Re: Michael Moore

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 11:25 PM Saturday 5/26/2007, jon louis mann wrote:
>Anne Coulter checks facts? I thought she just pulled them out of her
>arse.
>Charlie.
>
>exactly, and o'reilley just makes them up...
>jon.


Given the choice between those two, whose arse would you rather have 
to look at?


Bottoms Up Maru


-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Michael Moore

[jon louis mann]

Anne Coulter checks facts? I thought she just pulled them out of her
arse.
Charlie.

exactly, and o'reilley just makes them up...
jon.

Knowledge is Power


   
Luggage?
 GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Michael Moore

[jon louis mann]

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 statisticsbut 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

Re: Michael Moore

[Charlie Bell]

On 27/05/2007, at 6:49 AM, jon louis mann wrote:


> workers.  i much prefer moore's fact checking say to that of bill
> o'reilley or anne coulter.

Anne Coulter checks facts? I thought she just pulled them out of her  
arse.

Charlie.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Michael Moore

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of jon louis mann
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 3:49 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Michael Moore
> 
> Well, if you look at what I wrote, I said:
> 
> "I would place Moore's story telling with the 'young buck buying steak
> with food stamps story.'
> 
> This example of the misuse of food stamps was factually based.  But, I
> didn't consider it helpful in a discussion of whether food stamps
> should be eliminated.
> 
> The reference to Birth of a Nation was a strong example that showed it
> was possible to tell a simple story that was not at all helpful.  Even
> if
> one selectively chose facts (e.g. showed only good actions by whites
> and
> only bad actions by blacks) and told no lies, one could have gotten
> something that would have close to the racist appeal of that film.
> 
> I'll be happy to agree that Moore is not at the level of "Birth of a
> Nation."  But, he's not telling the Rosa Parks story as a straight
> documentary either.  It's advocacy journalism...the truth is known a
> priori and the facts that fit it are assembled as needed.  I don't care
> much
> when Lou Dobbs bashes undocumented aliens/illegal immigrants with it,
> and I don't care much for it when Moore does it.  Neither helps.
> 
> Dan M.
> 
> Maybe a person should see a movie before comparing it to Birth of a
> Nation?
> Doug
> 
> 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.

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. :-)

> that is enough (along with knowledge of his past films) for me to
> assert comparing "sicko" to "birth of a nation" is like apples and
> zebras.
> 
> you are absolutely correct that moore is selective with what facts he
> uses, and many advocacy journalists do the same.  lou dobbs, however,
> used highly exaggerated statistics on the numbers of undocumented
> workers.  

Well, I'm not sure what the right statistics are.  He does tell the truth
about the statisticsbut in a way that gives a clear indication of what
"the truth" is. 

>i much prefer moore's fact checking say to that of bill
> o'reilley or anne coulter.

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. 

> no one is suggesting that we eliminate health care because there is
> wide spread abuse, but certainly you would agree that massive reform is
> needed.  

Sure.  I outlined what I think the challenges are.


>part of that reform is to expose inequities, corruption,
> incompetence and mismanagement, etc.  that is what moore is doing and
> he is performing a public service.

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 that 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. 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Big pigs

[Gary Nunn]

very big pig (and no, I'm not talking about GW Bush!)
 
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/features/7691922.html
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: U.S. health care

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Robert Seeberger
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 11:32 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: U.S. health care
> 
> Ackkk!!!
> That isn't the way one fairly compares such things Dan. My company
> charges around $80/hour for my services, but I'm grossing $24/hour or
> so. (My total package is around $45/hour).

OK, I can see why you would say thatalthough private draftsmen don't
discount that much from temp agencies.  Good engineers who are independent
command $75-$125/hour, even if they only have a BA degree.  I should have
talked about the programming help at $100/hour from 7 years ago...when the
programmers owned the company they worked for.

The physician's $50/hour was the sum total of his package.  He paid both
sides of SS from it.  It was contract labor.
 
> So if your specialist friend "Takes" $50/hour, what does the draftsman
> "Take"?

>From the temp, probably little more than full timebut the draftsman on
his own would probably take $40-$50/hour.  In the case of the temp
agency...probably about $30.  But, in other cases, closer to $40.


> I understand the point you are trying to make here and am not trying
> to disparage your sincerity in any way. But apple and oranges
> comparisons can distort perceptions and I'm wary of such in a
> post-Enron enviroment.

OK, but I'm familiar with what engineers make, and every engineer I know of
commands more than $50/hour as contract labor. 

> As for the rest of what I wrote earlier, what I hoped would be taken
> from what I said was that there are a *lot* of inefficiencies in the
> system that could be eliminated.

There are still significant inefficiencies in the system.  From what I've
heard from folks who worry about costs (like my friend who was chief
administrator for a major hospital in NW Houston), _that's_ not where the
waste is.  

Let's look at your suggestion, that hospitals share facilities.  Wouldn't
that mean that patients who need tests are likely to have to be transported
in ambulances?  That might be more efficient...but if it was _a lot_ more
efficient, couldn't the hospitals save money by outsourcing that part of the
work?  

That was the idea behind the negotiations insurance companies do with
hospitals and clinics.  They have a profit motive to keep costs
downbecause if they increase them...they risk losing customers as their
rates go up.

>From what I've heard from friends in various places in the industry is that
the relatively higher costs are due to:

1) The amount of money spent on prolonging death.  Intensive care can cost
$10k-$20k/day.  That adds up while/if the family argues over what to do.  I
was fortunate that my sister's a hospice nurse, so my dad died at the
nursing home without heroic intervention. The US tends to concentrate on
that aspect of health care than any other country.  

2) Hospitals and physicians are very worried about lawsuits.  I know my
brother-in-law has been threatened by more than one patient who was refused
drugs they didn't need (likely drug addicts).  He lives in fear of losing
everything.

3) The system we have is, indeed, an unholy mess.  Nurses spend most of
their time on documentation, not patient care.  I don't think though, we can
use Alexander's solution to a knotty problemwe're going to have to undo
a lot of the knots.

4) The US pays for most of the innovation in health care for the world.
Canada gets much cheaper drugs than the US for some of the same reasons that
TV shows are sold cheaper there.  The costs are already paid for with US
sales, as well as a good profit.  Canada sales are icing on the cake.  It
would certainly be the interest of the US to share these costs, but others
will have to pay more for drugs as a result.

The same is true with a number of other medical innovations over the last 20
years.  R&D costs and initial profits can be made in the US market.  The US
is kinda like the fellow who needs the hottest electronics while the world
is like the majority of consumers.  

Dan M.






___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Big Thaw

[jon louis mann]

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0706/feature2/index.html

"Right now Greenland is no threat to beachfront property. Steven Nerem 
of  the University of Colorado at Boulder, who monitors sea level by  
satellite, says the oceans have been rising an eighth of an inch (0.3  
centimeter) a year. At that rate the sea would go up a foot (0.3
meters)  
by 2100, roughly what a United Nations panel on climate change
predicted  
earlier this year. "But that's nothing compared to what we expect if  
Greenland really starts to go," Nerem says.

The latest signs from Greenland have persuaded many ice researchers 
that sea level could rise three feet (one meter) by 2100. Rignot, who
has  
measured the rush of glaciers to the sea, says even that figure may 
turn out to be an underestimate. Greenland, he notes, could ultimately
add 
ten feet (three meters) to global sea level, "and if this happens in
the next  
hundred years instead of the next several hundred years, that's a very 
big  deal."
Doug

here is another global warming article full of deliberate obfuscations
and other distortions:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/07/31/an-even-more-inconvenient-truth-the-myth-of-man-made-global-warming/

it is true climate change is cyclic, but the present cycle has been
hugely accelerated by the last century of industrial and other human
caused pollution.  when added to natural processes generated by
volcanoes, termites, solar storms, and other greenhouse factors,
climate change will occur much sooner and have disastrous effects on
human civilization.  
another thing deliberately not mentioned in the article is that
glaciation can be triggered by global warming when the ocean currents
shift

jon m

  

Knowledge is Power


 

TV dinner still cooling? 
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Michael Moore

[jon louis mann]

Well, if you look at what I wrote, I said:

"I would place Moore's story telling with the 'young buck buying steak 
with food stamps story.'

This example of the misuse of food stamps was factually based.  But, I
didn't consider it helpful in a discussion of whether food stamps 
should be eliminated.

The reference to Birth of a Nation was a strong example that showed it 
was possible to tell a simple story that was not at all helpful.  Even
if 
one selectively chose facts (e.g. showed only good actions by whites
and 
only bad actions by blacks) and told no lies, one could have gotten 
something that would have close to the racist appeal of that film.

I'll be happy to agree that Moore is not at the level of "Birth of a
Nation."  But, he's not telling the Rosa Parks story as a straight
documentary either.  It's advocacy journalism...the truth is known a 
priori and the facts that fit it are assembled as needed.  I don't care
much 
when Lou Dobbs bashes undocumented aliens/illegal immigrants with it, 
and I don't care much for it when Moore does it.  Neither helps.

Dan M. 

Maybe a person should see a movie before comparing it to Birth of a
Nation?
Doug

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. 
that is enough (along with knowledge of his past films) for me to
assert comparing "sicko" to "birth of a nation" is like apples and
zebras. 

you are absolutely correct that moore is selective with what facts he
uses, and many advocacy journalists do the same.  lou dobbs, however,
used highly exaggerated statistics on the numbers of undocumented
workers.  i much prefer moore's fact checking say to that of bill
o'reilley or anne coulter.

no one is suggesting that we eliminate health care because there is
wide spread abuse, but certainly you would agree that massive reform is
needed.  part of that reform is to expose inequities, corruption,
incompetence and mismanagement, etc.  that is what moore is doing and
he is performing a public service. 

it is also important to expose food stamp abuse.   perhaps moore's next
film will be to expose entitlements (including corporate subsidies!~).
jon m

Knowledge is Power


   
Need
 a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Michael Moore

[Doug]

Dan wrote:

> I'll be happy to agree that Moore is not at the level of "Birth of a
> Nation."  But, he's not telling the Rosa Parks story as a straight
> documentary either.  It's advocacy journalism...the truth is known a  
> priori and the facts that fit it are assembled as needed.  I don't care  
> much for it when Lou Dobbs bashes undocumented aliens/illegal immigrants  
> with it, and I don't care much for it when Moore does it.  Neither helps.

Which of these basic "truths" would you disagree with:

Gun violence is epidemic in the U.S.
The Iraq war has been a massive mistake.
The U.S. healthcare system underperforms that of other developed nations  
at a higher cost?

Doug
Earth is roughly spherical, maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Big Thaw

[Doug]

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0706/feature2/index.html

"Right now Greenland is no threat to beachfront property. Steven Nerem of  
the University of Colorado at Boulder, who monitors sea level by  
satellite, says the oceans have been rising an eighth of an inch (0.3  
centimeter) a year. At that rate the sea would go up a foot (0.3 meters)  
by 2100, roughly what a United Nations panel on climate change predicted  
earlier this year. "But that's nothing compared to what we expect if  
Greenland really starts to go," Nerem says.

The latest signs from Greenland have persuaded many ice researchers that  
sea level could rise three feet (one meter) by 2100. Rignot, who has  
measured the rush of glaciers to the sea, says even that figure may turn  
out to be an underestimate. Greenland, he notes, could ultimately add ten  
feet (three meters) to global sea level, "and if this happens in the next  
hundred years instead of the next several hundred years, that's a very big  
deal."


-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Michael Moore

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of jon louis mann
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 2:23 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Michael Moore
> 
> Moore also noted that his film had been praised by Fox News and that he
> 
> had been complimented by tearful Republicans at Cannes.
> Maybe a person should see a movie before comparing it to The Birth of a
> 
> Nation?
> Doug
> 
> "sicko" is not yet out for general release, but based on his past
> films, to compare "sicko" to "birth of a nation" is like apples and
> zebras.  it may have been a groundbreaking movie at the time, but it is
> also an accurate portrayal of racist america in the context of the day.
>  the intent was to portray blacks as subhuman and had no empirical
> factual basis, as do moore's films.
> http://chnm.gmu.edu/features/episodes/birthofanation.html

Well, if you look at what I wrote, I said:

" I would place Moore's story telling with the 'young buck buying steak with
food stamps story.'

This example of the misuse of food stamps was factually based.  But, I
didn't consider it helpful in a discussion of whether food stamps should be
eliminated.

The reference to Birth of a Nation was a strong example that showed it was
possible to tell a simple story that was not at all helpful.  Even if one
selectively chose facts (e.g. showed only good actions by whites and only
bad actions by blacks) and told no lies, one could have gotten something
that would have close to the racist appeal of that film.

I'll be happy to agree that Moore is not at the level of "Birth of a
Nation."  But, he's not telling the Rosa Parks story as a straight
documentary either.  It's advocacy journalism...the truth is known a priori
and the facts that fit it are assembled as needed.  I don't care much for it
when Lou Dobbs bashes undocumented aliens/illegal immigrants with it, and I
don't care much for it when Moore does it.  Neither helps.

Dan M. 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Michael Moore

[jon louis mann]

Moore also noted that his film had been praised by Fox News and that he
 
had been complimented by tearful Republicans at Cannes.
Maybe a person should see a movie before comparing it to The Birth of a
 
Nation?
Doug

"sicko" is not yet out for general release, but based on his past
films, to compare "sicko" to "birth of a nation" is like apples and
zebras.  it may have been a groundbreaking movie at the time, but it is
also an accurate portrayal of racist america in the context of the day.
 the intent was to portray blacks as subhuman and had no empirical
factual basis, as do moore's films. 
http://chnm.gmu.edu/features/episodes/birthofanation.html

moore does use ambush tactics, but that does not negate his message...
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php

Knowledge is Power


 

No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go 
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: U.S. health care

[Doug]

jon louis mann wrote:

> michael moore was on bill maher tonight talking about how the richest
> country in the world is 37th in health care, because the system is
> being looted by the health care providers and pharmaceutical companies.
>  they toss enough crumbs to the doctors to keep them happy, but their
> bottom line is profit, so people die if they can't afford the premiums.
>
>
> we have the best medical technology in the world, designed to keep our
> obese population alive, IF their treatment is authorized.  it certainly
> works well for the wealthiest people in the country,
>
> moore expressed hope that this time his message will be heeded because
> it crosses party lines, everyone needs medicale care.  he may be in
> trouble for attempting to take a bunch of rescue workers injured after
> 9/11 to the guantanamo bay internment facility and brazenly asked for
> health care. he was ignored so they moved on to havana where they
> received excellent medical care, which is free in cuba.

Moore also noted that his film had been praised by Fox News and that he  
had been complimented by tearfull Republicans at Cannes.

Maybe a person should see a movie before comparing it to The Birth of a  
Nation?

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

An iPod for every student, courtesy of Michigan Taxpayers

[Gary Nunn]

I love the Citizens Against Government Waste website: http://www.cagw.org
 
I don't always agree with them (they are against net neutrality), but I love
reading about the taxpayer money that our government wastes on crap, instead
of investing in things like medical research on (AIDS, cancer, Parkinson's,
obesity, MS, etc) or any other worthwhile project.
 
 
A gem that I just ran across:
 
On April 5, Michigan House Democrats unveiled a $38 million education plan
over several years that would include the purchase of an MP3 player or iPod
for every student in Michigan public schools.
 
 
http://tinyurl.com/3d3vtj
 
http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle

&id=10703&news_iv_ctrl=1037
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: U.S. health care

[Andrew Crystall]

On 25 May 2007 at 16:10, Dan Minette wrote:

> > If I need to see a doctor, I inform my workplace and go. I make up
> > the hours. That's pretty standard for non-shift workers here. As
> > opposed to being told to take holiday..
> 
> That's pretty standard here too...at least as far as I've seen.

For lower income workers? Not so much.

>  
> > 
> > Well, I don't know about authorising drugs. But I do know this: many
> > more drugs in America are prescription. This is because there are
> > only two catagories of drugs, over the counter and prescription
> > (excepting a few drugs under specific state laws). The UK has a third
> > category, which is "behind the counter" - a trained pharmacist can
> > dispense the drug, and it's kept literally behind the counter, not on
> > the shop floor. And that's not a small category here either.
> 
> Well, that seems like a reasonable thing, but I don't think it will have a
> major impact on costs...unless antibiotics for kids are on that list, and

It's not costs. It's that for a lot of drugs which, in America you 
need to see a doctor to get a prescription for, you can get from a 
pharmacy (in your lunch hour) here.

> I'm not sure that the general dispensation of antibiotics is a good
> ideacreating immunity and all.  The seniors I know should have their
> meds tracked by a physician or nurse practitioner because of the long term
> nature of their use, the chances for interaction, etc.  

Actually, that's why most antibiotics remain prescription. Several 
are not, but they're older drugs which are general useless these days 
as antibiotics and are prescribed for other effects (anti 
inflamatory, for example).

Talking about resistance, we've actually had a policy in place for 
the better part of a decade that doctors can write you a "non-
prescrption", explaining why they won't give you antibiotics in a 
given situation (viral illness, usually).

AndrewC
Dawn Falcon

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

U.S. health care

[jon louis mann]

michael moore was on bill maher tonight talking about how the richest
country in the world is 37th in health care, because the system is
being looted by the health care providers and pharmaceutical companies.
 they toss enough crumbs to the doctors to keep them happy, but their
bottom line is profit, so people die if they can't afford the premiums.


we have the best medical technology in the world, designed to keep our
obese population alive, IF their treatment is authorized.  it certainly
works well for the wealthiest people in the country,

moore expressed hope that this time his message will be heeded because
it crosses party lines, everyone needs medicale care.  he may be in
trouble for attempting to take a bunch of rescue workers injured after
9/11 to the guantanamo bay internment facility and brazenly asked for
health care. he was ignored so they moved on to havana where they
received excellent medical care, which is free in cuba.


 

Don't get soaked.  Take a quick peak at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l