap non-economic damages to a reasonable level. Quite a bit of the cost problem is due to the price of malpractice insurance. Add to that record storage costs as well as other overhead (such as the price of doing business with Medicare and other bad debt classed insurances), and the cost passed to the consumer becomes quite large.





This critic reminds me of my thoughts watching Roger and me.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 07/03/2007 :  20:27:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I have not seen the movie. I have noticed in Moore's other movies, particularly "Fahrenheit 911," that he is quite willing to leave distorted impressions, and to use propagandistic methods. I have no problem with the idea that American health care is inadequate for the poor. In fact, I feel this is an international disgrace. But I just don't trust Moore to tell it like it is. Moore's heart may be in the right place, but he simply lies too much to make his points.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/03/2007 :  20:47:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

I have not seen the movie. I have noticed in Moore's other movies, particularly "Fahrenheit 911," that he is quite willing to leave distorted impressions, and to use propagandistic methods. I have no problem with the idea that American health care is inadequate for the poor. In fact, I feel this is an international disgrace. But I just don't trust Moore to tell it like it is. Moore's heart may be in the right place, but he simply lies too much to make his points.




His heart is in the pockets of the impressionable. Much in the same way as Ann Coulter. Both cut from the same cloth. Only a little emotion and lack of thought can move people in a direction that prior to the introduction of emotion no one would have predicted.




What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13462 Posts

Posted - 07/03/2007 :  21:15:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Val:
1) It presents the abuses detailed as commonplace or the norm instead of the exception.


Well, actually Val I personally know of three cases, two involving my father and one involving Michelle that made the movie ring true. Both were denied by their HMO's and subsequently had to fight for common procedures. In two of those cases, it was life threatening. The HMO stalled so long in Michelle's case that she had have emergency surgery to remove her gallbladder. In the weeks leading up to that, her doctor kept asking the HMO for permission to do the surgery and the HMO kept stalling. That is until she became violently ill.

What he portrayed in that movie about HMO's, and what I know about them is pretty much the same thing…

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/03/2007 :  21:24:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

Val:
1) It presents the abuses detailed as commonplace or the norm instead of the exception.


Well, actually Val I personally know of three cases, two involving my father and one involving Michelle that made the movie ring true. Both were denied by their HMO's and subsequently had to fight for common procedures. In two of those cases, it was life threatening. The HMO stalled so long in Michelle's case that she had have emergency surgery to remove her gallbladder. In the weeks leading up to that, her doctor kept asking the HMO for permission to do the surgery and the HMO kept stalling. That is until she became violently ill.

What he portrayed in that movie about HMO's, and what I know about them is pretty much the same thing…



HMOs are a creature of government involvement. They were not popular until government interceded. Why would you want more government involvement with health care based on the poor record of the HMO?


In 1970, the number of HMOs declined to less than 40. Paul Ellwood, often called the "father" of the HMO, began having discussions with what is today the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that led to the enactment of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. This act had three main provisions:

* Grants and loans were provided to plan, start, or expand an HMO
* Certain state-imposed restrictions on HMOs were removed if the HMOs were federally certified
* Employers with 25 or more employees were required to offer federally certified HMO options alongside indemnity upon request

This last provision, called the dual choice provision, was the most important, as it gave HMOs access to the critical employer-based market that had often been blocked in the past. The federal government was slow to issue regulations and certify plans until 1977, when HMOs began to grow rapidly


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


edit:punctuation

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Edited by - JEROME DA GNOME on 07/03/2007 21:26:02
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 13 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.53 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000