OCCOM BILL endorses Michael Moores new movie (Sicko).

McGentrix wrote:

HokieBird wrote:
blatham wrote:
Your link to the utube site notes who posted the film there. That's the chappie at healthpolitics.

Look again. It's not the chappie at healthpolitics.

He is looking at a link in the side panel which goes to a different movie with the same name. Rather unusual for Blatham to be so careless.

Which means he didn't bother to watch the video I posted before he decided to erroneously link it to someone he 'thinks' has an 'agenda'.

0 Replies

That little film clip definitely has a political agenda. Any idiot can see that.

0 Replies

Sorry, folks. I apologize for that. It was careless.

Browning's operation is clearly ideology and agenda-driven. There are ties into the townhall operation and much else within the modern conservative movement. That's fair enough as the same can be said, so far as it goes, of Moore as well. Of course, from my perspective, it is a rather welcome fact that pretty much nobody has heard of Browning and crowd while Moore's work is consistently popular and seen by many millions of americans (and others).

But bill notes the fundamental moral question posed by Moore's film. What sort of community has the US allowed itself to become? Here, on this site, we will witness regularly-attending christians justify, excuse and rationalize torture and euphemize mass killings of innocent civilians including children and women (corollary damage) and shrug off the facts of child mortality around them.

It is really quite upside down. The only real charity isn't that of aiding lepers, but rather of having the lepers acknowledge that they got that way through their own imprudent devices and bad decisions...to help them is to incentivize failure and irresponsibility. If your neighbor is starving, that's his fault. Your responsibility towards that neighbor is merely to ensure your kids aren't influenced by his kids and to ensure he doesn't negatively influence your property values and to, if you really have compassion, to ignore him so that he pulls up his socks.

0 Replies

HokieBird wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
HokieBird wrote:
blatham wrote:
Your link to the utube site notes who posted the film there. That's the chappie at healthpolitics.

Look again. It's not the chappie at healthpolitics.

He is looking at a link in the side panel which goes to a different movie with the same name. Rather unusual for Blatham to be so careless.

Which means he didn't bother to watch the video I posted before he decided to erroneously link it to someone he 'thinks' has an 'agenda'.

Actually, as someone in this room was still sleeping, I watched several minutes of it but with no sound. Still, your criticism is fair enough.

I'll make you a deal. I'll watch it all, with sound, if you promise you'll go watch Moore's film Sicko. You on?

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Hmmmm. I'm not so sure that there isn't an agenda behind this film. I followed the links:

Posted by freemakretcure

Went to freemarketcure and found:

Quote:
Web site funded by a generous grant from the Moving Picture Institute (www.thempi.org)

So I went to thempi.org and I would guess by looking at the projects they have given grants to that there is most certainly an agenda despite all their talk about freedom and liberty.

Coincidentally, both the Moving Picture Institute and the Human Rights Foundation were founded in 2005 by film producer Thor Halvorssen.

The HRF is dedicated to "spreading liberty throughout the Americas", the MPI is dedicated to "promoting the principles of American liberty". Ideologically, these guys are saying that only capitalism can provide liberty. Here a bit from Halvorssen's Human Rights Foundation:

Quote:

Human Rights Groups Accused of Undermining Capitalism

Traditional human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are pursuing an ideology opposed to free market capitalism and undermining the changes necessary to spread liberty around the world.

link

Interesting, eh?

0 Replies

Quote:

Interesting, eh?

Quite interesting!

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

A couple of colleagues have been to see it. The consistent feedback is that while you can definitely spot the bias, you can also see the truths contained in the film.

(is there such a thing as a movie without a bias/angle/perspective?)

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

HokieBird wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
HokieBird wrote:
blatham wrote:
Your link to the utube site notes who posted the film there. That's the chappie at healthpolitics.

Look again. It's not the chappie at healthpolitics.

He is looking at a link in the side panel which goes to a different movie with the same name. Rather unusual for Blatham to be so careless.

Which means he didn't bother to watch the video I posted before he decided to erroneously link it to someone he 'thinks' has an 'agenda'.

Actually, as someone in this room was still sleeping, I watched several minutes of it but with no sound. Still, your criticism is fair enough.

I'll make you a deal. I'll watch it all, with sound, if you promise you'll go watch Moore's film Sicko. You on?

Not necessary. I'm sure you'll be more careful in the future. Right?

0 Replies

I was thinking about the statistics given in that movie. I don't remember them exactly but it was the statistics about x% of the uninsured earn more than $75,000 per year.

What the film doesn't say is how many people in that group were turned down for insurance.

We recently changed had to change insurance companies and we were turned down by a major company because our son has mild asthma. We earn more than $75,000 a year but that didn't matter.

0 Replies

Michael Tanner from the Cato Institute wrote:

And Moore overlooks the flaws of national health care systems. He downplays waiting lists in Canada, suggesting they are no more than inconveniences. He interviews apparently healthy Canadians who claim they have no problem getting care. Somehow, he couldn't find any of the nearly 800,000 Canadians who are not so lucky.

Yes, studies have shown that the Canadian health care system is only barely better than the American - albeit for half the price:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_img/MirrorMirror_FigureES1.gif

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Green Witch- Before I went on Medicare (which sucks, big time) I had to pay my own individual health insurance. It cost me $10,000 a year for 5 years. So you may say that I could afford it. Maybe so, but that meant that I could not afford something else with the money that I paid for the insurance.

I put a high priority on health insurance, maybe because my past experience with medical bills have made me aware of how important being insured is. I would rather do without some luxury, than leave myself open to medical bills that I can't pay.

Hmmm which "luxury" should I eliminate - basic food (I grow 1/3 of my own), heating fuel oil or business liability insurance? My husband and I togther spend less than $500 a year on clothing, we almost never eat out or go on vacation. We lived on $35,000 last year and $6,500 went to property and school tax. Another chunk went to auto insurance (we have two trucks for our business and young men who drive them), another chunk went into solar panels to replace our 1940's hot water system (we did the installation work ourselves). We don't do luxury. Some days giving it up and going to work for Target looks good.

I have a health savings plan and pay my doctor in cash and trade, but I rarely go for even the most basic care. I know hospitals can't turn me down, but I also know everyone with insurance is paying for the uninsured with high rates (that's why asprin costs $8 in a hospital if you have insurance). Ironically, I am better off not to have insurance with our system because the hospital will just charge bigger rates to those with insurance and send me home with a $10 a month payment plan.

I don't believe in "the free lunch" system, but that is what our system currently ends up giving. I would rather pay my share into a national plan that covers everyone fairly. Sure the rich will have more options, but I would rather have basic options than what I currently deal with.

0 Replies

It would have been helpful if Mr. Tanner could have provided a few references to back up his opinion piece.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

It would have been helpful if Mr. Tanner could have provided a few references to back up his opinion piece.

He doesn't need to. He's with the Cato Institute.

0 Replies

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

It would have been helpful if Mr. Tanner could have provided a few references to back up his opinion piece.

old europe wrote:

He doesn't need to. He's with the Cato Institute.

ehBeth wrote:

<snicker>

Sadly for this libertarian, you're right. The Cato Institute's "research" on welfare is depressing.

No comment on Moore's film yet; it hasn't started in Germany. Indeed, given its subject, I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being played in much fewer German cinemas. But I'm sure small repertory cinemas who would play it because it's Michael Moore, and because of the "hehee, look at these dumb Americans" factor. So I'm sure I'll get a view at some point.

0 Replies

Green Witch wrote:

I know hospitals can't turn me down, but I also know everyone with insurance is paying for the uninsured with high rates (that's why asprin costs $8 in a hospital if you have insurance). Ironically, I am better off not to have insurance with our system because the hospital will just charge bigger rates to those with insurance and send me home with a $10 a month payment plan.

I know it's conventional wisdom that people with insurance are footing the bill for those without, but I'm not at all sure that it's true. For starters, if you don't have insurance then you are billed the full price, not the insurance negotiated price (sometimes about half). The price you pay includes the overhead cost of employees to handle insurance claims, which is a job in itself, but a service you won't be using. It's my opinion that insurance, in our system, actually drives up the cost of health care -- by adding overhead and skimming off the top.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

No comment on Moore's film yet; it hasn't started in Germany. Indeed, given its subject, I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being played in much fewer German cinemas.

Starts here on October 11 ... in a handfull of cinemas, I could imagine.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Hokie Bird- Great clip. It simply states what I have known all along. IMO, most people have money for what they want, and if beer and cigarettes are a priority over health insurance, it is the health insurance that is not bought.

See the film, darlin. I recently took an opposing position with Nimh on the subject myself, but I was wrong. Leaving someone without Medical care because they made/make stupid decisions solves nothing. Does believing someone made a foolish choice really make you feel any better about the poor bastard's predicament? Infant mortality rate is worse in the U.S. than the rest of the West... that should pretty much sell it alone.

New OCCOM position. F*ck the Insurance companies. It's single payer time. People who make stupid decisions still occasionally need Police, Fire Department, School... and Health Care. Who the f*ck are we (as a people) that we'd rationalize some sorry son of a bitch suffering unnecessarily for lack of Medicine?

Want breakthroughs? Buy them. Put a bounty on that which needs solving: Cure something; get paid X (5?) years worth of what the Gov would have spent battling it... total. F*ck another multi-million dollar maintenance drug. How about a billion dollar cure instead? If your drug saves money over his; great. If your drug solves the problem; even better... and more profitable. Drug money is chump-change compared to the overall medical costs associated with most ailments (I'm guessing; but set the bounty where the cure is the more profitable choice.)

See this film... and recommend it to your friends.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL endorses Michael Moores new movie (Sicko).

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know

OCCOM BILL endorses Michael Moores new movie (Sicko).

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know

OCCOM BILL endorses Michael Moores new movie (Sicko).