# SiCKO



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I was treated to a viewing of SiCKO today.

This is Michael Moore's best film yet.

And Hilary Clinton, for sure, will not be a fan. 

M


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

I have also seen this movie, and highly recommend it - it offers a very good comparison and contrast of the Canadian, American, French and British public health services.

I agree with Mark - best Moore film yet.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Aside from the politics, is it a theatre movie or a rental? I used to watch many movies in theatres but have become more choosey.

Since Awful Truth, I have found Moore's work worthwhile entertainment with some useful questions, but am concerned about shrillness. I can, and do, most of my own research so it is not a question of information, but presentation to me.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

It's a theater film, opening June 29th. A DVD release will almost certainly follow.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

on moore's site is a clip from the special screening of his film for the 900 invited health care lobbyists, of which only 11 showed up


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

John Clay said:


> It's a theater film, opening June 29th. A DVD release will almost certainly follow.


I meant in terms of entertainment value for money (and time). Worth seeing in the theatre, or just wait for the rental?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I meant in terms of entertainment value for money (and time). Worth seeing in the theatre, or just wait for the rental?


You can't bring beer in the cinema in Canada...


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> You can't bring beer in the cinema in Canada...


No no, you're not ALLOWED to, you can if you don't get caught.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Beej said:


> I meant in terms of entertainment value for money (and time). Worth seeing in the theatre, or just wait for the rental?


Ah. My opinion in this regard is that it's a rental - the only movies that I would spend money to see in theaters would be action movies, where the big screen and big sound make a big difference... not much use in a documentary.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

John Clay said:


> Ah. My opinion in this regard is that it's a rental - the only movies that I would spend money to see in theaters would be action movies, where the big screen and big sound make a big difference... not much use in a documentary.


Thanks.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

:yawn: Yet another biased piece by the fat guy. :yawn: 

If guns kill people, spoons make Michael Moore fat.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I saw it on Google video last week and I have to agree with SINC - yes, it is biased. I happen to agree with the bias in this film, but it's not supposed to be the evening news, although somehow seems far less biased than something like Fox news for instance. SINC just might agree with the bias too, like the Conservative Party of Canada member Moore interviews in the film, if he were to see it.

Moore simply asks why the richest nation on Earth can't figure out how provide decent health care for its middle class and poor citizens, something that just about every other first world nation, and even some third world nations, seem to have done fairly well.

I also have to agree with CubaMark, Clinton won't like the film, because Moore points out quite well how she fumbled the ball on health insurance in the '90s and now lines her campaign coffers with health industry money.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> :yawn: Yet another biased piece by the fat guy. :yawn:


OK, so what's the "balance," then, SINC? How do you balance a former Executive admitting to the U.S. Congress that she purposefully denied life-saving treatment due to loopholes? How do you balance the fact that insurance companies employ investigators to dig into clients' pasts to find something - anything - that will let them deny claims? How do you balance the woman whose cancer surgery was denied because she once had a yeast infection?

Moore uses theatrics, like the Cuba trip, to boost awareness of the film - he's a master in that regard. But he does get people talking about how ridiculous it is that the USA won't properly care for its own citizens, while there's oodles of cash available for bullets and bombs.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

CubaMark said:


> OK, so what's the "balance," then, SINC? How do you balance a former Executive admitting to the U.S. Congress that she purposefully denied life-saving treatment due to loopholes? How do you balance the fact that insurance companies employ investigators to dig into clients' pasts to find something - anything - that will let them deny claims? How do you balance the woman whose cancer surgery was denied because she once had a yeast infection?
> 
> Moore uses theatrics, like the Cuba trip, to boost awareness of the film - he's a master in that regard. But he does get people talking about how ridiculous it is that the USA won't properly care for its own citizens, while there's oodles of cash available for bullets and bombs.


CubaMark, "theatrics" are only allowed for the "good guys"
see "evil doers", "shock 'n' awe" "Mission Accomplished !" etc.

the health care lobby in the U.S. has done a great job of linking socialized medicine to communism, however Moore does a great job of pointing out that nobody expects to pay-per-use for police or fire dept. services

Caller; Hello? 911, I have a fire in my house.

911: Mr. Smith, we see by your fire insurance carrier that you are a smoker and we'll have to get approval to send out the fire dept. from them as this is considered to be a pre-existing condition.

Call you carrier and have them fax an approval to use and we'd be glad to send over the fire dept.

Caller: But it's 3 am on Saturday.

911: Request denied. [click]


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I saw it on Google video last week and I have to agree with SINC - yes, it is biased. I happen to agree with the bias in this film, but it's not supposed to be the evening news, although somehow seems far less biased than something like Fox news for instance. SINC just might agree with the bias too, like the Conservative Party of Canada member Moore interviews in the film, if he were to see it.
> 
> Moore simply asks why the richest nation on Earth can't figure out how provide decent health care for its middle class and poor citizens, something that just about every other first world nation, and even some third world nations, seem to have done fairly well.
> 
> I also have to agree with CubaMark, Clinton won't like the film, because Moore points out quite well how she fumbled the ball on health insurance in the '90s and now lines her campaign coffers with health industry money.



Yes, an excellent question with a very scary answer.
Profits before people.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't think anyone is too worried about these Moore films. The people who love them and feel like activisits while watching them will high-five each other on the way out of the theatre. Others will simply ignore the fat man. Remember how Moore "swung" the election for John Kerry with his last doc? That was so sweet.


----------



## overkill (May 15, 2005)

I enjoyed the film and found the "cashier" part in the Bristish hospital very humoring. I don't know if I would call it his best work but I agree that it is one of his better documentaries.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> :yawn: Yet another biased piece by the fat guy. :yawn:
> 
> If guns kill people, spoons make Michael Moore fat.


Care to elaborate on that?
Or do you just like name calling?
I get the feeling that the crux of your argument is "MM is fat" - that's very 1st grade of you...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

OMG, did I make an error? Is he skinny?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC, we asked you a question....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah yes, balance? 

MM doesn't have balance in his so-called documentaries.

It is all one side.

His.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Ah yes, balance?
> 
> MM doesn't have balance in his so-called documentaries.
> 
> ...


hmmm, one MM film about the state of health care, or lack thereof, in Amerika vs. millions of lobbying dollars by the health care lobby for, oh how many years now?


----------



## spicyapple (Aug 17, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> I get the feeling that the crux of your argument is "MM is fat" - that's very 1st grade of you...


Agreed. I don't understand how a person's weight should have anything to do with the subject of his documentaries.

I saw Sicko and it was very eye-opening. Hopefully this film will stir Americans from their complacency and stir up real change.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

spicyapple said:


> Agreed. I don't understand how a person's weight should have anything to do with the subject of his documentaries.
> 
> I saw Sicko and it was very eye-opening. Hopefully this film will stir Americans from their complacency and stir up real change.


it's an old neo con trick
if you can't attack the message, then attack the messenger

see: John Kerry and swift boats


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The argument seems to be about balance through opposing and overt bias, as per standard U.S. TV "debate" shows versus, say, less bias, regardless of the "side" you are on. People will have their ideological bias and approach but need not rely so much on twisting and spinning.

So, I'm not as into that whole shrill Limbaugh/Franken stuff as some whereby balance is seen as an almost literal balancing scale, not of arguments and analysis, but simply of volume (and weight?). 

I consider that approach to balanced debate, as with MM, entertainment with some central argument that may be worth thinking about. If your thinking simply involves the entertainment part then, well, good luck with that.

I do agree that MM's weight has nothing to do with this. He is a filmmaker, and writer, and is good at provocatively putting together his side.

MS: You seem to insist on labeling your own approach as neocon when you think you see others using it. Do you simply resent others when they use something that you believe to be yours and yours alone?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> SINC, we asked you a question....


Of course SINC can't answer - like everything else with him, he's mired in his religious beliefs... Too much to ask an old fool to start thinking (apart from calling others fat).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Of course SINC can't answer - like everything else with him, he's mired in his religious beliefs... Too much to ask an old fool to start thinking (apart from calling others fat).


Beats being a young fool, AS.

Moore is fat. That is a fact. You got a problem with that?


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

I usually find MM's movies very entertaining. I haven't seen this one - but I'm looking forward to it!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

My view of MM's work is if it is entertaining and the jokes are at the expense of Power Elite well so much the better. I watch Penn and Teller(sp?) BS for the same reasons. Do I believe everything proposed by these bits of entertainment? No.

If MM's bias is in his film, well it's his film. What did you expect?

If you rely on MM for the facts then watch the O'Riely Factor for some more facts. You will do OK in your own little world.

If MM can cause people to investigate, debate the merits of a health care system for the entire population of his country well good on him.

If MM,s looks offend and I suspect his views are really more offensive to some. Don't look! 

You cannot go to the movie, don't rent the DVD, and don't watch Entertainment Tonight when he's going to be discussed. Watch O'Riely for your take on what's wrong with MM.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Moore is fat. That is a fact. You got a problem with that?


And you still can't defend one of your mewling claims or arguments...

Not surprising that you subscribe to many fallacies.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"If MM can cause people to investigate, debate the merits of a health care system for the entire population of his country well good on him.

If MM,s looks offend and I suspect his views are really more offensive to some. Don't look!"

Words of wisdom, BigDL. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> And you still can't defend one of your mewling claims or arguments...
> 
> Not surprising that you subscribe to many fallacies.


That is where you are very wrong. I _can_ defend anything I wish.

As for fallacies, checked _your_ mirror lately?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

SINC said:


> :yawn: Yet another biased piece by the fat guy. :yawn:
> 
> If guns kill people, spoons make Michael Moore fat.


Have you seen it?

Unsurprisingly, the posters in this thread who have actually seen the film recommend it.

Those who haven't seen it, are unlikely to see it, and consistently deride things they haven't seen, are reduced to namecalling.

I've seen it, it's fairly innocuous, occasionally entertaining, and highly recommended.

I hope I'm not giving anything away, but there is little chance people with health problems would knowing move to the United States, where they would be indigent in no time if they weren't independently wealthy to begin with.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Have you seen it?


Nope. And won't. 

I saw his first effort and decided his type of pseudo documentaries were too self serving to bother viewing another.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"... there is little chance people with health problems would knowing move to the United States, where they would be indigent in no time if they weren't independently wealthy to begin with." HowEver, very true. I have various health problems, and, as a US and a Canadian citizen, I could move back to the US. However, I fear that the medical costs if ever I, or my wife or son, got very sick, would bankrupt us. So, we might move from St.John's to somewhere else in NL, or another province, but we shall stay in Canada.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

SINC said:


> Nope. And won't.
> 
> I saw his first effort and decided his type of pseudo documentaries were too self serving to bother viewing another.


If you haven't seen it, this an especially vacant statement about the latest film:



SINC said:


> :yawn: Yet another biased piece by the fat guy.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> Nope. And won't.


In that case, kindly return to reading _National Review_ and avoid making uninformed statements. Once you've seen it, then we'll talk.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

CubaMark said:


> In that case, kindly return to reading _National Review_ and avoid making uninformed statements. Once you've seen it, then we'll talk.


no need to see it
michael moore is fat

more than reason enough to not see the film
after all you're talking to a guy who lives in a province that elected and re-elected Ralph Klein (a known boozer) time and time again
and a province that hasn't voted in a non PC gov't for almost as long as the Leafs haven't won the Stanley Cup


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> If you haven't seen it, this an especially vacant statement about the latest film:


What's vacant about it?

He IS fat and he hasn't changed his confrontational style from the reviews I have read.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> In that case, kindly return to reading _National Review_ and avoid making uninformed statements. Once you've seen it, then we'll talk.


For the record, I have no desire to talk about MM other than to reaffirm my conclusion he has a one sided confrontational style.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

SINC said:


> What's vacant about it?
> 
> He IS fat and he hasn't changed his confrontational style from the reviews I have read.


I said the statement about the _film_ is vacant. It's uninformed.

The statement about Moore himself is worse.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

There is no argument that can justify the state of the US health care/health insurance industry to anyone who has a shred of humanity left in them. Maybe SINC would rather side with those who would attempt to justify what they call health care down there. Moore is biased in this film, yes, and he also happens to be right — fat or not. I fully agree with his bias in this case.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

I couldn't help but post this cartoon after reading this thread.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Nice cartoon - touché!


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

SINC said:


> What's vacant about it?
> 
> He IS fat and he hasn't changed his confrontational style from the reviews I have read.


I don't know what reviews you have read but from what I remember of the film, that I have actually seen, he does not confront anyone.

He never attempts to take on politicians or lobbyists.....he just talks to the people who receive or don't receive the health care they deserve and the consequences of a system that puts money before the health of it's patients.

As a Brit I was a bit embarrassed at the way the NHS is portrayed because it is nothing like the way MM showed it....yes, doctors are paid handsomely these days because of a new system that was brought in by Labour that even they admitted over compensates doctors and is crippling the health care system. They also failed to mention that France is by all standards a bankrupt nation because of it's cronic social programs which is only now being sorted out by a new political face who is promising changes.

All in all though I thought it raised awareness amongst Americans that there is an alternative to their current system. I very much doubt this would be the catalyst for any change though as there is far too much money to go up against.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

either you believe that health care is a basic right or you don't

if you do, you'll find a way to pay for it
if you don't, you'll spend the money on wars

it's just that easy


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Loafer said:


> As a Brit I was a bit embarrassed at the way the NHS is portrayed because it is nothing like the way MM showed it....


I haven't yet seen this film, but this statement comes as no surprise.

Moore's track record comes down to this: he plays fast and loose with the facts in order to expose larger truths.

Many who agree with his leanings don't seem to have a problem with this.

Those who tend to disagree have a field day. By exposing gross distortions in the details, they can easily call into question the larger truth of the matter.

I tend to agree with MM's leanings, but I deplore that he just can't seem to resist grandstanding and making stuff up along the way.

I hope he's taken a new tack and Sicko will withstand the usual scrutiny, but I'm not at all optimistic.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

iMatt said:


> Moore's track record comes down to this: he plays fast and loose with the facts in order to expose larger truths.


I don't think that presenting false information and distorting facts serves to expose larger truths. I think it only serves to add anger to the debate.

I think the purpose of Moore being fast loose with the facts is to create controversy (i.e. free advertising). That's why his documentaries do so well in comparison to the alternatives.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There is no argument that can justify the state of the US health care/health insurance industry to anyone who has a shred of humanity left in them.


The state of U.S. Health Insurance is largely the result of government meddling and sweetheart deals with the insurance industry. 

Socialized health care will eventually eat up most of the government budget of any country involved in it, or that country will merely fail to meet the health care needs of its people. I hear British citizens are getting very good at performing dental extractions themselves, since dental care is now virtually impossible to access on the government plan.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I don't think that presenting false information and distorting facts serves to expose larger truths.


Someone should explain that to the current US Administration... probably wouldn't hurt to explain that to the "New" Government of Canada.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> T
> Socialized health care will eventually eat up most of the government budget of any country involved in it.


Does that spending choice work any better than spending on say "defense"? Put it in context...

World Military Spending - Global Issues


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The state of U.S. Health Insurance is largely the result of government meddling and sweetheart deals with the insurance industry.
> 
> Socialized health care will eventually eat up most of the government budget of any country involved in it, or that country will merely fail to meet the health care needs of its people. I hear British citizens are getting very good at performing dental extractions themselves, since dental care is now virtually impossible to access on the government plan.


Brits.....dental care......hahahahaha

and I'm British!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The state of U.S. Health Insurance is largely the result of government meddling and sweetheart deals with the insurance industry.


These "sweetheart deals" you speak of, are they normally considered, by most reasonable individuals, as Naked Greed?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Someone should explain that to the current US Administration... probably wouldn't hurt to explain that to the "New" Government of Canada.


That argument seems to come down to: they're dishonest, so let us be dishonest too. This quite helpfully creates a circle whereby each side openly and, sometimes, proudly adopts the lowest tactics of the other side. Circles do have a certain natural beauty to them, I guess.

"There is no argument that can justify the state of the US health care/health insurance industry to anyone who has a shred of humanity left in them."

Gross overstatement of a normally defensible policy. As is often the case, we agree on what should be done, but the irrelevant moralising does not add to the case. See the above regarding circles. Care to explore on dehumanising one's "enemy"?

Moore's movies are good, in my opinion, but must be seen as movies. Some movies get you thinking but, if you stop with the movie and charge ahead, or use it as powerful confirmation of an existing position, then perhaps you can be taught history by Hollywood instead of becoming interested in it from an interesting period piece. The history you are taught may not be terribly accurate and my only enforce one "moral" pronouncement of events but, heck, Hollywood's product is often memorable.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I don't think that presenting false information and distorting facts serves to expose larger truths. I think it only serves to add anger to the debate.


I certainly agree it adds anger to the debate, and it certainly saps strength from those larger truths, but I don't think it means you can't have small lies alongside larger truths.

Take a famous example: "Roger & Me" gets a lot of its laughs and drama by telling the story of how Moore, try as he might, just can't get an interview with that dastardly GM CEO. That whole narrative helps structure his argument about industrial decline and its causes and consequences.

Now that we know Moore actually landed a long interview with the man but chose to stick with his "inaccessible Roger" story instead, is the film's entire broader argument invalidated? 

I don't think so, but the lie leaves a gaping hole for critics to exploit so they can easily shove aside the real message. That's my problem with Moore. 

For the moment, I'll reserve judgment on whether he's pulled comparable stunts with "Sicko."


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Michael Moore says he did not interview Smith for "Roger & Me"

More unresearched posts about movies the posters haven't seen making arguments without merit with no actual references to things that happened in those films... are not helpful.



iMatt said:


> I certainly agree it adds anger to the debate, and it certainly saps strength from those larger truths, but I don't think it means you can't have small lies alongside larger truths.
> 
> Take a famous example: "Roger & Me" gets a lot of its laughs and drama by telling the story of how Moore, try as he might, just can't get an interview with that dastardly GM CEO. That whole narrative helps structure his argument about industrial decline and its causes and consequences.
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> More unresearched posts about movies the posters haven't seen making arguments without merit with no actual references to things that happened in those films... are not helpful.


And pointing it out somehow is?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sinc: However has standards. If the politics or message are disliked, the standard treatment is a source-vilification, if not then we must all fully immerse ourselves in the material lest our comments be vacant. All you need to do is check your political stance with However, and that will tell you whether you need to know the new material or not before you criticise it. Sometimes, sources can be criticised based on previous work, other times not. 

I still consider the fat thing irrelevant, but it is surprising how GA and myself can call it biased while you get the pile on from ehmac's elite hypocrites.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I think at this juncture it would be helpful to remember that elite hypocrits do have their standards.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Finally, somebody 'gets' me! ... 

It's not a great film, but it's worth watching.

It's especially worth watching if you want to comment on it. If that's "elite hypocrisy" then we need more "elite hypocrisy."

I've re-read your posts in this thread, which seem reasonable, except the one I'm quoting here, which is unsupported, and the last part, which is confused.




Beej said:


> Sinc: However has standards. If the politics or message are disliked, the standard treatment is a source-vilification, if not then we must all fully immerse ourselves in the material lest our comments be vacant. All you need to do is check your political stance with However, and that will tell you whether you need to know the new material or not before you criticise it. Sometimes, sources can be criticised based on previous work, other times not.
> 
> I still consider the fat thing irrelevant, but it is surprising how GA and myself can call it biased while you get the pile on from ehmac's elite hypocrites.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> I've re-read your posts in this thread, which seem reasonable, except the one I'm quoting here, which is unsupported, and the last part, which is confused.


Yes, they seem reasonable except where they concern you. Not surprising. It is unreasonable to critique your commentary, I guess. That is consistent with my post.

Nice attempt to try and redirect the, "elite hypocrisy" term. :clap: 

The claim of confusion is weaker, but it still fits with your post. It implies a certain simpleness but that works. 

It may have worked better to claim that the "pile on" was due solely to the irrelevant fat comment or that GA and myself attached some "reasonable" commentary surrounding our claims of bias.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> This is Michael Moore's best film yet.


Better than Canadian Bacon?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Thanks so much for your assistance.

It fits very well with this thread. The difference though is that the other weak posts are from people who haven't seen the film but claim to know what is in it nonetheless.

You clearly have read this thread, but have nothing specific to write about it anyways.

The weakest posts, though, are the namecalling ones. Calling people fat, or elitist, or whatever, even if you could support calling names (and why bother? just call names and see what sticks--you should be a journalist) is still just namecalling.

If you want to "critique...commentary," try a little harder than just calling it something. Better yet, go watch the movie. That should add a little gravitas to what you write.




Beej said:


> Yes, they seem reasonable except where they concern you. Not surprising. It is unreasonable to critique your commentary, I guess. That is consistent with my post.
> 
> Nice attempt to try and redirect the, "elite hypocrisy" term. :clap:
> 
> ...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Thanks so much for your assistance.
> 
> It fits very well with this thread. The difference though is that the other weak posts are from people who haven't seen the film but claim to know what is in it nonetheless.
> 
> ...


Have you fulfilled your need to justify your hypocrisy? I hope you have. If it agrees with your politics, thou shalt not smear-by-source. If it does not, thou shalt. That's your approach and yer durned well stickin' to it. Good for you. 

You try to re-direct to general name-calling (elitist, but not vacant...) or reinforcing the hypocrisy with: "Better yet, go watch the movie. That should add a little gravitas to what you write." 

Too bad. You seem to take exception when people dare critique your posts, yet you are so free with criticism of others. Of course, that is consistent with what I said previously.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

No, you're missing the point.

It doesn't qualify as "critique" if you just join in the namecalling. It's just more namecalling.

Now go watch the movie. Or don't.



Beej said:


> Have you fulfilled your need to justify your hypocrisy? I hope you have. If it agrees with your politics, thou shalt not smear-by-source. If it does not, thou shalt. That's your approach and yer durned well stickin' to it. Good for you.
> 
> You try to re-direct to general name-calling (elitist, but not vacant...) or reinforcing the hypocrisy with: "Better yet, go watch the movie. That should add a little gravitas to what you write."
> 
> Too bad. You seem to take exception when people dare critique your posts, yet you are so free with criticism of others. Of course, that is consistent with what I said previously.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> No, you're missing the point.
> 
> It doesn't qualify as "critique" if you just join in the namecalling. It's just more namecalling.
> 
> Now go watch the movie. Or don't.


Name calling? Well, if it's accurate I guess your best defence is to try that. I've seen you do better but perhaps this is still part of the simple act. Hilton claimed the same thing, I think. 

So if I called your arguments hypocritical that wouldn't be name calling, just as the "vacant" label is not. 

Right However. Sorry but your defence is weak and seems to rely on, "Now go watch the movie", which is inconsistent with your prior smear-by-source approach. Thus the hypocrisy. So, if you would prefer, I can just characterise your posts as hypocritical, but not label you as a hypocrite. Happy?

Note: Please notify me if you're going to continue taking the "Hilton" approach of claiming intentional simplicity or not. I do not deserve that favour, but think that it would help speed this along.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Michael Moore says he did not interview Smith for "Roger & Me"
> 
> More unresearched posts about movies the posters haven't seen making arguments without merit with no actual references to things that happened in those films... are not helpful.


Nice link. First line: "Michael Moore says *he has not seen* "Manufacturing Dissent,'' a film that accuses him of dishonesty in the making of his politically charged documentaries." O, the irony.

In any case, whether the "Roger & Me" allegation is true is beside the point. I'd actually be very glad if it's false. Even so, Moore has a well-documented history of embellishing. The question is whether doing so undermines his broader arguments. I believe it does, but without invalidating them completely.

As for "Sicko", I have said I do not know whether Moore uses the same tactics once again. Nowhere have I said he actually does. In fact, I've twice gone out of my way (and this is a third time) to say I'm reserving judgment. Mind you, another poster's statement that MM badly misrepresents the NHS is what moved me to comment in the first place, so yes, it's true that I *expect* Moore to embellish in any new film.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> The weakest posts, though, are the namecalling ones. Calling people fat, or elitist, or whatever, even if you could support calling names (and why bother? just call names and see what sticks--you should be a journalist) is still just namecalling.


Sigh, here we go again.

Let me try it this way for you.

Observation: Michael Moore is fat.

Stating same: An observation of a known fact.

Get over it.

It is NOT name calling. Find another bandwagon.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Sigh, here we go again.
> 
> Let me try it this way for you.
> 
> ...


Observation: SINC is extremely obtuse, xenophobic and easy to scoff at.

Get over it, it's the truth.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Sigh, here we go again.
> 
> Let me try it this way for you.
> 
> ...


can't attack the message, attack the messenger

Dick Cheney is evil. It's a fact. Get over it.
George Bush is an idiot who can't pronounce "nuclear" Get over it.
Stephen Harper is fat. Get over it.
Rona Ambrose is short. Get over it.
Stockwell Day is insane. Get over it.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

This thread has entered the "goofy" stage. I'll be interested to see where it morphs to from there. Entertain me.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

The fact that the thread has become goofy shouldn't surprise anyone. Michael Moore probably delights in his ability to polarize people. I expect I'll be seeing this new one but I'm with iMatt on this - my default assumption nowadays is that Moore will embellish and manipulate situations so as to wring maximum mileage out of whatever stance he has chosen to take. That can be annoying and, indeed, insulting to his audience - as if he fears them unable to judge for themselves and therefore require no small amount of prodding - although, I would add, this doesn't take away from the timeliness of his subjects. I think he makes provocative films on provocative subjects which are deserving of broad scrutiny and conversation. 

All of which hardly means you have to like him; I don't. But I do have to accord him a bit of grudging respect. Anyone whose films can inspire pissy, anxious threads like this one must have some serious mojo.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A good overview Max. I concur with most of it. But I reserve the right to hold the same opinions without subjecting myself to his leanings and pocketbook by attending his embellished pseudo docs.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> A good overview Max. I concur with most of it. But I reserve the right to hold the same opinions without subjecting myself to his leanings and pocketbook by attending his embellished pseudo docs.


Okay fine. 
Then spare us your pontification on MM if you have not seen his work. Starting from a point of ignorance does not lead to informed utterances...


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

The Simpsons feature film will be out in July. I hear it plays fast and loose with the laws of nature. I heard it would be something other than what I like, so I'm going to write some protest posts against it instead of seeing it. I must be right, since I've seen some of their previous animation, a couple of commercials for the new work, and I once read a book.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> A good overview Max. I concur with most of it. But I reserve the right to hold the same opinions without subjecting myself to his leanings and pocketbook by attending his embellished pseudo docs.



Stephen Harper is fat and biased.
I hear he eats kittens.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Yeah... I heard that Matt Groening is fat... so I won't watch the Simpson's Movie.

This has got to rank as one of the least informative/entertaining threads on EhMac ever... and I just made it worse 

cheers


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Entertainers build a body of work and encourage certain expectations among viewers/readers/listeners.

I expect Kevin Costner to be a dull, wooden actor who's so bad I wind up laughing at all the wrong times, though I'm willing to be convinced he has an interesting, believable performance in him. But I've been burned enough times that it will take serious convincing before I'll spend a cent on his latest.

I expect Spielberg to deliver glossy, schmaltzy pap or preachy political pieces, though I'm willing to be convinced he is capable of making something that won't have me constantly rolling my eyes and/or reaching for the barf bucket.

Now, when someone comes along touting a new film by someone with Moore's track record (debatable though some of the details may be) I'm surprised anyone can be surprised when people bring up the expectations the past work has created. 

But instead of counterpoints that might make skeptics less wary of the film, we just get chided for discussing expectations. I can understand this reaction when the skeptic clearly has no intention of ever seeing the film no matter what anybody says, but we don't all fall into that category.

Is the new film honest? Are there many obviously staged set-ups? Does he paint a rosy picture of healthcare in Canada? How likely is it that someone such as myself, who tends to agree with MM in the big picture but dislikes his tactics, will find the film a refreshing change?


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

SINC said:


> :yawn: Yet another biased piece by the fat guy. :yawn:
> 
> If guns kill people, spoons make Michael Moore fat.


Sinc,

How do you think it would it feel if you were denied coverage for your heart problems because of preexisting conditions? As one who is affected by the system, I can tell you the insecurity does not feel good. You would be forced to mortgage your house and business until you are broke to pay for care - then rely on charity care once you are penniless. It is a *terrible* burden for Americans and American business. Canadians pay less for care, everybody's covered and the general population is healthier than in the US.

Here's an article that says SICKO is very careful with the facts and statistics:

CNN article

Please, don't admire our "competitive" system which is a wreck. Be grateful and proud of what you have, Canada.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MissGulch said:


> Sinc,
> 
> Please, don't admire our "competitive" system which is a wreck. Be grateful and proud of what you have, Canada.


Not to worry, I admire nothing about the US health care system, much like I admire nothing about MM. His methods involve far too much manipulation to further his own viewpoints to suit me. 

As for my care during my heart problem, I was looked after just fine and it has no bearing on the subject at hand, nor did MM have anything constructive to do with that care.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

SINC said:


> Not to worry, I admire nothing about the US health care system, much like I admire nothing about MM. His methods involve far too much manipulation to further his own viewpoints to suit me.
> 
> As for my care during my heart problem, I was looked after just fine and it has no bearing on the subject at hand, nor did MM have anything constructive to do with that care.


I am going to wait to see the movie before I pass judgment. While he is biased, and I consider his films more of an editorial than a documentary, he took on a much more sober approach to his subject, in an attempt to rally people from all political persuasions. As said in the article link I posted, it was very factually done. 

Personally, I find MM entertaining. I don't always agree with him, but he has a very witty, persuasive way of making his case. I also like reading his columns at his site.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MissGulch said:


> Sinc,
> 
> Please, don't admire our "competitive" system which is a wreck. Be grateful and proud of what you have, Canada.


Thanks for the insight and voice of reason south of the border!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> Waiting times in the U.S. are as bad as or worse than Canada. And, unlike the U.S., in Canada no one is denied needed medical care, referrals, or diagnostic tests due to cost, pre-existing conditions, or because it wasn't pre-approved. Huffington Post


It's a timely companion to Michael Moore's unprecedented airtime this week: Anybody catch the disgusting display of "journalism" à la CNN? Read all about it

This is in follow-up to Moores *excellent* eviscerating of Wolf Blitzer (view it)

(the Quicktime downloads are worth viewing)


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MissGulch said:


> I am going to wait to see the movie before I pass judgment. While he is biased, and I consider his films more of an editorial than a documentary, he took on a much more sober approach to his subject, in an attempt to rally people from all political persuasions. As said in the article link I posted, it was very factually done.
> 
> Personally, I find MM entertaining. I don't always agree with him, but he has a very witty, persuasive way of making his case. I also like reading his columns at his site.



you are already far ahead in your logic than our. in residence, journalist from Alberta aka Texas North


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I saw the CNN interview on the net yesterday and I was very impressed with MM's insistence on only airing his spot in it's entirety or not at all. And good on him for demanding CNN to explain why they weren't apologizing to the US public for completely dropping the ball on the Iraq phony war.

It would have been even better if Moore had been able to deliver that speech to a propagandist like O'Reilly rather than Blitzer, who I think was somewhat sympathetic with Moore's POV.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you are already far ahead in your logic than our. in residence, journalist from Alberta aka Texas North


One can pass judgement on past experience 'Spec. 

I've seen you do it often enough in matters concerning the Ukraine. 

You will note Miss gulch calls his films "editorials" rather than documentaries. For the unenlightened, that means "his opinion".


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## vimy (Apr 18, 2006)

I have not seen the movie but thought I would offer my opinions. 

I liked the US health care system for the six years I used it. I still like it better then what we have in Canada. 

I have seen a few of Michael's movies and have not found any of them all that useful in presenting a balanced truth to his stories.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

vimy said:


> I have not seen the movie but thought I would offer my opinions.


Why do people do this? Offer an uninformed comment about something they haven't seen as though what they have to say is somehow relevant or of equal validity to those who HAVE seen it.

Although I am sure that I can believe nothing that George W. Bush says, I won't comment until I have heard / read it, to be sure. There's always the possibility that DARPA has managed to perform an unprecedented cyborgization of the thief-in-chief, rendering him somewhat capable of logical thought.... which may explain where the defense department's multi-trillion-dollar budget increase comes into play.

So, Vimy, it would be really nice if you could see the film, then we could have an intelligent discussion that's on-topic. Unless you'd rather employ SINC's tried-and-true "He's Fat, So He's Stupid" mantra.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> One can pass judgement on past experience 'Spec.
> 
> I've seen you do it often enough in matters concerning the Ukraine.
> 
> You will note Miss gulch calls his films "editorials" rather than documentaries. For the unenlightened, that means "his opinion".


SINC, for the umpeeth time, do not use "the Ukraine"
It is the Russified, Sovietized usage and is an affront to the approximately 1.2 million Canadians of Ukrainian heritage as well as the approximately 7 - 11 million that died in the Holdomor (famine genocide)

if your usage was an attempt to anger and insult me, you have succeeded


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Yes, and the term "Amerika" is so loving. Do as you say, not as you do.


----------



## vimy (Apr 18, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Why do people do this? Offer an uninformed comment about something they haven't seen as though what they have to say is somehow relevant or of equal validity to those who HAVE seen it.


My comment had nothing to do with having or not having seen the movie. It was a comment about my life relating to the topic of the movie. So is this thread only open to those that have seen the movie? I am sorry I did not see the sign on the door.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

WADR, Vimy, the thread title is "SiCKO" - I would think it rather obvious that the topic at hand is... well, the movie, "SiCKO".

I do encourage you to see the film - it's quite a different animal than Moore's previous work, and even those fun fellows at FOX News ("We Report, You Decide" - Hah!) have praised it.

M


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Yes, and the term "Amerika" is so loving. Do as you say, not as you do.


you compare the usage of Amerika to that of "the Ukraine"?

one is to make a statement about the political situation in that country
the other is just being stupid and ignorant

after all SINC doesn't like "those people" speaking "that language" as he complained about immigrants working at the same hospital as his wife does

on top of it all, SINC lives in a province with one of the largest populations of Canadians of Ukrainian ancestry

go ahead, keep trying BJ, you may one day achieve your namesake


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"Stupid and ignorant" are indeed your specialty. Yes 'spec, do as you say, not as you do. You are quite free with condemnation but bask in the pathetic glory of your own actions. Pity. Critics are more interesting when they are not hypocrites.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> "Stupid and ignorant" are indeed your specialty. Yes 'spec, do as you say, not as you do. You are quite free with condemnation but bask in the pathetic glory of your own actions. Pity. Critics are more interesting when they are not hypocrites.


you just keep on defending bigotry and hatred
as the scorpion said to the fox; it's in your nature


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

'Spec, you have demonstrated more bigotry and hatred than most ehmacers have, but you just seem to be happy with your own product. I'm not sure why you think that your hypocrisy is so grand, but that's up to you.

For someone who has shown so much disrespect for a country's name, made posts exemplifying bigotry and trying to be "cute" when using oh-so-subtle nazi hinting by using German terminology, you seem to be awfully sensitive when even a fraction of your hatred and bigotry occurs outside of your hypocritical bounds. You are fond of using the term, "blowback". Perhaps you do not understand how it applies to your own behaviour.

And, as you chose not to note, I did not defend Sinc's crass usage of the term. Nor do I defend your bigotry and hatred. Yet you try to characterise this as my defending behaviour such as yours. Sad 'spec, even for you and the low standards I have come to expect.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

vimy said:


> I liked the US health care system for the six years I used it. I still like it better then what we have in Canada.


Yes I too just love the USA's health care system. I love the fact my ex-father in law can't afford his heart operation in Florida and I really loved the TB infested center that people without insurance get sent to if they need medical assistance in San Fransisco. The best part of the USA's medical system is the almost universal bankruptcy caused by chronic illness. The US medical system is just a way of preventing inheritance. It is absolutely unconscionable that a country with the wealth of USA continues to allow its medical system to bleed lower and middle class America's wealth to the extent it does. As am American I am deeply ashamed of this. I find it incredible that anyone would support this system. To those who do, I hope you one day will have to pay out of pocket for a heart operation.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> 'Spec, you have demonstrated more bigotry and hatred than most ehmacers have, but you just seem to be happy with your own product. I'm not sure why you think that your hypocrisy is so grand, but that's up to you.
> 
> For someone who has shown so much disrespect for a country's name, made posts exemplifying bigotry and trying to be "cute" when using oh-so-subtle nazi hinting by using German terminology, you seem to be awfully sensitive when even a fraction of your hatred and bigotry occurs outside of your hypocritical bounds. You are fond of using the term, "blowback". Perhaps you do not understand how it applies to your own behaviour.
> 
> And, as you chose not to note, I did not defend Sinc's crass usage of the term. Nor do I defend your bigotry and hatred. Yet you try to characterise this as my defending behaviour such as yours. Sad 'spec, even for you and the low standards I have come to expect.


Your comment shows your bigotry and hatred.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

martman said:


> Yes I too just love the USA's health care system. I love the fact my ex-father in law can't afford his heart operation in Florida and I really loved the TB infested center that people without insurance get sent to if they need medical assistance in San Fransisco. The best part of the USA's medical system is the almost universal bankruptcy caused by chronic illness. The US medical system is just a way of preventing inheritance. It is absolutely unconscionable that a country with the wealth of USA continues to allow its medical system to bleed lower and middle class America's wealth to the extent it does. As am American I am deeply ashamed of this. I find it incredible that anyone would support this system. To those who do, I hope you one day will have to pay out of pocket for a heart operation.


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: 

if you have lots of money you can get great health care in America
the trouble is that the majority don't have lots of money

and don't forget it's a very convenient way to get people to sign up for military "selective service" by offering health insurance as an incentive

work at a job with no health care or join the military

oh, but then there's the Reid hospital debacle

interesting how U.S. federal congressmen and senators have one of the best health care programs in the country as part of their compensation package

wanna bet HMOs underwrite these plans so that elected officials have great health care and, um, not worry too much about those that don't have great plans?

I'll take our made in Canada solution any day over the pay for it if you can afford it solution

Yes, sometimes we have lineups, but if you have the bucks, what's a flight to your local U.S. border town and get your MRI today for $1,000?

I also believe that a national health care program justifies eliminating things like cigarettes


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I'll take our made in Canada solution any day over the pay for it if you can afford it solution


The debate has matured to the point where just about everybody (except the insurance companies and probably Bush) agree that changes need to be made. Volleying back and forth is futile, because we need, and are going to have changes in the system. 

Would a system like Canada's work down here, and if not, what would? 

This is the tough part, okay. Bickering is the easy stuff, so roll up your sleeves and present practical alternatives.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MissGulch said:


> The debate has matured to the point where just about everybody (except the insurance companies and probably Bush) agree that changes need to be made. Volleying back and forth is futile, because we need, and are going to have changes in the system.
> 
> Would a system like Canada's work down here, and if not, what would?
> 
> This is the tough part, okay. Bickering is the easy stuff, so roll up your sleeves and present practical alternatives.


if a national health care program like Medicare and Medicaid were properly funded and universally spread out across the country and if HMOs were outlawed, medical care would be equal for all and the powers that be would be forced to respect and demand a good national health care system

but

as long as HMOs are allowed to fester and those with money feel that health care is a commodity to be bought and sold, the national health care system won't work

health care needs to be federally regulated as per charges and profits

a very glaring example of how market forces DON'T WORK is the parmaceutical industry in which Americans pay the highest prices for Rx drugs on the planet even though many of them are made in America

for some reason the fire, police and military are ok to be nationalized, but national health care is tantamount to communism

once politicians feel that they might start losing elections to pro national health care candidates there won't be any real discussion

the pendulum has swung too far in the private sector's direction
it's time for it to swing back


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

I saw SiCKO last night and enjoyed the film.

However, it is obvious that Moore tells a story that he wants you to see. He is a master of leaving out details in order to serve his goals.

That being said, he praised Canada as having a fully paid for health care system. He did mention that we do not pay for primary health care, but we do pay for our secondary health care (physiotherapy, dental, occupational therapy, orthopedics. the list goes on). We also do not have the freedom to choose what type of care we want to receive. For example we are forced to see our GP for everything. In the U.S, if you have a skin disorder, you go see a dermatologist, not your family doctor. He failed to mention the outdated hospitals and equipment in our smaller hospitals, or the shortage of doctors and other health care professionals.

Don't get me wrong, I am thankful for the health care we have in this country. If we were in the U.S, my son would have died, and I wouldn't be insured because of my diabetes.

I just wish Moore would paint a complete picture.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Your comment shows your bigotry and hatred.


Right, 'spec. Pointing out that you do not do as you say is so wrong. You progressed from referring to "stupid and ignorant" to, "bigotry and hatred", defend your "stupid and ignorant" terminology as a political statement and throw in a mention of Canadians of Ukrainian ancestry living in Alberta, a province that you denigrate (and have, presumably jokingly, suggested should be sold off by Canada). And to top it off with your recent theme of accusing people of "shooting the messenger", you shoot the messenger when the message points out your hypocrisy. All in all, 'spectacular examples of: Do as 'spec says, not as he does.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

In my experience, the upfront GP visit followed by referral slows things down and introduces error into the system (calls not made; appointments not set up etc.). 

I'm up to around 5 months now in a process to get me a scan, and the whole process from start to scan to review by a specialist will end up taking about 8 months, including 1 extra month because a time slot they offered was not workable for me (and the next slot was a month later). But, we have a triage system, and nothing appears urgent in my case. No big deal from what I can tell.

I can see the reasoning of the GP gatekeeper, given that people may over-diagnose simple ailments and jam up the specialists' office.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Right, 'spec. Pointing out that you do not do as you say is so wrong. You progressed from referring to "stupid and ignorant" to, "bigotry and hatred", defend your "stupid and ignorant" terminology as a political statement and throw in a mention of Canadians of Ukrainian ancestry living in Alberta, a province that you denigrate (and have, presumably jokingly, suggested should be sold off by Canada). And to top it off with your recent theme of accusing people of "shooting the messenger", you shoot the messenger when the message points out your hypocrisy. All in all, 'spectacular examples of: Do as 'spec says, not as he does.



you could take Don Cherry's place as Canada's bigot poster boy
enjoy your bigotry as your point of view is defended by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms
perhaps one day you might understand what it's like to be a victim of awful bigotry just because of your heritage

I almost pity you


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Looks like a good time to bring in this information on efforts to privatize the Canadian health care system (CouncilOfCanadians.org).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you could take Don Cherry's place as Canada's bigot poster boy
> enjoy your bigotry as your point of view is defended by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms
> perhaps one day you might understand what it's like to be a victim of awful bigotry just because of your heritage
> 
> I almost pity you


You're losing it, 'spec, not to mention making little sense. Do as 'spec says, not as he does or he will call you "Canada's bigot poster boy"? Typical smear tactics of the Republicans...oh wait, that's another example of you criticising one thing and then doing it yourself.

Basically you got caught out being a hypocrite and, instead of a quick "oops" or "so what?" you simply dig deeper by attacking. Neo-contastic!

And, by the way, I have been a victim of awful bigotry because of my heritage. Why people like you keep forwarding new forms is strange. Stranger yet is you being a loud opponent of some forms, but perfectly okay with others. Do as 'spec says, not as he does.

As a sidenote, your terminology is odd. Perhaps this goes back to that, "Russians" post whereby you have a different view of what it means to label a country versus its people. Neither here nor there though, given your hypocrisy in both cases.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> Looks like a good time to bring in this information on efforts to privatize the Canadian health care system (CouncilOfCanadians.org).


It would be a horrible thing if our healthcare systems became more like France's, or any number of other countries that have higher ranked systems. Canada has nothing to learn from the rest of the developed world.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

HowEver said:


> Did Moore note that a good percentage of Canadians have "secondary" health care via their employment?
> 
> As for the medical specialists, surely you can see them via a referral from your general practitioner. Don't you see a specialist for diabetes?


Moore did not (that I remember) make any reference to health coverage via benefits. Even if he did, benefits are largely in part paid for by the employee, so in essence they are not free and is still similar to the U.S system. Even still, what is covered is a joke and hardly worth the money you put into the plan.

As for my diabetes, I see my GP and not a specialist. I have never seen a specialist for my diabetes. I am sure you can see them via referral, but as Beej mentioned, the wait times are awful. I have to wait until November before I can go see a dermatologist. I booked the appointment in April. In my opinion, that is excessive and not a sign of an efficient health care system.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MaxPower said:


> Moore did not (that I remember) make any reference to health coverage via benefits. Even if he did, benefits are largely in part paid for by the employee, so in essence they are not free and is still similar to the U.S system. Even still, what is covered is a joke and hardly worth the money you put into the plan.
> 
> As for my diabetes, I see my GP and not a specialist. I have never seen a specialist for my diabetes. I am sure you can see them via referral, but as Beej mentioned, the wait times are awful. I have to wait until November before I can go see a dermatologist. I booked the appointment in April. In my opinion, that is excessive and not a sign of an efficient health care system.


you have appreciate that there are elements in the CMA (like the current president) that want to see full pay per use health care
that of course undermines any attempts to make the public system better


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Canada has nothing to learn from the rest of the developed world.


I assume this was Beejian Sarcasm (which, one should note is dangerous, and should any drip on you, you should immediately wash thoroughly in the safety shower and then seek medical attention).

I was quite surprised at the services provided by France and other European countries. How much of this is 'cultural' do you suppose? Is there any hope of such advanced health care on this side of the atlantic?

I especially liked the idea of medical doctors receiving bonuses for helping their patients quit smoking. If there were some way to monitize keeping people healthy, rather than treating them when they're sick, the profit-based system they have in the US might actually work.

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

bryanc said:


> I assume this was Beejian Sarcasm (which, one should note is dangerous, and should any drip on you, you should immediately wash thoroughly in the safety shower and then seek medical attention).
> 
> I was quite surprised at the services provided by France and other European countries. How much of this is 'cultural' do you suppose? Is there any hope of such advanced health care on this side of the atlantic?
> 
> ...


cigarette companies won't like that


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I was quite surprised at the services provided by France and other European countries. How much of this is 'cultural' do you suppose? Is there any hope of such advanced health care on this side of the atlantic?


To a certain extent I think European countries are protected by some cultural barriers, while somewhere like Canada must compete with the U.S. for many health care employees. Over time, those barriers would tend to go down in Europe, but right now some Euro systems are shockingly cheap and effective. Part of that would have to do with design, including the difficulties we have in a Federation, but I do not know how to parse the differences.

As for the culture with regards to accepting private enterprise (not just in health care), some of the high-tax European jurisdictions are much more open to such matters than in Canada. The approach seems more along the lines of, "make it work" than "does it fit an ideology". Not everywhere, but there are some bits here and there. 

If Canada got really serious about making the best (broad social and economic definition) system instead of being satisfied with being better than what may be the worst in the developed world (U.S.) I have no doubt that we could do it and do it well. In the past, with things like deficit reduction and CPP reform, when we get serious we can do an extremely good job.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Michael Moore makes CNN blush*



> After a much publicized tête-à-tête between Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent, and the outspoken director of "Sicko," the network released a rare statement of apology. In it they owned up to two errors made while reporting on Moore's new documentary.
> 
> "CNN confirmed that all our statistics in "Sicko" are the correct numbers from the sources we cited," Moore writes. "Although CNN still prefers to use older World Health Organization statistics, we will stick to using this year's Bush administration stats and more recent UN data. (In "Sicko," we consistently use only UN Human Development Statistics unless it's for studies they don't do or have recent numbers for."


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe.../moore_fued_cnn070719/20070719?hub=TopStories
Good on Michael Moore.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> CTV.ca | Michael Moore makes CNN blush
> Good on Michael Moore.


doesn't matter to the SINCites whether Moore is correct, just that he is fat


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> doesn't matter to the SINCites whether Moore is correct, just that he is fat


Hmmmmm, SINCites?

That almost makes "Sin Cities".

Nice, keep the ideas flowing, 'Spec. 

And oh yeah, MM is fatter than the average bear. Ask Yogi.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> And oh yeah, MM is fatter than the average bear. Ask Yogi.


And that's your repartee to this debate?
Yes MM is fat but what does this have to do with the facts he presents?
Now go on and think that you take the "high" road.

I'd like you to explain the difference between my stating that you are feculent turdmonger and MM being fat - both are truth statements...


It's rich of you to call for some civility when you engage in smears and lies when someone does not share your point of view or "dares" to point out that you are wrong. 
You think nothing of impugning others but cry when you receive the same treatment. :baby:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Have another glass of red AS.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> You think nothing of impugning others but cry when you receive the same treatment. :baby:


A 'spectacular synchronization? Are you and I, AS, warriors in that battle?

If so, we should exchange tips on technique.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> A 'spectacular synchronization? Are you and I, AS, warriors in that battle?


Similar goals, different techniques I think..


SINC, apart from inferring that I'm drinking (or are you trying to say that I'm drunk?), do you have any proof of this? 
I think that the hypocrisy that you show is amusing. So if there is some backlash at your smearing, don't be surprised by what you have fermented...


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*USA ranks 42nd in life span*

http://health.yahoo.com/news/178301

*U.S. life span shorter*
August 11, 2007 05:08:02 PM PST

Americans are living longer than ever, but not as long as people in 41 other countries.

For decades, the United States has been slipping in international rankings of life expectancy, as other countries improve health care, nutrition and lifestyles.

Countries that surpass the U.S. include Japan and most of Europe, as well as Jordan, Guam and the Cayman Islands.

*"Something's wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries,"* said Dr. Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.
...

...Murray said. "The starting point is the recognition that the U.S. does not have the best health care system. There are still an awful lot of people who think it does."

For full article, please see: http://health.yahoo.com/news/178301


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's alla numbers game. U.S. citizens are more likely to die of various conditions because they eat more than anyone on earth. A side-effect of being extraordinarily rich. Their total health care bill is higher than anyone else's on Earth for two reasons:
1) They are rich and love to consume healrth care. You could complain that the total costr of Tim Horton's was much higher than in it is in the U.S., where the brand is not as popular--therefore Canadians aree bing screwed. Or that some Third World Country is well off because its total health care costs are low.
2) U.S. hospitals engage in an an extraordinary amount of research, the cost of which is passed on to consumers.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> A side-effect of being extraordinarily rich.


Macfury, your points are as smug and misinformed, and remind me of US insurance industry talking points to avoid the changes they fear. Also, a Canadian person such as yourself receives far better care and service for less cost than the people downstairs, 47,000,000 of which are DYING FOR WHAT YOU HAVE. 

Why not come to the US and wait in an emergency room for 9 hours to get basic health care? Maybe take a job that pays $30,000 before taxes, with $1,000 deducted each month to cover your health care. 

How about buying some very basic health insurance that covers you for catastrophic illnesses (no doctor visits) and requires a $5,000 deductible before the coverage kicks in.

How about turning off your heat so you can pay for medicine?

How about pulling your own teeth because you can't afford a dentist?


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> How about pulling your own teeth because you can't afford a dentist?


Actually, there were 2 cases reported on this. one was Ton Hanks, but apparently it was part of a movie; the other , well this guy just runned out of pop corn.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Miss Gulch: U.S. health insurance has become unaffordable thanks to government meddling. If you can't sell an insurance policy that doesn't include every state-mandated service imaginable, it wouldn't cost as much.

But don't worry, you'll soon have what we have. And your income will go down exactly as much as the services cost--plus 20% government slush fee. There will be no cost savings and you'll wait longer for everything. But it will be "free."

And what the hell does pulling one's own teeth have to do with socialized medicine? I pay for my own dental care out of pocket. Or did someone tell you that's free here too?

But why single out health care? Food is more important than health care, so let's nationalize the grocery stores first. Health care can be next.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Miss Gulch: U.S. health insurance has become unaffordable thanks to government meddling. If you can't sell an insurance policy that doesn't include every state-mandated service imaginable, it wouldn't cost as much.


Macfury, the system is unaffordable because it's FOR PROFIT, and it's inefficient with a large percentage of the cash going not to care but to administrative fees. We pay more than anybody in the world for drugs we subsidize in development because of a lack of government "meddling." 

Mostly everybody in the US hates the system and wants it reformed. How come you like it? I'm guessing it's because you don't have to live with it. How much are you willing/able to pay per year for coverage on your own? Probably not enough.

Oh, and if you have a preexisting condition, you can't get coverage for that. 

This is too infuriating. I'm not going to continue arguing with you about how terrible you have it never worrying about getting sick.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't expect a rational argument from people who are frightened or unsure of economic realities.

The reason the price of healthcare in the U.S. is as high as it is: because there's a complete disconnect between the user and the commodity. If everything is purchased through employer health premiums and government approved insurance policies there's no longer any incentive to control costs.

The price of television sets and many other consumer services continues to plummet because the supplier is competing for consumer dollars. Can you imagine the price of TV sets if they were considered a government hand-out or were supplied by the employer? They would appear free, but cost much more.

The U.S. system is "for profit" only to the degree that government sanctioned and created bureaucracies are jacking up the price of health care. The realities of the government sanctioned system allows profit to be made in only this way. 60% of U.S. health care costs (I believe its projected at 65%) is already paid for by government. Has this made health care more affordable?

Single-payer systems will bring down the total health care budget in the U.S. without a doubt. It will do so by;

1) disincentivizing medical salaries
2) limiting services
3) decommissioning expensive diagnostic equipment
4) increasing wait times

There's no magic way to bring down these costs because government is paying them. That may be the system you want, but it will work in only this fashion. 

I correspond with a policy maker at one of the major provincial health care systems. He freely admits that the only way the control costs is through limiting of service and rationing of the services that are left. His constant battle with the bureaucracy is trying to create market incentive in a system that has only two control levers left: taxing and rationing.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> It's alla numbers game. U.S. citizens are more likely to die of various conditions because they eat more than anyone on earth. A side-effect of being extraordinarily rich. Their total health care bill is higher than anyone else's on Earth for two reasons:
> 1) They are rich and love to consume healrth care. You could complain that the total costr of Tim Horton's was much higher than in it is in the U.S., where the brand is not as popular--therefore Canadians aree bing screwed. Or that some Third World Country is well off because its total health care costs are low.
> 2) U.S. hospitals engage in an an extraordinary amount of research, the cost of which is passed on to consumers.


The rich eat better than the poor. Poor will eat "bad" food that are filling, hardly the "extraordinarily rich" that you site.

How do you explain all the research being done in Montreal? Further, there are so many big Pharmas here making discoveries here. I bet if you looked at the actual cost of dev of some of these drugs versus the marketing (to the public and doctors) you'd find that a large cost is there.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I don't expect a rational argument from people who are frightened or unsure of economic realities.


Cute way to start.
Should I insert a comment on a wanne be Libertarians here? 




Macfury said:


> The reason the price of healthcare in the U.S. is as high as it is: because there's a complete disconnect between the user and the commodity. If everything is purchased through employer health premiums and government approved insurance policies there's no longer any incentive to control costs.


Broad generalisation, no proof...
PS. Maybe you can also add the "Sue happy" culture that drive up insurance premiums for doctors...





Macfury said:


> The price of television sets and many other consumer services continues to plummet because the supplier is competing for consumer dollars. Can you imagine the price of TV sets if they were considered a government hand-out or were supplied by the employer? They would appear free, but cost much more.


What about the cost of a service and not a material good.
Last time I looked plumbers are still very expensive... What about your mecanic? 
How come my dentist seems to charge the same as every other dentist?
What about eye exams - why are all the prices so uniform in a "free market"?




Macfury said:


> The U.S. system is "for profit" only to the degree that government sanctioned and created bureaucracies are jacking up the price of health care. The realities of the government sanctioned system allows profit to be made in only this way. 60% of U.S. health care costs (I believe its projected at 65%) is already paid for by government. Has this made health care more affordable?


Was wondering when you'd blame to gov for "free market" failure... Nice.




Macfury said:


> Single-payer systems will bring down the total health care budget in the U.S. without a doubt. It will do so by;
> 
> 1) disincentivizing medical salaries
> 2) limiting services
> ...


Market incentive? The kind that saw cleaning jobs in the Hospitals outsourced to the free market only to realize that the job was of much poorer quality.... C difficile anyone?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: Your usual scattergun approach I see, Let's see if I can pick up the pieces for you:



> What about the cost of a service and not a material good.


Same thing.



> Last time I looked plumbers are still very expensive... What about your mecanic?


Broad range of prices and services. Not enough plumbers. High demand for plumbers. This should be simnple for you to understand.



> How come my dentist seems to charge the same as every other dentist?


Because dentists set their prices based on a provincial fee schedule. There is no competition because government assures provincial dental associations the entire right to regulate the profession, including number of dentists entering the field.



> What about eye exams - why are all the prices so uniform in a "free market"?


Because the province covers the price of eye exams to a certain maximum. Therefore the providers of this service charge the maximum.



> Market incentive? The kind that saw cleaning jobs in the Hospitals outsourced to the free market only to realize that the job was of much poorer quality.... C difficile anyone?


You must be thinking of something very specific--but the world exists outside your backyard. They must have hired a bad company and fired them. The free market in action.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

:yawn:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Not enough plumbers. High demand for plumbers. This should be simnple for you to understand.


 sic

So if your vaunted free market can't even keep plumbing costs down....that should indeed be "simnple for you to understand"

It ends with this


> National Health Care Spending
> 
> * In 2005, health care spending in the United States reached $2 trillion, and was projected to reach $2.9 trillion in 2009 (2). Health care spending is projected to reach $4 trillion by 2015 (2).
> * Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense (4).
> ...


What is simple is Canadians and other societies want no truck with free market for essential services......the free market demonstrably can't even keep plumbing or housing costs down.

Free markets indeed do well for businesses like mind in relation to value for money for discretionary spending.

Mixed economies provide a balance. Our balance is pretty good right now with the exception we allow predatory housing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: The laws of supply and demand work in all cases. The government can work as effectively at bringing down plumbing prices by limiting the number of plumbing services offered, reducing the number of plumbing fixtures offered and instituting longer wait times for plumbing service.

There is no economic difference between essential services and discretionary services except to the degree that we demand them. 

Food is essential as well, yet the free market does very nicely in providing a wide variety of foods at competitive prices.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Food is essential as well, yet the free market does very nicely in providing a wide variety of foods at competitive prices.


Well.. no.
Try again.

Problems with both the US and the Canadian model.
Free market? How much subsidies do U.S. farmers get?

Odd how the solution to everything seems to be the "Free Market", except of course when it does not work - then you blame the gov...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Well.. no.
> Try again.
> 
> Problems with both the US and the Canadian model.
> ...


It certainly is a problem that they receive subsidies for certain products, but "food" spans such a huge cornucopia of goods that essentially the best that government subsidies can do is to skew the prices on some items and not on others. It certainly isn't comparable in reach or scale to socialized health care.

In agriculture, though, the laws of supply and demand kick in just the same, but increase demand for falsely priced items.

In a few cases--Ontario milk for example--lobby groups have successfully limited the production of an array of dairy products so that Ontarians pay far more than they would on an open market. Milk costs roughly CA$2.50 a litre in Ontario, but in neighbouring New York State where agricultural conditions are almost identical I can buy it for US$1.25. I can buy Canadian maple syrup at a better price in the U.S. than I can buy it here. Such marketing boards only exist with the blessing of government--without them they have no power.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mixing up Dairy Boards and subsidies now... and saying "look it's cheaper there"... :yawn:


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MasterBlaster said:


> What other system in the world has its national medical system based on free enterprise?


No nation has it based on free enterprise. All nations are in a health care "crisis" precisely because they rely on socialized health care. The U.S. health care system has stopped responding to market forces due to government meddling. It can join the other nations in crisis because their socialized systems are failing to meet demand and face insolvency--instead of being in crisis because of government meddling with insurance, etc.

On a brighter note, Canada's system is heading directly for a two-tier model which is a step in the right direction.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> On a brighter note, Canada's system is heading directly for a two-tier model which is a step in the right direction.


Yes, the Quebec model is showing that private enterprise can rape the public sector for the benefit of a few....


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> On a brighter note, Canada's system is heading directly for a two-tier model which is a step in the right direction.


Of course. Rich people deserve better health care than poor people. tptptptp 

Health care isn't in a crisis because it is socialized. Health care is in a crisis because of poor management, corrupt drug companies, and a lack of public health education.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It isn't a matter of "deserving." It's a matter of allowing people to set their own priorities within their own income. 

Rich people don't "deserve" better cars or homes--they buy them.

Are you saying that you believe that the rich should be prevented from spending their money on higher ticket items?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*Sicko* premieres on the Movie Channel tonight at 9 pm est.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Coincidentally, PBS Frontline ran something called _Sick Around the World_ which I have not seen, but comes highly recommended. It's been dubbed _ Sicko_ For Smarties. Did anyone catch it?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> *Sicko* premieres on the Movie Channel tonight at 9 pm est.


Ah yes, lest we ALL forget to bow to the fat man. 

Some of us will, you know. Being non conformists and all.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

SINC said:


> Ah yes, lest we ALL forget to bow to the fat man.
> 
> Some of us will, you know. Being non conformists and all.


References to someone's personal appearance are demeaning.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What's ironic is he feels "qualified" to comment on something he has not watched.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

My experiences with the Canadian health system thus far have been excellent, though I recognise that of course this varies depending on what's wrong with you and where you live. It should also be noted that as an immigrant I am not yet "in the system" and am so far paying 100% of my health care costs out of my own pocket.

Irrational Moore-haters aside, it is a fact that the US is the only country with their particular system health care. It is also a fact that the US rates 37th in the world in overall quality of health care, well below Canada (30th) despite the huge differences in wealth and power. To my mind, the US is not getting good value for money spent.

From Wikipedia:


> Health care is one of the most expensive items of both nations’ budgets. The U.S. government spends more per capita on health care than the government does in Canada. In 2004, the government of Canada spent $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government spent $2,724.
> *However, U.S. government spending covers less than half of all health care costs. Private spending for health care is also far greater in the U.S. than in Canada. In Canada, an average of $917 was spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the U.S., this sum is $3,372.* (emphasis mine)


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Chas_m: don't try to wade into this with wikipedia figures. There's already something wrong when the quotes refer to money spent by the "government of Canada" and money spent by the "U.S. government" when the provinces and states are most responsible for the programs. 

I don't know if they're including the extra health care "direct pay" funding added to Ontarians tax bills at income tax time either. For a publicly run system I only dream of the day I get off with paying only $917 per year out-of-pocket for that list of goodies. I think I'll get there by May or June.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I read a very interesting article a short while ago--and I will dig it up--on the development of very expensive health diagnostics computers and software that will largely replace doctors in determining treatments and medications required by patients. These will soon be owned by the wealthiest North Americans who simply can't be bothered with waiting in line for public health care and completely sides-steps the "two-tier" fears that currently paralyzes the rank-and-file with fear and jealousy.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Americans who simply can't be bothered with waiting in line for public health care and completely sides-steps the "two-tier" fears that currently paralyzes the rank-and-file with fear and jealousy.


Oh that troublesome rank and file. Uneducated boorish lot aren't they? Always getting in the way with their desire for fair and equal treatment. Not on my dime damn-it!

Very interesting and enlightening perspective here. Feels a bit misanthropic.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy: the rank and file isn't troublesome at all. Organized labour, possibly the greatest opponent, is a spent force. And of course, two-tier health care isn't on _your_ dime--it's on the dime of someone who wants to pay for it. You're more than content to take what the government wants to give you, so everything will be great all around!


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

_Sick Around the World_ can be found online.

FRONTLINE: sick around the world: five capitalist democracies & how they do it | PBS

and click the Watch Online link.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> mrjimmy: the rank and file isn't troublesome at all. Organized labour, possibly the greatest opponent, is a spent force. And of course, two-tier health care isn't on _your_ dime--it's on the dime of someone who wants to pay for it. You're more than content to take what the government wants to give you, so everything will be great all around!


Oh I wouldn't dismiss poor old organized labour just yet. As long as there are gross divides between profits and wages, they will be there. 

The dime of which I speak is the other side of two tiered healthcare. You know, the side your ideology finds repugnant.

The fear and jealousy of which you attribute to the rank and file says more about intolerance than truth. 

Finding the right mixture to make our current system run more efficiently will take great vision and political will. But taking the backwards step toward the American model while the entire world is heading the other way will never happen.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy: there will always be a divide between wages and profits--labour can't have all of it.

The entire world is not heading "that way"--most of it is "backtracking" into more privately delivered health care, some of it single payer. I don't find people choosing a socialized system repugnant, but it simply isn't working out that way. The single payer model certainly seems on the rise, but those with more privately delivered services, such as is now found in Sweden, seem better off. The government of Ontario is looking at this as well, to restore some degree of private incentive to a system that has lost all incentives. 

It simply is no longer matter of finding "A balance" in Ontario. Wait times have increased dramatically in the past 15 years, while the amount of money spent on healthcare has risen dramatically. New hospital construction in theprovince is continuing at a rapid pace despite there being no money available to operate them.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Coincidentally, PBS Frontline ran something called _Sick Around the World_ which I have not seen, but comes highly recommended. It's been dubbed _ Sicko_ For Smarties. Did anyone catch it?


Decent program but as far as Canada goes, it's not terribly relevant. We get the mention of being a lot like Taiwan.

I think it's in Canada's best interest to reconceptualize how it treats cancer patients. While concerns over a two tier system are (for the most part) valid in my opinion I wonder what the harm would be in supporting cutting edge research in a joint funded private clinic for Canadians (I use the term very inclusively). It seems that the problem with so many cases of individuals with Cancer is that they don't receive treatment a) fast enough or b) that's at all experimental if their cancer reaches more advanced stages. The option to opt out of the system (or into a privatized stream of care) on a per case basis makes a lot of sense to me. Heck it's exactly what people are doing who mortgage their homes to fly to the states are doing anyways. Only the costs could be kept much lower by government and pharm. R&D funding. It's pretty much what they are doing now except that there wouldn't be the gatekeepers at several key locations in the country. So what's the downside?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Unlike the fanatics who belong to Friends of Medicare ans such organizations, I can see the benefit of a two tier system allowing private enterprise to fill the void that public funded health care cannot now, or ever fill.

It will happen in spite of the ranting and raving of these short sighted individuals and ultimately benefit them as well.

If they only knew they were fighting the impossible. Watch it happen, not only here in Alberta, but right across the country.

Bring it on, I say.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC, I've personally seen about $500,000 leaving Ontario for cancer care in the U.S. within the last two years. I'm not including similar newspaper articles I've read--these are acquaintances.


----------

