Actually, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one - I've never found anything to like about Moore. And enough information has emerged regarding him and his approach to "journalism" that somehow, when I think of him (which is blessedly seldom), the phrase which springs immediately to mind is "more manure for the pile". It just seems to fit.

I've never had any use for Moore either. His movies are pretty much akin to the likes of Borat without the comedic value. And is usually laden with half-truths or outright lies. But I'm actually hoping this new one about health care is better.

Yes, when confronted with such uncomfortable facts as Moore lays out, the best thing to do is call the messenger a few names move on.

Moore's never claimed to be a journalist.

I see Moore trying to make a difference--to shine a light on problems and tell a story about them.

I don't see him out there trying to destroy people or push any agenda other than trying to get the average American some justice. do people really think he has some sinister motive?

But as Allan said, it's much easier to just attack the messenger and completely avoid the uncomfortable, real problems the messenger describes.

more simply, until i see the most vocal critics of his work out there trying to make such a difference--and not just acting as critics of someone else's efforts--i can't take them very seriously.

It screened in Seattle last night.

I'll be first in line on the 29th.

I LOVE Michael Moore. The guy has balls. And they way he can get people to talk to him...even when they know what he is about...is truly a talent. I've been in the middle of the trials and tribulations of health care insurance (self-employed farmers) as well as helping many simply read their policies. OH...and those people true stories about procedure denial...and who are now dead...that's truly "more manure for the pile", isn't it. You must be one of the lucky ones with great health insurance. Good for you.

One surprising (and disturbing) comment (aside from the insurance company investigating a patient and attempting to reclaim coverage payments due to a yeast infection the woman had many years earlier) from the two clips was the couple who had insurance and good jobs and ended up bankrupt due to medical bills.

Why? Because it serves to refute arguments from those who claims others are freeloading or deserving of their fate (the lift yourself up by your boostraps philosophy, which I happen to agree with in many instances).

Government cannot and should not be asked to do everything. There are many areas in which government intrusion is inappropriate and less government can be good (to use some local flavor, the tram, tax breaks and sweetheart deals for condo developers, etc.). But for some areas (social security, education, police, fire, and, of course, health care), government is the only way to address efficiently certain basic needs.

Say what you will about Michael Moore, but the stories he brings to light merit serious consideration, attention and action. It is high time that we shelved the dismissal of real issues though character attacks and started acting as if our lives depended on addressing these problems. Since for some of us, that just might be the case--even if we have insurance.

The Guy is a Fat Slob who needs help b-4 he dies of a heart attack, take a shower, lose the hat, and shave that fat round face.

The Guy is a Fat Slob who needs help b-4 he dies of a heart attack, take a shower, lose the hat, and shave that fat round face.

I believe that Allan has already addressed comments such as this one.

It is somewhat ironic that a man making a film about our broken health care system is the same type of person (i.e., obese) at least partially responsible for its current status.

I am eagerly anticipating this film, however. Other than Farenheit, his films are quite informative and well done, and highly entertaining if nothing else.

Geez, todd, you certainly did address the issue well.

Speaking of off-topic, does anyone here know Latin? I'm trying to find out what "ad hominem" means.

"It is somewhat ironic that a man making a film about our broken health care system is the same type of person (i.e., obese) at least partially responsible for its current status."

Yes! The real insight! Our healthcare system is broken, and it's the fault of the patients! They're sick! As someone said, the government's plan for national health care is just this: don't get sick!

I thought that recent movie, "Idiocracy", was some kind of parody. Evidently, it's a documentary.

Erik, fat people aren't responsible for our broken health care system. Did you even think about the, um, logic behind that quip? Do you also blame the overwhelming number of cancer victims?

'what "ad hominem" means'

Our Blogmaster here is the Latin scholar, but I think it breaks down like this: "ad" is a preposition meaning "to", "at" or "toward" (as in "ad infinitum"), and hominem is the accusative singular of the masculine noun "homo", which means "man". As used in English, I understand the phrase to mean a kind of personal attack like, say, calling someone a fat slob if you don't like what that person is saying.

I have to agree with Max and Jon. Many, if not most, of Mr. Moore's 'facts' are so skewed, manipulated, and/or just plain wrong that it's amazing anyone takes anything he says as truth. Don't believe me? Go watch Bowling for Columbine and try to find the source of his 'statistics'. They're certainly not from the CDC, who gets their reports from law enforcement around the country, the actual people who deal with gun violence.

"I don't see him out there trying to destroy people or push any agenda other than trying to get the average American some justice. do people really think he has some sinister motive?"

Are you serious? He fabricates, molds, reworks, etc. his information to fit his agenda. An agenda so bias that the facts won't stand on their own, so he has to twist the truth. Don't you think the average American would be better off presented with facts instead of propaganda then be allowed to decide for themselves?

I am concerned that a government-run health care system will work just as well as a government-run border enforcement program or pothole-filling program.

A friend in Canada had to wait 6 weeks to have a broken bone surgically repaired. So much for efficiency. We're already seeing doctors refusing new Medicare patients (due to inadequate government reimbursements). And we read regularly about problems in government-run VA hospitals.

I agree the cost of health care is spiraling out of control, but my gut tells me that is due in part to ever-increasing government intrusion into the business.

When I need care I want to be able to get it. Arguing with an insurance company regarding reimbursement of a claim is one thing. I'm not being denied care, I'm being denied reimbursement by the insurer. I'm still free to hock everything, hold fund-raisers, etc. and pay for the care I need. Arguing with a government bureaucrat about whether a procedure is necessary and available to me AT ALL (at any price) is another thing entirely.

I believe, whatever fix we devise, we need to be very careful not to cede control over access to government.

" my gut tells me that is due in part to ever-increasing government intrusion into the business."

Mylanta might help.

"I believe, whatever fix we devise, we need to be very careful not to cede control over access to government."

Like our police and firefighters?

I'm truly amazed at some of the "pick yourselves up by your bootstraps" mentality. If you're sick and you're poor, you don't have anything to "hock" and most likely your family doesn't either. You all sound like spoiled rich kids.

"I am concerned that a government-run health care system will work just as well as a government-run border enforcement program or pothole-filling program." Well, let's look at the one(s) we already have: Medicare and Medicaid. Polls I've seen say that people on those government-run health care systems are far happier than people on private health insurance.

"A friend in Canada had to wait 6 weeks to have a broken bone surgically repaired. So much for efficiency." The people who mainly look to Canada's health care as an example are people who oppose government-run health care. People who favor government-run health care seem to think Canada's system has issues, and prefer as examples the systems in France, Germany, Sweden, or Japan.

Growing up and living in two of the poorest parts of Portland may have made me a bit cynical. How many poor people have you known well? How many brought a good portion of their 'misfortune' upon themselves? It really bothers me when people say 'oh these poor people, we need to help them' when they refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions and help themselves.

I can't tell you how many people I know who are a product of their actions. Go get to know some poor people *really well* and you'll find that most put and keep themselves in that position. Do they really need to eat every meal out? The big screen TV? The brand new Jordans? The liquor and DVD's? Who wants to hire someone that irresponsible?

Just to note, most of the poor I know are 18-45ish. I do know many poor, older folks who scrape by month to month as well but many of those are good, honest, hard working people, the type I'd love to find a way to help them help themselves.

Allan L. and tODD:

Many obese people are responsible for their condition. Obesity leads to many more health care issues than just being plain obese. These many more health care issues put a major strain on our health care system. Health care is expensive, and someone has to pay for it. This translates into higher insurance premiums, higher deductibles, and coverage limits that are passed out to everyone. We are a physically sick nation. That is my logic. I don't wish the obese ill, in fact, I wish them well and hope for them to change their lifestyles for their good as well as everyone elses.

I was very careful in my original post, if you will notice, to state that obesity is only partially responsible for the system's current status. How responsible I do not know. The system is unquestionably overburdened.

"I thought that recent movie, "Idiocracy", was some kind of parody. Evidently, it's a documentary."

I don't know what this means exactly, but if you are calling me an idiot, you are violating the comments policy on this site as I understand them, and also contradicting your disgust for personal attacks made on Michael Moore (which no one had actually made prior to your initial comment - interesting). If that's not what you mean, please disregard.

No, Erik, I don't mean to call you an idiot, even indirectly. But your comment about personal responsibility for obesity got me to thinking about how much money is made by business interests off of promoting and selling junk food and beverages and how that is accepted by the meek and docile consumers, with some of the results we see in terms of excess weight. Personally, I believe (note the verb) we don't know enough about obesity to blame those who suffer from it in the sweeping way that you do. But I am sorry I didn't make my train of thought (if that's not too dignified a word for it) more clear, and implied something different.

Erik, I think I understood what you meant the first time. I don't disagree that some obese people are solely to blame for their condition (though you might be intrigued to read The Omnivore's Dilemma and find out what role the farm bill and other government machinations have in our current calorie glut).

But I don't believe that they are to blame for our broken health care system. Our system is broken because it is overwhelmingly reactionary (not preventative), bizarrely tied to employment, and ridiculously inefficient. Not to mention how drug companies and HMOs influence government health policy more than, say, health. None of that has anything to do with the types of sick people that our system treats. Obesity no doubt adds strain to the status quo (ante), but it is not the source of it.

"But your comment about personal responsibility for obesity got me to thinking about how much money is made by business interests off of promoting and selling junk food and beverages and how that is accepted by the meek and docile consumers, with some of the results we see in terms of excess weight."

Those poor sheeple. That statement makes it seem like you think they don't have the ability to think for themselves. Funny, that's the same mindset of the Democratic Party - always feeling the need to babysit and protect.

I feel companies should be able to market whatever they want, people should be able to choose to consume whatever they want, and taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab for the bad decisions of those people.

Michael Moore reminds me a lot of Al Franken. You know, the guy who wrote the book, "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot"? The guy who left bankrupt Air America to run for office in Michigan?

Their perspectives are identical: "if you disagree with me, you're an idiot". To me, both epitomize the Left. As a centrist, I find them offensive because they leave no room for discussion. It's all slam and bam, with no facts to buttress their agenda. Dare to disagree, and they revert to name-calling. They're like little kids in a sandbox. Probably long-lost siblings of Rosie O'Donnel.

Good God, I can feel the impending close of Jack's relaxed comments policy.

so, the reason that millions of children in America don't have health care is because...Michael Moore is "an overweight idiot and has all the facts wrong?"

good lord.

' Probably long-lost siblings of Rosie O'Donnel.'

There's the kind of erudite, cerebral argumentation we've been yearning for.

Wow, that's quite a performance from Mr. Moore. Required viewing for anybody who does public speaking; historical references, humor, testimonials, flattery, big ideas, personal anecdote, even the politician's fist (thumb out). Ambitious, colloquial and passionate. A+

"Those poor sheeple. That statement makes it seem like you think they don't have the ability to think for themselves. "

Young kids in school have neither the capacity nor the opportunity to think for themselves on these subjects. So, when the school boards take money from food processors to promte junk food and soda for real food in the cafeterias and vending machines, the kids really don't have much of a chance to avoid the health problems.

Molly,

Someone else already called you on the Canada talking point. I'll just add that even the two worst National Health Care systems (generally considered the UK and Canada) out perform ours. The Scandanavian, German, French, Swiss and Japanese that are typically the models people propose adopting run circles around us.

I'll correct your other error. The issues your hearing about (Walter Reed most notably) are with the active military health care system which is completely different from the VA. And the problems are mostly a matter of the Bush admin underfunding them.

The VA by contrast has made a remarkable turnaround from its prior poor performance. Starting in the Mid 90s it has been modernized and is now regarded as possibly the best health care system in the US.

"The Scandanavian, German, French, Swiss and Japanese that are typically the models people propose adopting run circles around us..."

Site an objective source for this statement, please.

"Young kids in school have neither the capacity nor the opportunity to think for themselves on these subjects. So, when the school boards take money from food processors to promte junk food and soda for real food in the cafeterias and vending machines, the kids really don't have much of a chance to avoid the health problems."

I agree with you 100% on that. I ate two $.50 cookies for lunch every day in middle school because they tasted way better than the $1 cup of top ramen. Talk about choosing the lesser of two evils. I know for a fact they could've offered something way better and more filling, even for $1. I didn't know you were referring to children; I was speaking of adults.

Objective sources for comparison of health care systems: This one is pretty good, but quite old, done in 2001 based on earlier data.

http://www.pnrec.org/2001papers/DaigneaultLajoie.pdf

Still, nothing in the comparisons has made things anything but worse for the U.S., as shown in this update:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-05/cf-nuo051107.php

We all agree the health care system here is in need of serious reform. I'm a little scared to hear the answer, but what I want to know is how many of you feel a universal (socialist) health care program is the answer?

To call Limbaugh a big fat idiot is hardly an insult. Merely a statement of observable fact. Now to refer to his listeners as retarded hillbillies that have made him wealthy beyond belief and supported policies that will benefit a tiny minority while hurting their own families. Now that could be construed as insulting.

I believe the US has the 17th best healthcare system (OECD) and comes 27ish for life expectancy all for about twice what the rest of the world pays per person. Plus, last I heard government spending for Medicare, Medicaid, Emergency rooms and the VA etc would almost cover everybody under a nasty socialized model. There is change coming folks as the big corporations that kept this mess going have become bored with paying for it. It will be interesting to see what happens. For me it’s a win/lose situation. The wife’s nice salary is dependent on catching a few crumbs from the trillions spent every year on healthcare. I may even have to go back to work before I’m 40. Then again, I won’t have to worry about everything we’ve saved vanishing in an instant if life takes an unlucky turn. Universal healthcare should be seen as the minimum requirement for being a first world nation.

"Site an objective source for this statement, please."

Here is an article from The New Republic on the topic, I'm afraid you have to be a subscriber to read it:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070409&s=cohn041007

Here is a blog post form Exra Klein summarizing it:

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/04/werenot_number_.html

If you spend about 5 minutes with Google you will be able to find plenty more comparisons.

How can you tell Max and Jon are Rethuglicans?

They call an Academy Award winning director silly names.

But when 80 percent of the nation thinks King George SUCKS worse than Nixon, well then, all you got is name calling.

See you in prison.

Oops, that was for Scooter, the president's freaky, creepy felon.

Joey:

To paraphrase from The Princess Bride:

"You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means"

Seriously a lot of people seem to think anything is Socialist if the government does it. All of these plans are talking about insurance, no one to the right of Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich (if even them!) is proposing a system like the UK (which is socialized health care, the doctors all work for the government) Having private doctors and so on with government insurance is not socialism. About the furthest anyone is proposing in that direction would be Medicare for all. But even then you can buy private insurance to supplement.

Another study on health care by country:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_05/011316.php

one more comment, and then I'm done. I'm getting so upset reading the comments...understand why Jack had to take a break...for those of you out there thinking that Michael Moore's fact are obtuse and unsubstantiated...let me give 2 true to life, unfabricated stories about people just like you...two girlfriends...at the time in their mid to late 20s...both college graduates, but unable to get a full time job with benefits...one gets an ovarian tumor, the other in a horrible car accident. Neither had health insurance...not covered under their parent's plan...it sent both families into bancruptcy...and if you don't understand that medicare and medicaid have waiting periods (in some cases 2 years) you really don't understand the health care system at all.

Young kids in school have neither the capacity nor the opportunity to think for themselves on these subjects.

But they do have parents, right?

Oh, and Daphne...Im not a Republican, I too think George sucks, and never called Moore any names. But hey, make some more stuff up. As for academy awards...I dont put much stock in that. Its just a bunch of rich children patting themselves on the back. It means nothing to anyone but themselves.

Eric, Socialism is the closest word to describe the government practice of redistributing the wealth as they see fit, including taking peoples income via taxes and spending it on others (welfare, health care, whatever). To me that's nothing more than government unsubsidized charity. I don't want to pay for anyone unless I choose to do so, and I don't want them to pay for me unless they choose to do so. Isn't true freedom all about choice? Funny how people call Republicans thugs when it's the Democrats who are constantly trying to get more and more out of my wallet.

laurelann, I think these type of discussions are great. I think it's good for people to talk and discuss these things with others who don't share their same point of view, even if most of the time we just agree to disagree. I feel for the friends, I really do, but I don't see how that makes Michael Moore's distorted facts any more truthful. I admit, I could be wrong about Sicko since I haven't seen it, but I *highly* doubt he decided to make an honest case.

Daphne, I think you emant Todd, not Jon, he was the one whose entire argument was basically Moore is fat and silly looking.

As a Liberal who generally agrees with him I do get frustrated by Moore a little. He does a great job and 90-95% of his facts are well documented and right on, but he just can't resist throwing in the extra 5-10% that is exaggerated and gives the right wing nuts fodder.

From what I've heard he does a much better job in Sicko in staying disciplined.

Joey,

What do you think insurance is?

As for your attitude, hope your lucky and never get Cancer.

Thankfully your style of pure libertarianism has been rejected by America as most of us realize that there are many things that are simply beyond our control, some people get Cancer some people don't, and sharing the burden makes sense.

Eric, I asked for *objective* research and stats, but whatever two can play at that game

Here are some links to problems with socialized medicine in other countries -- complete with footnotes no less!!!

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=2311002005

http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2007/06/uk-lung-patients-let-down-by-nhs.html

if you need only one reason to fix the US's health care system, this would be it, I think:

http://www.childrenshealthcampaign.org/

millions of children in the richest country in the world have zero health care. millions more have inadequate health care. Michael Moore (correctly) pointed this fact out.

that's not the case in Scandanavia and Germany--all kids there have decent access to health care. every last one of them.

I totally understand why someone would blame the broken healthcare system on people who suffer from obesity. Obesity is a health problem that is impossible to hide. When you are fat, everyone knows you are fat. Because obesity is the one of the most easily recognizable health problems, it’s an easy target for those people who are not willing to dig any deeper into our broken healthcare system for the real causes. Obese people are constantly being accused of being lazy, but blaming the failing healthcare system on the obese is extreme mental laziness. In my neighborhood there are many bars, and many people who like to go to bars. Alcoholism and binge drinking puts just as much of a strain on our healthcare system as obesity, but I don’t hear anyone blaming the drunks.

Eric,

Insurance should be a *voluntary* means of sharing that burden. I'm not a total libertarian by any means. I do believe there needs to be more regulation of these insurance companies to protect the consumer, but I believe that should be the extent of the governments involvement. What is it that drives up insurance premiums and the cost of health care? I know emergency room visits and preventative care are a big thing, but what else? greed?

It's hard to believe a health care provider that runs hospitals, offers insurance, etc. wouldn't be able to offer all of that in house and solve their own problems to bring costs down.

Joey,

"Voluntary" insurance is a big part of the problem. A major reason those Emergency room visits are so expensive is because they have to pay for all the people who don't have insurance. In order for insurance to work everyone has to have it, that is the point of insurance, you spread the risk. Like auto insurance, yeah there are some uninsured motorists out there, but thanks to the laws and enforcement not that many, think how high your rates would be if it was totally voluntary?

Since you're not a hard core libertarian what you really seem to be objecting to is semantics. If the government requires everyone to have insurance and regulates that the insurance comapanies cover everyone and sets limits on the rates they can charge, then mandates that some combination of you and your employer has to pay for your insurance how is that fundamentally different than the government simply taxing you and your employer and paying for your health care directly?

Okay...I lied. I'm commenting once more. What I find interesting...you all are so quick to give you opinon...but not one other person gave a true-to-life story regarding healthcare...pro or con...

" a true-to-life story "

Anecdotes don't cut it on either side of the discussion. All systems have flaws, and with or without flaws individual health care stories can have bad outcomes. Cherry-picking among such stories to support one's point of view will raise emotions, but won't move the debate forward usefully. Macro statistics, on the other hand, once properly understood, help to make meaningful comparisons of different systems actually in use.

"I love Michael Moore".

Wow, if that statement doesn't qualify you as a wacky partisan progressive-type, nothing will. But hey, you could probably profess your fondness for Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, chairman Mao or Hugo Chavez and still get no love from the punk kids in the local "alternative" press scene or the brain trust (both of them) who comprise the Loaded Orygun blog.

I used to like Moore, back in the TV Nation days. I found him very funny and sharp witted (in my younger years) before he sold his objectivity. Now he's more of a partisan shill. That's too bad, as I too would love the guy if he'd lambaste the modern left as he does the the right. Sadly, he has relegated himself to partisan hack status, beloved by the left, hated by the right.

This classic liberal will probably watch Sicko with his less worldly, registered Democrat girlfriend and enjoy it, albeit from a far more cynical perspective. His films are still good when taken with a large salt lick. He'll tell us that our current health care system is a mess (true) while preaching that the only alternative is full-on socialized medicine (false). Eh, probably good for a few laughs, while understanding that it's largely leftist propaganda.

"I know emergency room visits and preventative care are a big thing, but what else?"

You mean LACK OF preventative care is a big thing. It's much cheaper to give everyone regular check-ups, so problems are caught early on, than for people to avoid the doctor until their problems become intractable, which is what happens now too often b/c of either lack of insurance, or b.s. like copays, deductibles, and exclusions for everything under the sun, etc.

"greed?"

Yes. A check-up and physical is not a Lamborghini: the profit motive needs to be removed from health care. Like it or not our nation is a society, and our society is only as strong as its weakest link. In a wealthy, civilized nation, basic health care should be a human right--not a luxury item available only to the elite.

We should join other wealthy, civilized nations in giving everyone the right to free health care--even the broke and unproductive.

As horrible as "socialism" and "redistribution of wealth" may be, they are preferable to women dying perfectly preventable deaths from perforated bowels on ER waiting room floors because they have no money and speak no english.

I'll give Michael this, He knows how to make a buck.

Moore: "our health care system is bad and needs fundamental changes.:

Critic: "oh yeah? well you're fat!"

Moore: "but--the health care system?"

Critic: "you are no journalist, you get your facts wrong and misrepresent things!"

Moore: "you mean, these statistics and first-person accounts I show of the health care system are wrong?"

Critic: "yeah! well, i don't really know--but you're fat and need to shave, you left-winged nutcase! stop trying to manipulate reality!"

Moore: "why would i spend years of my life making films about a)the abuse of blue-collar auto workers by big corporations in a midwest town, b)shooting victims, and c)questioning the waging of an international war that involves millions of lives?"

Critic: "...because you're a left-wingnut who hates America! you just...ooh...are such a hypocrite!"

and so on.

So you don't believe he misleads his audience by misrepresenting facts and statistics?

No.

Why do you believe that, Joey Link? Give us some examples.

Start with "Roger and Me", which is predicated upon his unsuccessful attempt to interview the head honcho of a major car manufacturer. Unsuccessful? He got the interview, but it didn't fit his agenda, so he left it on the cutting room floor. It's a typical move. If the tape don't fit, you must acquit. Moore has a more convenient approach - he just hides it.

On another note entirely:

How can you tell Max and Jon are Rethuglicans?

They call an Academy Award winning director silly names.

But when 80 percent of the nation thinks King George SUCKS worse than Nixon, well then, all you got is name calling.

Ya know what? I've not called anybody names. So wipe the crap off your foot and ideally out of your mind, and move on.

Oh, and by the way: the Democrat-controlled congress has numbers even lower than Bush's.

Guess what? Bush and congress both suck bilge-water.

They call an Academy Award winning director silly names.

You want to discuss infantile name calling? Lets start with "Chimp".

Truth is a defense to name-calling.

" He got the interview, but it didn't fit his agenda, so he left it on the cutting room floor. It's a typical move. If the tape don't fit, you must acquit. Moore has a more convenient approach - he just hides it."

This seems like a red herring. What's the point of the movie? Not that GM executives don't give interviews. Moore's point is that management bungles and the workers suffer. Is he wrong about that?

Sam, here you go -> http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Google has many more results as well.

ah yes, the same Hardy who's a notorious "right to bear arms" advocate and known famously as "The gun owner's best friend."

surely, he's an impartial observer.

here's a thorough rebuttal to Hardy's polemic. it's long.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607

the ironic part is, of course, is that Moore himself stated in the movie and in print that he didn't make a movie to advocate gun control--he made a movie to investigate the question "why are we so violent?"

meanwhile: the health care system?

"He got the interview, but it didn't fit his agenda, so he left it on the cutting room floor."

"Anybody who says that is a (expletive) liar," Moore told The Associated Press in an interview Saturday after a showing of "Sicko," his take on U.S. medicine, in the northern Michigan village of Bellaire.

It surprises me, Jack, that you like Mike. It's likely that I have a wrong preconceived impression of you, as moderately rightist, and I have further wrong impression, that it's an axiom of rightism that Mike is intolerable.

I stand corrected, hearing it sounds like you like him more than I do. I like that he gets films made 'outside' of the control of the Hollywood capital-C Cinema Syndicate. He gives independent film producers hope. I doubt Mike could have made his films, back in the Hollywood heyday -- moguls had more control, and lost it to new distribution technology, (VHS to internet). I would have Mike credit more the film infrastructures built up, (format, distribution), that he can capitalize on. Even with it, profitable filmmaking is still hard work, a hustle and shill, and it's his own credit he works it well.

I just don't like his topics very much. They seem 'behind the curve,' to me. I watch, and I don't learn anything new. But then ... sigh ... two hours of watching a film is not supposed to be educational. I just don't watch much movies, or TV. I like my entertainment live and personal. I don't watch sports, I play them. I don't buy CDs, I play in a band, and go out to hear live bands, so I can dance. I don't understand why someone would sit and watch MTV (for instance), sheesh, do it, be it.

Rant off. Two points I liked in Mike's oral 'testimony.' That fixing some broken part, (for him, the bloodsucking profit-taking insurance companies), gains little, if it succeeds. The broken part is often, mostly, a symptom. The true root problem, what's broken needing fixed, is usually weak conceptual design, too thin to cover everyone and contingencies. Mike calls it 'the system.'

I'm all for eliminating the profit-obsessed health insurance companies, and for instituting universal health insurance. And, I expect the result would deliver some good degree or better extent of health care.

Just, I don't think that it would make people healthy. Again, for the same 'reason' -- a larger conceptual system -- in that health, like entertainment, seems to me something no one can deliver to me, I have to manufacture it. Eat right, exercise, sleep and rest, socialize, stimulate mind, feel spirit.

A bit abruptly, this segues to Mike's second comment I liked. He talked about people being indoctrinated to a fault, that so many parrots say and seem to believe 'government programs are wasteful, bad,' only because the word 'government' describes them. People buy in to the most repeated summary, not the most accurate summary, (because who has got time to look up and learn all the information and summarize it for themself?) Like the word 'socialism' for too many people. It's a cuss word, an epithet. A perjorative. They have no idea what it means, and no curiosity to study it and study their own thinking about it.

Like the idea that health is something a doctor supplies, for a fee. (Instead of knowing that health is something we bring out, and build out, from inside ourself -- a doctor has little or nothing to do with it.)

And such misconceptions get indoctrinated, inculcated, in a vast many people's thinking of life. And there's no coutervailing mechanism in the system, to reorient people's misconceptions. To debate collectively. To counterpose. There's no structured continuing adult education facility and procedure, only the ad hoc affected 'knowledge' from mass media. That's my criticism, and frustration, against 'the system.'

I guess I supposed, in seeing some of your (earlier) Republican-type thoughts, and categorizing you as rutted in the rightwing, Jack, I figured you were unlikely to learn new experiences and review or reflect, and adjust beliefs as a result of changed view and understanding. It seems like I was wrong. You seem not as rigidly Catholic as you seemed before. You seem not so devoutly Republican, although ...

... you still are waaay more concerned about 'government wasting taxes,' than my proportions of concern in the subject. But then, you work in taxes, taxes be your life. You know what's good and you know what's bad about taxation.

Just saying, I think the proportioning of concern is unbalanced about wasted taxes. Penny wise and dollar foolish. And I think such misappraisal in so many people is another indoctrination thing. I think stopping the biggest waste would save the public treasury the most bucks. Namely, cancel the military, the Pentagon, (it gets over fifty cents of every dollar we're taxed), and there'd be money to buy everyone a Deluxe Health Care system, and a free education through college, and still give back, or reduce, thirty cents on the dollar, thirty percent of today's tax burden. Our public services would be royal pampering, and we'd still get money back.

And it's all because I think humankind in the world is not a threat to America, there are no boogeyman enemies 'out there,' or under the bed, coming to get us, (and even if it was, Pentagonal militarism is not the prophylaxis). USA has picked the fight and started the war in every instance since 1945 ... to make-work, as job security, for the warmaker armaments 'industries.' The communists were never going to get us, (education prevents communism, bombs don't). The 'Cold War' was a charade. Simply another one of the repetition-instilled mistaken beliefs I'm talking about.

And when we have fixed the Big Problem of wasting taxes on unnecessary militarism and aggression incitement, then I am more than happy to focus a bit of concern on small-potatoes things like waste in a public-paid health insurance policy, no doubt there's some waste in it.

It's just too bad, an immoral shame, that the people gotten rich and getting richer with our taxes manufacturing war death, by teaching fear and hate to motivate our paying the taxes, preempt and predominate reporting their indoctrination to us, the massmind public, louder than the voices teaching care for people dying from lack of health coverage. An immoral shame because it's a lie we face threats to war against, and it's a truth we care for each other, and that caring is healthful more for the giver than the receiver.

Two final notes: an irony and an idiocy, a spastic idiocy, or 'deadly embrace' in computer programmer jargon. The irony is that the bodily wounded and psychologically traumatized troops, families, and communities affected in war deaths, causes additional and severe strain on health care resources, from which the public capital was removed to capitalize warmaking. The spastic idiocy, the intractable circular logic, is that the warmaking goes on only to get oil to fuel the warmaking -- we wouldn't fight war for oil if we wouldn't need oil for war. (Some fresh facts for further reading.)

The sense of my tactic, here, is that by putting this stuff at a deep bottom of a lapsing post and left-behind thread, only you are going to notice them, Jack, if at all, and the low key keeps your option to register receipt, or not, of the information.

I am wondering if your esteem of Mike has the staying power to keep up with him in investigation to exposures of Nine Eleven Op hoax. For myself, again, Mike is trailing behind the relevant news that leads the cutting edge. Cutting away cover-ups and opening out understanding, that is. Yet, I am very glad he is where and doing what he is, and I like him a lot.

(My and Mike's paths crossed back when he was working on his General Motors, 'Roger and Me' material, but we missed meeting each other, shaking hands ... by about two days and three hundred miles. I was then, once upon a time, involved in broadcast video production.)

www.jonesreport.com/articles/180607_moore_911.html
Michael Moore: 9/11 Could Be Inside Job, Discusses Explosions in Buildings, Demands '100 Angles' of Pentagon Video, and Calls for a New Investigation -- "They Haven't Even Told Us Half the Truth."

As I read the news item, Mike hints at looking into the subject, and in his context that might mean a film forthcoming from him. The rest of this quotes at the link.

Michael Moore was not vague or bashful in discussing 9/11 truth-- rather, he demanded a "new investigation before we get too far away from this-- to find out the whole truth." "And I intend, in my own way, to find some answers," Moore added. ...

Moore's most recent comments on 9/11 are a far cry from statements he made to Alex Jones during the 2004 RNC convention ...

This is a huge development in public figures going public with 9/11 questions -- ...