if you look at what i said dan, moore's latest film "is not yet out for
general release", so all of us are basing our comments on the reviews.
jlm
Well, I'm basing my comments on a "review" (actually an interview) with
Moore. He clearly pointed at corporate greed as _the_ cause for the
problem
in the interview. He stated the only problem with the Canadian health
care
system that he knows of is that its underfunded. I get the impression
that
he believes that National Health Insurance will lower costs and improve
services pretty well all by itself if the corporations are pushed out
of it.
But, there are some data that tends to point against this. For
example, as
part of Medicare, patients can chose the standard government program or
one of many managed care programs. If the managed care programs are
really that much worse, no-one would chose them.
Second, most good sized companies are self-insured. They pay a company
to manage it for them. I cannot imagine HR staffs not making sure that
they don't pay too much. Otherwise, it would pay for them to manage it
themselves. I think we can count on big companies to look to their own
profits. :-)
Well, I'm not sure what the right statistics are. He does tell the
truth
about the statistics....but in a way that gives a clear indication of
what "the truth" is.
I'd place Moore with Ann and Bill. I'm not fussing at them here,
because
no-one has praised them. In the Woodlands, I argue against Bill and
Ann and say next to nothing about Moore.
Sure. I outlined what I think the challenges are.
But, the idea he is pointing to as the solution...nationalizing
health...is
not going to be the solution the way he says it is. Now, I think some
mix of requiring employers to provide a level of health insurance to
employees (including pro-rated by hours for non full-time workers to
stop
the 39 hour phenomenon) and governmental insurance will be needed as
part of the plan. But, this has to be balanced with an attack on
rising costs.
Now, it is possible that Moore's discussion of the ideas of his film do
not
represent the film. But, going to Gitmo and then Castro for health
care
treatment should be seen as a stunt that has no meaning. The same type
of evidence was used to support Latrile treatments.
So, admitting that I haven't seen the movie, I think it is fair for me
to
say that, insofar as a significant fraction of people agree with the
message
he gave while discussing the movie, we will be further from agreeing
upon a real solution.
Dan M.
again, not having seen the film we are assuming a lot. the message is
a lot more clear than the solution. it is far easier to criticize than
to provide answers. in columbine the message is fairly simple; ban
automatic weapons. to achieve that in america is far more difficult.
i don't think moore, or anyone for that matter has an answer that will
satisfy everyone.
now, dan, i really have to take exception with your continued
persistence in equating michael moore with the likes of coulter and
o'reillry. both of them are hysterics and ludricrous. i suggest you
read al franken's books on the subject. if you must find right wing
idealogues for comparison, michael medved and charles krauthammer, or
even dennis prager are slightly better suited, although still not in
moore's league.
i also have to take exception with your portrayal of moore's use of
stunts to convey his message (other than his cruel ambush of charlton
heston in the early stages of alzheimer's). the man is brilliant when
he points out corruption, hypocrisy and inconsistency. as for the
laetrile controversy, that is precisely the sort of hoax moore sets out
to expose.
jon m.
Knowledge is Power
____________________________________________________________________________________Be
a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
