# Shooting Michael Moore

mathwonk
Homework Helper
The main problem I have experienced in health care here is that it is job related. If you use your health insurance you can be fired afterwards and lose it. If you have a serious illness you have a "precondition" and then cannot get another health policy. This has happened to us.

It is clear to me that anyone at all can go bankrupt from just one serious illness in our system. Young healthy people have trouble believing this, but I guarantee you it is true. Just tell your congress person you want the same healthcare and retirement plan he has.

Another problematic aspect is aged care for physically fit but senile parents. i know middle class people who are spending around 75,000 dollars a year just to have one aged relative looked after physically. This does not include their psychological needs for real attention, just food, meds, making sure they dont fall down most of the time. A that rate it can cost easily a half million dollars to die. These are people who have essentially no serious illness. In some cases they might be happier if they did have.

The point is that in our system, even one serious ilness, or one long lived but infirm relative, can easily impoverish a middle class family. Questions like how long do you have to wait at the local hospital to get a broken arm set are relatively unimportant in this topic.

Another problem is over subsidization of "emergency" room care in locally funded public hospitals. This is the opposite problem. Here people who decline to pay even a $5 copay at a doctors office take up valuable time and space getting care for colds and other non emergency needs at enormous cost to the tax payer. The metro hospital in Atlanta is essentially bankrupt for partly these reasons. Offering essentially free "emergency care" it also draws patients from widely surrounding counties whose taxes do not support the hospital. I have personally seen the collections envelope for the whole ER containing less than$2, after a busy nights treatment.

these problems seem to me to require some way of spreading out the cost of health care more widely, and also konitoring its use. I.e. the local county cannot support the metro hospital alone, the individual family of a sick individual cannot support their care alone. But the public cannot afford to subsidize ER level care for sniffles and fever.

Attacking Michael Moore is beside the point. He may be unbalanced and ludicrous, but his points should be made public and responded to. He is just the messenger. Attacks on him seem to take on the flavor of patriotic defense of "our way of life".

Last edited:
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
It looks like Moore got a dose of his own medicine. It certainly seems that Moore is an opportunist, and that he takes advantage of a bad situation without trying to find a way to improve it. Very tabloid. :yuck:

I saw 'Roger and Me', but I can't make myself see the other movies. I thought that Moore's style was too confrontational and counter-productive. I don't remember Moore saying 'how could we make this better for everyone'.

I like Medved's point at the end. What does it mean to love America or someone because of what it/they could be?

As for the health care situation in the US, it desparately needs improvement. Too many people suffer, or even die, needlessly.

My siblings are doctors and my mother a nurse, and they have worked in the health care system for decades. It's actually a mixed bag. If one has good insurance or a lot of money, the system is mostly fine, unless someone makes a serious mistake (which happens too frequently IMO). If one is poor or without insurance, the medical care is most likely poor, if one receives care at all.

Chi Meson
Homework Helper
I suppose things would be different if MM, instead of making a hyper-spin movie every few years, ran a daily "news"program and declared over and over that he was "fair and balanced" and created a "no spin zone."

He could wear a fake objective demeanor, and have other guests shout down the guests he disagrees with (always with louder mics, I've noticed). That would make him a "pundit" instead of a scumbag, wouldn't it? He could get away with performing his over-the-top political propaganda, but people would be so used to it on a daily basis, that they wouldn't feel the same outrage. Maybe they'd come closer and closer to feeling that it was actually news. And with the slant so fiercely one-sided, the net effect would be to make the political center feel like a radical fringe.

I'm not a fan of MM's style (I do not like propaganda) and I'm not in line with all of his politics either, but he has shed light on problems that do exist in this country. The problems are so deep and socially bound to our way of life, any solution that could be crammed into a feature movie would be so superficially simplistic as to be useless.

But now people are talking about our health-care problems. It will be a feature of the upcoming election. I think the worst result of the movie is that about 30% of the country will oppose any change to the current situation simply as a knee-jerk anti-Moore reaction (since health-care reform is now fully branded as a "liberal cause").

cronxeh
Gold Member
Well this 6 minute attacks Michael Moore personally but who among you can say you haven't done what he has done at one point in your life? Those are basic flaws of human kind. I'm not saying Michael Moore is in stage 6 of moral development, albeit far from it, but at least his documentaries have shined a light on important issues, even if he benefited from it. In history there would be a gradual change catalyzed by people like Michael Moore, Ron Paul, and if you go back there were Davy Crockett, Ben Franklin, and the like.

Chi Meson