Michael Moore is, well, not my favorite person.
BUT I WAS STUNNED TO READ THIS ACCOUNT OF HOW HE GOES ABOUT HIS FILMMAKING.
Michael & Us
“The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes,” the non-profit group, which studies health care issues, said in a statement.
Canada rates second worst out of the six overall. Germany scored highest, followed by Britain, Australia and New Zealand.
“The United States is not getting value for the money that is spent on health care,” Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis said in a telephone interview.
The group has consistently found that the United States, the only one of the six nations that does not provide universal health care, scores more poorly than the others on many measures of health care.
Link:
Report: U.S. health care expensive, inefficient: America ranks last among six countries on key measures, group finds
I’m shocked, shocked! to learn that a cheap propagandist’s career is predicated on a lie.
Interesting… but not all that surprising. I don’t much care for the guy to begin with.
I live in Flint, Michigan… and I have to let everybody know that Michael Moore is NOT a native of Flint. He came from Davison (a suburb of Flint). In fact, a little while ago, Davison voted on whether to put up a sign that says “Davison: Home of Michael Moore.” I think it was voted down; anyway, they have a sign that says “Davison: City of Flags,” on which one letter is often spray-painted over. (Which letter, you ask? Think about it.)
Repeat: Michael Moore is NOT from Flint.
This article reminds me of another documentarian (of sorts) who played fast & loose with the truth & famously said: “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.”
Hearst was very much like Moore. One afternoon’s walk around his “castle” shows where his heart really was. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to make the same statement about Moore. I find it sad that his schtick is at the expense of the “little guy”.
There’s another Hearst quote that, with a slight editorial change on my part, is quite apt in Moore’s case: “Truth is the first casualty of my liberalism.”
What? A leftwinger propagandist LYING?
This NEVER happens! 🙂
*tongue so firm in cheek, it almost breaks through*
I saw this funny image of a picture of Michael Moore next to a picture of Goebbles, and underneath it says “What’s the difference? ”
I’d like to know the difference. Besides the #1 answer of “150 pounds” 🙂
Propagandists are liars. The propaganda they spew, should be exposed to the light of truth and the propagandists humiliated.
I’m not surprised at all. When I moved to Flint, Michigan from S. FLorida everyone told me I needed to see “Roger and Me”, so I did. It was amusing, but as I became familiar with actual history and facts I realized that the movie was an unabashed hatchet-job. Same thing with “Bowling for Columbine”, except that as a long time student of Second Amendment issues I knew the facts in advance.
Moore’s a cheap hack and a hypocrite of the first order.
My mother taught me, as we discussed earlier, that if you can’t say something nice don’t say anything at all. So, here is my comment on Michael Moore:
War, Lies, and Videotape
A Viewer’s Guide to Fahrenheit 9/11 and Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11, by Dave Kopel.
I’m not going to demonize the guy. His methods are about as bad as the typical nonsense you see from Internet posters, both conservative and liberal. He’s just got a bigger audience is all.
Besides, he actually HAS done at least one useful thing. There was a guy denied a new pancreas by his HMO. This man was going to die and have his kids never have their daddy around again. Moore did one of his stunts and had the guy measured for his coffin at their front door, and was announcing to bypassers about how the company was going to let this man die for profit. Eventually to shut them up, they paid for the pancreas, and the kids have a father.
Was Michael “manipulative” to do this? Sure. Did it save a man’s life to actually call the immoral behavior of the company to attention? Yes it did. I think here this was a service.
Shame he feels the need to make up stuff when he doesn’t get results like this though.
“Did it save a man’s life to actually call the immoral behavior of the company to attention? Yes it did.”
Was the company’s behavior immoral? Do we have enough facts to conclude this? It seems to me that the HMO contract is relevant here. Was the sought after operation covered or not? Heck if I know, but somehow I have a hunch that this “technicality” does not matter to Moore.
Of course, no doubt that Moore would say that the HMO had a moral obligation to fund the operation even if it had no contractual one. Well, if so, then that obligation is no different from saying that Moore has a moral obligation to fund the operation even if he had no contractual one.
Now, don’t get me wrong. If the HMO was flouting its contractual obligations then they deserve the derision launched by Moore. But because when it comes to Moore I’m sure that “deserve has nothing to do with it,” Moore will remain unforgiven in my book.
Frankly, the technicality doesn’t matter to me either. People pay good money for health insurance from their jobs assuming that if they get sick the health insurance will pay to help them get better. It may be legal to say “I’m sorry, but you cost too much for us to profit from permitting this operation, you must now die and leave your family alone”, but it sure as heck isn’t moral.
Moore and I didn’t take this man’s money with the implicit promise of helping with medical procedures and use advertizing that makes you believe that you are helped. I personally find that repulsive if you’re really saying that the fine print should allow a man to die who can be saved.
If we as Catholics start putting what’s fiscally good for companies above the good of people, I shudder to think what athiests will justify.
Oh spare me your self-righteous nonsense, Jarnor23. Insurance companies negotiate with employers to cover some stuff but not everything. Employees know this, even if they choose to not make it their business to know the details. These companies take money, yes, but in exchange for limited coverage — not unlimited coverage. Unlimited coverage is available but costs a lot more — and few choose to pay for it. And why should anyone pay for it if you can just embarrass the insurer into coverage you didn’t pay for by unfairly vilifying it?
If in fact the insurer misled the employee or was trying to avoid covering something that was in fact covered, then its behavior was immoral or illegal, or both. And indeed that might be the case. Sadly, we can’t count on Moore to give us the facts necessary for such discernment.
Finally, you might keep in mind that without the opportunity for profit, there would be no insurance to begin with.
Speaking of medical insurance, did anybody take a gandar on the following news story?
Nope, didn’t see it. But given that the CF is on record as supporting a single payer (read “nationalized”) health care system, I would have been surprised if their conclusions came out differently. That said, it seems pretty unassailable that our system is expensive and inefficient. There are lots of reasons and lots of proposed remedies, and it may be that nationalization would be an improvement. Drawing conclusions from CF’s report is perilous without a lot of study though.
A related thought experiment: Insurer offers circa 1975 health care for inflation adjusted 1975 prices. Would there be many takers? I don’t think so, even though 1975 health care in the US was pretty doggone good by worldwide and historic standards. The US health care industry provides the most sophisticated health care in the world, but arguably our technological advantages are paid for, in part, by indulging weak fundamentals. It has been argued that the health care in Canada is technologically years behind that of the US, but their system’s ability to provide basic care to all people yields superior overall results.
The questions presented in this arena are knotty in the extreme. Some people are more receptive to making health care and entitlement than others. One’s view of justice and charity in these matters can drive policy concerns. Finally, socialism is normally notoriously inefficient in delivering goods and services, which begs the question as to why does it seem more efficient in this case. Most health care economists agree that inefficiency is baked into the nature of a fourth party insurance system where employees work for employers so that employers can pay insurers to pay the employees’ health care costs — from basic check-ups, to colds, to heart transplants. No economist would recommend such a system. From a market standpoint insurance should be implicated only for major or catastrophic events, but the fact that this is not the case leads to enormous abuse that is kept in check by an enormous set of rules that is in turn policed by an emormously expensive bureaucracy. If Americans really want close to 100% insurance coverage from cradle to grave, then private insurance may not be the way to go. Hard to say.
Esau: Talk to people who’ve experienced both U.S. health care and British (or other socialized) health care, and you’ll find that, with few exceptions, ours is superior BECAUSE of the more limited government involvement.
It’s the reason why people diagnosed with glaucoma can wait so long for treatment that they end up blind.
I always grimace when I hear someone talk about the UK or Canada’s “Free Healthcare”…
It isn’t free. Taxation is heavy and it is definately passed on to the consumer.
As it stands right now, I can’t imagine that I would pay less in taxes then I do in healtchare premiums.
Self righteous? Caring about the health and welfare of fellow humans is self-righteous? If so, I’d rather be that than a ghoul like you making a profit off of the suffering.
Abusing other’s health for profit isn’t humane, it’s not even human. I can’t even believe it’s a for profit business in this country. Absolutly disgusting.
Jared, when those who are poor just get to go blind, which is what a purely capitalist system would guarantee, it’s hardly any better.
The only reason America’s system isn’t totally screwing the poor is government assistance. I hardly think getting rid of that’s a good idea.
I also think discounting that report above that shows Germany’s system is better than ours is fair either. “It disagrees with my pure capitalist dog-eat-dog view, so it must be wrong.”
Before people start operating on a “Guilt by Association” scheme and start attacking me for posting the report above (or, at least, a link to it along with a cited excerpt), thinking that I actually advocate Jarnor23’s view; let first say that (like Jared on another thread) I just wanted to discuss the issue from both sides of the table without the uncharitable hostilities.
(Jared, now I know how you felt on the other thread! Whew!)
The reason our health care system is so expensive is that, as American consumers, we have trained ourselves to expect the best of everything, all the time, at a moment’s notice.
When a 2-minute doctor visit is billed as an “extended consultation”, that’s not the “best of everything”. It’s fraud.
Jarnor23,
Since you have made it clear that the insurance company’s moral responsibility in this case is not dependent on any contractual responsibility, perhaps you can share with us precisely how its moral responsibility to pay for the operation was any different from Moore’s, or yours. Indeed, Jarnor23, why don’t you step up? It’s not to late, the insurance company would be happy to accept a contribution.
Agreed, Ellen. People sin. I have a strong suspicion that lots of employees shop and surf on the Internet when they should be working. It’s fraud you know.
My mom’s from Davison, as it happens. It’s a very small town outside of Flint. I wouldn’t count it duplicity for someone to say “Flint is my hometown” if they were from Davison; the suburbs of a city, particular a city with such a huge economic influence over its suburbs, are easily blended into the identity of the city. My mom doesn’t say, “I’m from Davison.” She says, “I’m from Davison, a small town outside of Flint, Michigan.”
I’m not a fan of Moore’s tactics of embarassment and promoting wild, inaccurate conclusions from small, symbolic elements. But this red herring of “not being from Flint, as he claims” is just the same kind of inaccuracy and is ridiculous. It’s not as though he’s from Peoria and claiming to be from Flint. In a way, he’s from Flint.
More than willing to pay higher taxes if it means nobody is denied a pancreas anymore. In fact I’ll continue to advocate such actions to the legal system. If I had any money, I’d probably look at donating some to a charitable cause to help as well.
I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is. Are you, or do you subscribe to a Calvinist kind of view that those who cannot afford it are unworthy of help?
Jarnor23: The American people are among the most charitable (if not THE most charitable) in the world.
Interesting thing about charity though: as government takes more and more money in taxes (and then uses it in a FAR more inefficient manner than private charity ever does), people have less and less money to give to charity. So, all of the taxes that you seem to love merely go to fuel a bureaucracy and then eventually leak into their supposed goals of helping people. Worse still, as government takes money from people in order to fund its increasingly large bureaucracy, those on the receiving end of this forced charity begin to think of it as “free,” don’t “shop around” (for those procedures which could be shopped for), demand frivolous “treatments” (like anti-biotics for viruses and many other similar issues), and all-around both lower the quality AND raise the prices SIMILTANEOUSLY.
And, oh look, ruined health care. Oh wait, you can’t look, ’cause you lost your eyesight due to your untreated glaucoma.
Seriously, Jarnor … you really need to examine the outcomes.
Jarnor23,
Good news! There are literally thousands of hospital oriented charities to choose from! In fact, I serve on the Community Leadership board of Atlanta’s St. Joseph Hospital Mercy Care subsidiary, which is the hospital’s charitable arm. Just email me if you’d like to send a check. Easy to do!
And do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of “Who Really Cares,” and read it.