« Rudy's Brain Trust | Main | Bloomy Goes Indy »
Important: Read Before Watching SiCKO
Or, for best results, read it and then don't see SiCKO at all.
I'm delighted such a thorough and facile rebuttal has emerged even before the documentary (crockumentary? Schlockumentary? Have we settled on a word yet for a mockumentary that thinks it's a documentary?) is officially released (not counting the widespread internet distribution of pirated copies). In fact, I had asked for a collective rebuttal once those of hardy constitutions had a chance to see the film, in hopes for some measure of remedy to what I brashly assumed would be another dose of Moore's distinctly and snivelingly misleading socialist propaganda.
Seems that, yes, that indeed is the increasingly familiar poison that Moore's peddling here. Thankfully, the Post's Kyle Smith has penned a serviceable and amusing antidote.
[Note to self: insert additional health care puns here before posting...]
Some highlights from Smith's piece, which get to the heart of Moore's slithery style of logical meandering, data cherry picking, and, well, outright falsification (my emphasis, throughout):
The silliness of Moore’s oeuvre is so self-evident that being able to spot it is not liberal or conservative either; it’s a basic intelligence test, like the ability to match square peg with square hole.
...
The bulk of "Sicko" is given over to the stories of Americans who got the run-around from health insurers. ... Moore’s style is to present whatever information he likes without checking it. He told "Entertainment Weekly" "absolutely not," when asked whether he felt any need to get the other side of the story. So, over time, his work rusts out from within as the facts eat away at it.
...
Here’s how easy it is to lie by anecdote: Say I wanted to make a film about gay black Republicans who live in Chelsea. I find ten of them, make a film about them, and you walk out of the theater thinking: Wow, so many gay black Republicans in Chelsea! The six years it took me to find these ten guys will go unnoted.
...
In his EW interview, Moore tacitly admitted that "Sicko" lies about [typical Canadian health care] wait times, saying, "Well, okay, let’s set up a system where we don’t have the Canadian wait. Let’s set up a system where we take what they do right and don't do the things that we do wrong." Yes, and let's also make sure that every girl gets to be the prettiest girl in town.
...
Moore, at a Havana hospital, says he requested that his group receive exactly the same care as any Cuban who walked in—"and that’s exactly what they got." As comedy, this statement is on a par with the sex scene in "Knocked Up," the chest waxing in "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" and the moment in "An Inconvenient Truth" when Al Gore tells us that the ecology’s no. 1 enemy, China, is in fact "on the cutting edge" of environmentalism.
...
But Moore solemnly reports Cuba’s official health statistics, which are of course a fiction dreamed up by El Presidente, because Moore's motto is to trust no authority figure from cringing corporate spokesman on up to Washington windbags. Except dictators. Dictators, he’ll take your word for it.
...
Despite his apparent belief that he can seem moderate by narrating the film in a sing-song, I’m-talking-to-a-child-or-moron tone, the man can no more hide his Marxism than his belly. He presents not only [radical British leftist] Tony Benn but Che Guevera’s daughter as voices of sanity and, through a French doctor, Moore sneaks in the Marxist slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Everyone who has ever lived in a country that put this idea into practice has found that it actually means this: Give the country whatever it asks for and take back whatever it gives you, and do so without complaint or go to prison.
The full review features more specific debunkery and Smith promises more to come on his personal website.
(HT: The Corner)
Handcrafted by Flip on June 19, 2007 |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572653ef00e00982d44c8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Important: Read Before Watching SiCKO:
» medical technologist from http://medicaltechnologistbottomline.info
medical technologist large selection. [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 7, 2008 8:14:23 AM
» medical technologist from http://medicaltechnologistside.info
medical technologist open realty. [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 8, 2008 4:04:45 PM
» Buy xanax precrition needed. from Buy xanax without precription.
Buy xanax online. Where to buy xanax with same day delivery. Buy xanax with no prescription. [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 27, 2008 9:15:28 AM
Comments
Wow: Smith writes, "{Michael Moore] can no more hide his Marxism than his belly." 1. Why would he want to hide his Marxism? 2. You confuse Marxism (theory) with Communism (history). Sorry. sPosted by: stella | Jun 20, 2007 10:33:34 AM
Although in the movie, Moore did make a good point. We already have "socialist" institutions in this country: Libraries and the public schools educate the people Fire and police protect the people why shouldn't there be a similar system to keep the people healthy? Of course we can just all pay for private schools, although I highly doubt my parents could have afforded it. I can pay protection for my property, but then that kind of sounds like the business the mob is in. And of course it is common knowledge that unincorporated areas in the united states have more crime. But for some strange reason, I live in a society where I have to bear the cost of getting sick, or put my health in the interest of private enterprise...who's interest is profit. It is true that cuba does not have better hospitals than the united states, that would be impossible. But more of their poor have access to health care than in the united states. Philosophically, why am I living in a society if it is not willing to help me in time of trouble? Why is it more important for me to pay taxes to fund expensive wars to protect a society/government that would not protect me in time of need?Posted by: Maxim Khailo | Jun 23, 2007 3:14:09 PM
I can only pray that every politition and person like this author delevops a serious illness and dies while waiting for medical help.Posted by: stu | Jun 29, 2007 12:50:29 PM
Total bullshit rebuttal. We should all know what is going on with our health care system and how millions of us are being denied care or being charged obscenely high rates for it. Good health shouldn't be reserved exclusively for the rich. Moore's depiction of the health care system of other countries seemed genuine. Possibly not Cuba's (although maybe it was) but definately the rest of the countries depicted. The writer of this review must have a chunk of granite where his heart should be.Posted by: Kevin | Jul 2, 2007 2:54:55 AM
Healthcare is not a "right". Socialized medicine is just yet another excuse for the government's need to re-distribute wealth. Saying a person has no heart because they believe people should have to work for a living to earn what they get in life is just wrong. Why should I work my butt off just to have government take away what I make (I am not wealthy, by the way!) and give it to somebody who hasn't earned it. That is called stealing. Besides, we already have socialized medicine for the less accomplished. It is called Medicaid (sp?). Do we not? I'm not heartless just because I do not believe socialized medicine is the answer. I just understand the difference between government control and liberty. You can't have it both ways. If you are on the side of a socialized nanny state, there are plenty of other countries you can move to that already provide this! Don't screw up my country because of your misguided understanding of nationalized healthcare and what it means to your freedom.Posted by: Steve | Oct 10, 2007 5:32:10 PM
This is a rebuttal? When you get denied benefits you might open you eyes. I'd rather wait a week in a Canadian hosptial then die in the USA.Posted by: laughable | Nov 12, 2007 1:34:17 PM
The whole issue is corparate America. The ONLY reason we can't/won't provide healthcare for American people is because of the money it would take out of the hands of the unnecessary middle man, the insurance companies. If we all pay 6% of of our salaries for insurance premiums (a low estimate) and we made this percentage a flat tax and we take the national average salary of $60k per year (which is a touch low)and we assume there are 200 million poeple in the US (which is also low) this alone would generate $720,000,000 per year toward medical expenses. I should think this would pay for a lot if we cut out the money currently going to insurance companies.Posted by: Paul | Nov 19, 2007 12:12:51 PM
Sorry that should have been 720 billion not millionPosted by: Paul | Nov 19, 2007 12:15:38 PM
Paul, no one would refute that you can do a lot with a $720 billion tax hike. For about a year. Then, the draconian hike's devastating economic toll would begin to set in. Capital and jobs would flee the country at a blistering pace. Growth would not only slow but turn sharply negative, plunging us into an indefinite self-inflicted recession. With output/income reductions, tax revenues would also decline, eroding that savory $720 billion annual haul. Ratcheting up everyone's tax rate by 6 percentage points (a 15%-infinite% increase in their actual tax bills) would have a massive and disastrous impact on the long-term prosperity of all Americans. That's a steep price to pay for "free" healthcare that would undoubtedly decline significantly in quality (if economic theory and all empirical evidence are any gauge).Posted by: Flip | Nov 19, 2007 12:29:41 PM
I have to respectively disagree with your Arguement Flip. It seems that you are quoting someone or a book, or probably television but unfortunately americans get really poor information on this issue in our media in my experience. A friend of mine, an egineer like me, lived in Britain after imigrating from Seira Leone, Africa (ps). He lived their for eight years and paid steep taxes: approx. 22 Percent. He said that this didn't trouble him because everyone else was paying it as well (and it came directly out of his check with no yearly filing) and the quality of life was the same there as it is for him now here in the US if not better. Your aguement is one of many that we hear but we often forget or are not given the simple arguement from countries with nationalized healthcare: That is, we don't go over and see it for ourselves. Never do you see 60 Minutes doing a show on it over there talking to Brits or the French or the Canadians. All you hear on TV is that canada sucks and very little about the programs in Europe. We also never hear the simpleton fact, and what should be the OBVIOUS RED SIGN, which is that we are listed by the World Health Organization as having worse healthcare than all of the industrialed nations that have nationalized healthcare. We have worse mortality rates for children and adults than most of these countries as well. I do not like much of what Michael Moore has said in the past. And I wouldn't find it hard to believe that he faked some information in this documentory. But I know he didn't fake this information because I have known it for years. I first learned of it from college professors and ended up researching it myself out of disbelief. All of these nationlized health care systems are considered by world experts as well as American ones (though they never get air time on TV due to who is paying the bills) as better than ours. As far as your tax arguement goes I will say something that is true of most Americans but they don't want to admit it. For the majority of my professional life (i'm 28 yrs old) I have not paid taxes. Until two years ago I always got all of my taxes back. I still get most of them back. The real, and verifiable, fact is that the vast majority of the tax burden is on the top 90-95% percent of earners. The rich pay the taxes. A 6% increase would not hurt us. In fact we would save money on health care I believe after talking to my friend and others. But check this out yourself. And also, ask yourself why it is always Americans saying that other countries national health care systems are bad and not people from those coutries? Yes, I know you will say: Well, they won't talk bad about themselves! But wouldn't at least one of them?? Just some obscure guy from England? Someone? I have never seen an non-American talking about nationalized health care in American media. Never. But back to my friend's story. Even though he paid 22 percent income tax he believes that he got more for his taxes so it equaled out in the end. To boot, his college was paid for by Britain because of his imigration from a third-world country and his health care and that of his family, once he was able to pay for them to immigrate too, was free. He has told me that not only was it free but the quality was the same as here in the US and in many cases it was BETTER because income and insurance was never an issue that affected medical care. Just like the movie he said that he recieved house calls from doctors (this was before I even had watched the movie) and I was flabbergasted. When he or his family had an illness drugs or treatment were never reduced due to income. Due to hardwork my friend is now a prosperous engineer and a college professor here in the US. Though he does plan on moving away after he is done with his doctorate. As far as your arguement that a tax rise would kill us I make the simple, final, rebuttle: Why hasn't it killed the English, French, and Japanese to name a few. We can make the obvious arguement that they are the other leading industrialized nations but if that's not good enough for you I will say that I have met multiple people from Brittain and Japan (but not france) and they say that it's different over their of course but economically it's about the same. There are no teaming masses of poor and hungry. I've been told by several that it's about the same: there is rich and middle class and the poor as well as some bums like any where else but not really very different from here as far as wealth goes. Except that even the bums there have healthcare. (I will admit that this example might exclude the wealthly as the majority of citizens just don't know the wealthly as they are such a low percentage of the population but I don't feel this is terribly relevent.) My Example: Me and my wife had a child while I was still in college. We both worked 40+ hours a week like most americans in decent if not affluent jobs at the time. We were well above the poverty line but we could not afford nor were offered health insurance through our companies as many americans are not. WE could not afford our child. We were forced to utilize a local government program to that payed for the pregancy. The financial limit to this program was $50,000 a year for total family income. Why is it that people that make so much more than the poor throughout the world and more than the definition of poverty in their own country are elgible for such a program at all? To me it points to the fact that there is indeed a problem. If there was not than there would not be such a program for people that are so wealthy compared to so many others. Don't get me wrong: I do think Mr. Moore is a spin doctor. As a veteren and someone who has seen information on both sides of the story for the Faranheit 9/11 movie: I feel that it was putrid propaganda that was obviously used to promote a democratic presidential election. I believe he did cherry pick the hell out of his data in 9/11. With good intenetions he probably wanted to use it as a weapon--not to mention gather his own profit and fame, though I cannot truly allude to his intentions as I have no way of knowing them--but FH 9/11 could not by any means be considered a documentory in my opion. If you look closely behind the majority of television media in this country you will find at least a minumum spin to all of it. Including the history channel: which I found laughable but true when I researched a show on it and found them to be lying. Apparently, even a channel that supposedly teaches history needs to keep up its ratings. But back on subject: We live in the richest nation on earth and middle class people can't afford a child birth ($20,000 or 1/3 of an average family's yearly salary). We live in the richest nation on earth and we can't treat the sick who are middleclass with serious illnesses or the poor with any. We live in a nation where a dentist charges approx. $500/Hr which is laughable in many other countries with better dental care according to the WHO (World Health Organization). We live in a country that is smart enough that even with its inate sense of capitalism it knows that you cannot trust law and order to a for profit organization and so we utilize the government for police and courts which was not always the case in past history, but we don't realise that a for profit organization should not be trusted with our healthcare. I am capialist through and through, but it is not a utopia. People clame that socialism was a sort of utopia and it was to those in many coutries who tried it and failed. But in many ways we have created a Utopia out of capitalism thinking that it cures all ails. And big business perpetuates this belief. If it were true then there would be no poor. Capitlism: A system that relies on market influence (money) to create change and make decisions cannot be in charge of the health system if we would like to keep our current American values on life and the sick of society. This is because profits and the bottom line will never be able to be equated along side the value of human life. That we believe all of the proganda against nationalized health care is probably due to our main sickness: television. But this arguement became stale once the people stopped listening to an arguement that wasn't on TV. And obviously television programs are not often going to argue against there own media and therefor their money. But unfortunately television is controlled, though not by some mastermind with a wicked black mustache, but by the dollar bill. It is a business that relies on advertising as its product. And TV programs try not to piss off their boss which happens to be anyone with a lot of money. Unfortunately, government is this way too nowadays. Elections are popularity contests that rely on our addiction to TV to spread popularity. Political advertisements are payed for by lobbyists. And so we are seemingly stuck unless we can turn off the tube which is doubtful but future technology and the internet might pose a change in this if big business does not succeed in censoring it to keep their profits. Don't think I'm being a conspiracy theorist because you can see this on CSPAN too if ignore how boring it can be or read about it on the internet. This censure is not evil but money once again. As a technologist it is becoming obvious that future data networks will soon become fast enough to provide equal and eventually better entertainment than TV and so ISP/TelCo/Cable/Satalite companies, which are now owned by conglomerates after the 1996 Federal Telecom Act that deregulated and allowed cross media ownership, are going to try to keep their marktet share (money) any way they can including censuring the internet. Right now they have been describing their attempts as trying to maintain quality of service for the things that majority of users want. Michael Moore brings up another good point: We are still a democracy. Though many of these problems have become rampant we can still scare politicians with our vote. We just have to start trying and stop giving up. We have to vote. In truth we have to start trying again. We used to try. Now we donate money at the checkstand in Safeway when they ask and say the right things to our work buddies but in the end we come home and veg out on TV or play a video game and go back to work the next day and come home and do the TV thing again and again and again.... Sorry about the rant. But go to the WHO's website: Child Morbility Rate under Five: http://www.who.int/entity/healthinfo/statistics/Copy%20of%20under-5DB(13.09.07).xls You will have sort some data. I cut out all data before the year 2000 and then sort from lowest morbility rate to highest. What you will find is that the horrible nationalized healthcare countries are above the united states. Yes not by much...but if they are so horrible why are they all above us????? You can find other data yourselves but the point is if Nationalized medicie was so bad than why are Americans that get paid to say it the only ones doing so???? Once again, Sorry about the Rant.Posted by: Mark | Dec 2, 2007 6:49:10 AM
Here a study published in the New England Journal of medicine about grossly poor healthcare for children in the US. It also site many studies saying the same of adults and the elderly. Taking from the Godfather: Healthcare is Business, Not Personal. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/15/1515Posted by: Mark | Dec 2, 2007 7:30:33 AM
I know it's quite popular to complain and blame the government, but I have a very simple solution if any of you are actually interested. The company I work for has great health care benefits. All pre-existing conditions are covered. Benefits start day one for you and your entire family including domestic partners. You do not need a referral from a primary care physician to see a specialist. Co-pays on all hospital or doctor visits are ten dollars. Our prescription drug benefit is great, my wife takes three prescriptions, one of which there is not a generic for and the grand total out of pocket costs for us is about $30 a month. some co-wokers pay nothing. The most we ever have to pay out of pocket in a year is about $2,000 and then then the insurance company covers 100% of all additional costs. There is no deductible to pay. How much does this cost me? About $110 is deducted from my pay check every month and that's for me and my wife (no kids yet.) What amazing qualifications do I have that allow me to have such wonderful benefits? I graduated from high school, (hope to graduate from college in the next few years) and I passed a drug screening and background check (no felonies). Pretty high standards eh? Funny thing, the economy is so good we can't hire enough people right now, we are literally taking almost anyone who meets those minimum requirements... apparently people don't like phone jobs. So what's the catch? There is none, except sometimes I'm a little embarrassed to tell people I work on the phones all day- not very glamorous, but it's definitely better than letting my family suffer without insurance. So my invitiation to the people out there who don't have insurance, come work with me at Discover Card. Instead of trying to get socialized medicine, support the companies who really take care of their employees.Posted by: Mike | Dec 9, 2007 5:49:56 PM
This 'rebuttal' was anything but. No facts, no serious argument, just a whiny tantrum by a Moore hater. Do yourself a favor, watch the movie and skip reading this.Posted by: Dave B | Sep 13, 2008 11:51:43 AM

