PDA

View Full Version : Mike Moore affirmsthe basis of Dr Paul's stance on health care




foofighter20x
07-20-2007, 02:53 PM
He still a socialist, but he admits it's the HMOs that are the problem.

Link (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/20/colbert-and-moore-team-up-against-cnn/)

You'd think he'd put the connection together that it's government interference in the market that caused that, but yet, he fails to do so.

specsaregood
07-20-2007, 02:57 PM
A couple months ago Moore challenged Fred Thompson to a debate on the subject. Fred Thompson either scared or lazy declined.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=208

I would LOVE TO SEE Ron Paul DEBATE Moore on this issue. Even Faux News would cover that!

giskard
07-20-2007, 02:59 PM
My question is, how do you counter the evidence that Canada, France, and the UK have better health care systems than we do, despite the gov't control?

foofighter20x
07-20-2007, 03:00 PM
Mike Moore would never do it.

He knows he'd lose.

Mike Moore doesn't have a nightlight because he's scared of the dark; it's because he's scared of Ron Paul. :p :D

Slugg
07-20-2007, 03:01 PM
My question is, how do you counter the evidence that Canada, France, and the UK have better health care systems than we do, despite the gov't control?

They don't. Period.
I live over seas (i'm an American boy though). TONS of people hate the health care in those countries. Yes, it's free. But they go to the US for any real work...or they wait...sometimes years!!

Daveforliberty
07-20-2007, 03:04 PM
I work a lot in Canada and I hear plenty of complaining about the health care system. I've even heard people say "we need a system like they have in the U.S.! Now THAT's gotta be bad!

Gee
07-20-2007, 03:07 PM
He calls it a "free market" system. Wow, what an idiot.

qednick
07-20-2007, 03:07 PM
My question is, how do you counter the evidence that Canada, France, and the UK have better health care systems than we do, despite the gov't control?

You're kidding right??? I moved here from Britain 7 years ago. The healthcare system (NHS) is on its knees. People have to wait 2-3 years for non-life-threatening treatments. Tales of people literally dying on stretchers in the hospital corridors. They can't get doctors or nurses. Having to coax new nurses from the philippines.

At the end of the day, governments are notoriously bad at running anything efficiently. The system becomes one giant gravy train for the folks at the top who skim all the money.

Now if you got rid of all the corrupt politicians in this country, it would cure a lot of problems including those issues in the healthcare and environment. Drugs cost ten times what they cost in other countries. Why? Because corrupt politicians in this country are in the pockets of drug companies and oil companies.

foofighter20x
07-20-2007, 03:09 PM
My question is, how do you counter the evidence that Canada, France, and the UK have better health care systems than we do, despite the gov't control?

They have more coverage, but worser qualtiy of service and horrendous wait times.

Gee
07-20-2007, 03:09 PM
My question is, how do you counter the evidence that Canada, France, and the UK have better health care systems than we do, despite the gov't control?
Their systems have more government, our system has more stupid. I think its a lot easier to manage a socialized system on a more local basis, such as the case is with smaller European countries.

RedStripe
07-20-2007, 03:11 PM
Ron Paul needs to challenge Moore to a debate on Socialized Medicine, and not wimp out like Thompson.

qednick
07-20-2007, 03:13 PM
BTW, when I lived in the UK, I voluntarily paid to have private medical insurance - despite the fact that there was socialized medicine and I could be treated for free.

Why? Because I didn't want to wait 2-3 years to have a poorly paid doctor treat me with sub-standard tools and leave me in a filthy ward with 30 other sick people and get looked after by a bunch of very poorly paid nurses.

The system in the US is MUCH MUCH MUCH better. The hospitals are better and treatment is top notch. The only drawback is the articificially high costs charged for drugs/treatment - and they can only get away with this because politicians are in drug companies pockets.

specsaregood
07-20-2007, 03:14 PM
Ron Paul needs to challenge Moore to a debate on Socialized Medicine, and not wimp out like Thompson.

AGREED. It would only be more coverage. Make the challenge public. Does Moore have the guts to debate somebody that really knows the problem and is willing to say it?

Mesogen
07-20-2007, 03:17 PM
Are HMO's run by the government?

j650
07-20-2007, 03:19 PM
I've never understood why people like Moore are advocating that a big government run bureaucracy can give a service that is cheaper and more efficient than a truly free market system. It just makes no sense at all to me.

foofighter20x
07-20-2007, 03:22 PM
Are HMO's run by the government?

No, but government still forces employers to participate in one if they offer health care to their employees.

It's kind of like the forced acceptance of FRNs. Worthless, except by government decree and forced participation.

qednick
07-20-2007, 03:22 PM
I've never understood why people like Moore are advocating that a big government run bureaucracy can give a service that is cheaper and more efficient than a truly free market system. It just makes no sense at all to me.

The problem with the US system is that it's not a truly free market system due to politician corruption. In a truly free market system, drugs and treatments would be 10x cheaper than they are currently.

Unfortunately, people mistakenly believe that "socialized medicine" is the only answer because that is what's being preached to them by people like Obama and Moore.

atilla
07-20-2007, 03:33 PM
You're kidding right??? I moved here from Britain 7 years ago.... They can't get doctors or nurses. Having to coax new nurses from the philippines.

i live in the U.S., most doctors in my city are from india, (and 2/3's of those are named patel), and the local hospital has it's own job fair in the philipines to hire nurses. it has nothing to do with who pays the bills, the problem is they restrict medical care. there are 15 qualified applicants for every medical school slot in the U.S. and if you go to medical school overseas the slots for the required U.S. residency are also restricted. Of course Ron Paul says you should be able to go see a nurse for a sore throat and it wouldn't cost so much.

but, if we had all the new doctors who would train if the medical school and internship slots were available (instead if artifically restricted). doctors would be middle class and prices would be low. (as long as we kill all the lawyers to lower malpractice insurance) my great grandpa was a country doctor in 1800s texas, he was not a rich man (and did not drive a mercedes)

i was staying with freinds in mexico a few years ago and had my foot swell up, they took me to the home of their family doctor. this 83 year old doctor diagnosed my problem as gout in about 30 seconds gave me samples of gout medicine, total charge, aproximately $10 U.S. if i had went to a doctor in the u.s. they probably would have had to get blood work and send me to two speciallists named patel, and them maybe not even figure it out.

U.S. doctors are idiots, except dr. paul. doesn't matter who pays the bills.

j650
07-20-2007, 03:33 PM
The problem with the US system is that it's not a truly free market system due to politician corruption. In a truly free market system, drugs and treatments would be 10x cheaper than they are currently.

Unfortunately, people mistakenly believe that "socialized medicine" is the only answer because that is what's being preached to them by people like Obama and Moore.

Exactly. And people are getting misled when they say "free universal health care." It's anything but free because taxes will go up. It will be universal in that everyone will have a basic coverage, but just how good will the coverage be and what will it cover? People don't seem to be interested in these questions. They watch the one sided Sicko movie and believe that will solve everything. Sure the health care system here has problems, but tearing it apart and replacing it with more government is not the answer.

Mesogen
07-20-2007, 03:38 PM
I've never understood why people like Moore are advocating that a big government run bureaucracy can give a service that is cheaper and more efficient than a truly free market system. It just makes no sense at all to me.

He thinks that corporations are pure evil and if only the people in government would "wake up" and "defend the people" or "stick up for the little guy" and fight those evil corporations then things would be better. What he doesn't realize (or maybe he does) is that they are all the same people! They go to the same parties and rub the same elbows and join the same clubs.

I don't see why Michael Moore doesn't realize that by totally socializing health care, he wouldn't be putting government in control of healthcare, he would be making healthcare corporations part of the government.

Bradley in DC
07-20-2007, 03:40 PM
Let's try not to put those two names together, if we can help it. I just ate.

specsaregood
07-20-2007, 03:43 PM
Let's try not to put those two names together, if we can help it. I just ate.

Don't you agree that it would be a great opportunity for RP to challenge Moore to a debate? Especially since Moore challenged Thompson and Thompson chickened out.

The Challenge:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=208

Thompson chickening out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdAm6UY4xOE

The time is ripe for this...

foofighter20x
07-20-2007, 03:45 PM
Dr Paul would sososo wipe the floor with Moore.

Scribbler de Stebbing
07-20-2007, 03:46 PM
My question is, how do you counter the evidence that Canada, France, and the UK have better health care systems than we do, despite the gov't control?

Wha-- ? Why do canadians have to wait and wait and wait for health care? I assume everyone is here supporting Ron Paul because they love freedom, right? As in knowing that the government which can give you anything you want can take everything away? If you don't like and trust corporations, believe me, government at a million times the size of any corporation is to be trusted that much less.

qednick
07-20-2007, 04:02 PM
i live in the U.S., most doctors in my city are from india, (and 2/3's of those are named patel), and the local hospital has it's own job fair in the philipines to hire nurses. it has nothing to do with who pays the bills, the problem is they restrict medical care. there are 15 qualified applicants for every medical school slot in the U.S. and if you go to medical school overseas the slots for the required U.S. residency are also restricted. Of course Ron Paul says you should be able to go see a nurse for a sore throat and it wouldn't cost so much.

but, if we had all the new doctors who would train if the medical school and internship slots were available (instead if artifically restricted). doctors would be middle class and prices would be low. (as long as we kill all the lawyers to lower malpractice insurance) my great grandpa was a country doctor in 1800s texas, he was not a rich man (and did not drive a mercedes)

i was staying with freinds in mexico a few years ago and had my foot swell up, they took me to the home of their family doctor. this 83 year old doctor diagnosed my problem as gout in about 30 seconds gave me samples of gout medicine, total charge, aproximately $10 U.S. if i had went to a doctor in the u.s. they probably would have had to get blood work and send me to two speciallists named patel, and them maybe not even figure it out.

U.S. doctors are idiots, except dr. paul. doesn't matter who pays the bills.

Funny. Most of the doctors in Britain's socialized medicine system are called Patel too.

The reason the US doctor might send you to see two specialists and have blood work done may be because they all play golf together???

Gee
07-20-2007, 04:04 PM
I think people have really been influenced to a large degree by Marxist dogma (and yes it is dogma, because his refutation of economics was completely illogical), whether they know it or not. Its really seeped into the thought processes of a lot of people.

For example, most people equate socialism with welfare, or aid for poor people. But we know this is not true, and that socialism can easily benefit the rich, or the poor, depending on the system.

Most people also think that the free market is mutually exclusive with welfare or charity, when of course it is not at all.

And lastly, most people don't understand that socialism is really very, very similar to corporatism. Over time, the two systems become nearly identical. The only defining difference between the two systems is that a corporation can be bought or sold as private property, while a socialist debarment cannot. Other than that, there is no defining difference between the two systems. The business of course starts out as a private enterprise where profits go to the shareholders, but in truth and over time that is irrelevant. Regardless of the methods used, both systems of organization are made up by individuals who primarily have their own self-interest in mind. For that reason, both systems will be primarily self-serving, since there is not direct accountability with the consumer.

MsDoodahs
07-20-2007, 04:13 PM
I heard just this morning on CNBC that they have a co-pay in France the equivalent of $100 - $400 dollars per visit, they are in debt in their healthcare plan over ... it was either one or four BILLION dollars. That is NOT better than the US system.

The HMO exists because of Ted Kennedy.

The gov't DOES run the HMO by way of dictating what must be covered, what charges are acceptable, etc, etc, etc.

angelatc
07-20-2007, 04:20 PM
Don't you agree that it would be a great opportunity for RP to challenge Moore to a debate? Especially since Moore challenged Thompson and Thompson chickened out.

The time is ripe for this...

NO, because Michael Moore makes things up. The people that listen to him are not interested in facts and finance. They want what they want no matter the cost.

HOw anybody can look at public housing then look to public health care baffles me.

Cronyism? Howlong before Halliburton gets into health care if it's socialized?

Baby boomers? I'm one. Socialize it now, right before a huge segment of the population enters the years where most people are likely to get sick and stay sick? Are young people really that stupid? We'll bankrupt them in record time.

angelatc
07-20-2007, 04:23 PM
The gov't DOES run the HMO by way of dictating what must be covered, what charges are acceptable, etc, etc, etc.

Plastic surgeon charged us more for 17 stitches in my son's chin than he did for my friend's breast enhancement. Simply because insurance typically doesn't pay for breast augmentation.

qednick
07-20-2007, 04:26 PM
If anyone has any doubts about what I said about Britain's NHS service not working, here's a search for news stories on one single UK newspaper:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/dmsearch/overture.html?in_page_id=711&in_overture_ua=711&in_start_number=0&in_restriction=&in_query=NHS&in_channel=1469&in_pub=0&in_order_by=relevance%2Bdate&in_start=%2F%2F&in_end=%2F%2F

Story after story after story about how bad things are. Here's one of my favorites (read the reader comments on it):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403915&in_page_id=1770

angelatc
07-20-2007, 04:26 PM
Wha-- ? Why do canadians have to wait and wait and wait for health care? .

The Canadians actually sued their government for the right to buy private coverages.

Gee
07-20-2007, 04:39 PM
NO, because Michael Moore makes things up. The people that listen to him are not interested in facts and finance. They want what they want no matter the cost.
Moore may make things up, but the people who listen to him aren't all bad. Most don't know any better, and besides, there are facts in Moore's films; its not like everything he says is malicious.

I think a Dr. Paul v. Moore debate would be wonderful, and give publicity to both parties. Keep in mind, most Americans today don't really know what freedom is. They are taught that FDR was one of our best presidents, and that the free market is government-sponsored privatization.

angelatc
07-20-2007, 05:07 PM
I think a Dr. Paul v. Moore debate would be wonderful, and give publicity to both parties. Keep in mind, most Americans today don't really know what freedom is. They are taught that FDR was one of our best presidents, and that the free market is government-sponsored privatization.

Perhaps I've spent too much time at the Daily K... o s to think rationally.

hard@work
07-20-2007, 05:34 PM
Ron Paul needs to challenge Moore to a debate on Socialized Medicine, and not wimp out like Thompson.

This is it right here. This would be huge for both Moore and Paul, I could see this working well. I could see Moore declining out of fear of Paul's powerful arguments, but I could also see him accepting out of respect for their shared convictions.

foofighter20x
07-21-2007, 07:30 PM
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE IS WHAT'S SICKO
By Gen LaGreca

Michael Moore says he made the film, "Sicko," to "ignite a fire for free, universal healthcare." How absurd is it for someone seeking proper healthcare to take an odyssey to Communist Cuba? That Moore's camera-rolling entourage would receive the same healthcare as a Cuban citizen stretches even a child's imagination. His film should be renamed "Another Celebrity Falls for Dictator's Dog-and-Pony Show."

People like Moore believe capitalism is the disease and government takeover the cure for our healthcare ills. They think people have a "right" to free healthcare simply because they need it.

If so, why stop at medicine? Couldn't we claim the same "right" to other necessities? Take food, for instance. What if the government seized control of the food industry and fed us for free with a new entitlement, "Foodcare"?

Initially Foodcare will empty the horn of plenty into your lap. With your appetite and wallet parting company, the lobster you ate only on your birthday will become regular fare, as will your favorite Belgian chocolates and filet mignon.

Because the same idea occurs to 300 million others, costs skyrocket, and a Foodcare crisis develops. Big Brother can no longer foot the bill for your busy mouth, so he must limit your mastication. This requires new agencies, bureaucrats, and a 100,000-page rulebook.

You visit your favorite restaurant to find it changed. Gone are the tablecloths, flowers, and cheerful hostess to greet you, enhancements you had gladly paid for in the price of your meal. The Department of Restaurants eliminated them as frivolous indulgences of the people’s resources.

The menu is reduced to a few modest offerings. Missing are the savory specials of the talented chef, whose last creation took forty pounds—not of ingredients but of paperwork—to gain approval from the New Recipe Administration.

You want steak, but getting it requires that the chef call a central office to obtain pre-authorization. With the clock ticking and a long line waiting to slide into your barely warm seat, you order hamburger instead. You notice your neighbor eating steak—and sitting at the best table. You remember when he was laid off and you bought him dinner. Back then, he thanked you for your charity and quickly got another job. But now that he has a “right” to food, he's stopped working to eat courtesy of your tax dollars.

You barely recognize the frazzled chef buried in paperwork. The once happy figure doting over your every need now slaves for a new master, one that denies his fee for serving Cognac, second-guesses his decision to make cheesecake, requires a Certificate of Need to buy an oven. You know that under Foodcare he's merely biding time till retirement. When he goes, you doubt he’ll be replaced because enrollment in chef’s schools has dropped as the number of bureaucrats hounding them has risen.

As time passes, everyone forgets how it started, but the crisis worsens. Michael Moore makes a pilgrimage to North Korea in search of adequate food.

You realize that the amount you pay into Foodcare exceeds what you had paid when you bought your own food and didn't obtain it for “free.” Then you didn't pay for bureaucrats and inspectors to tell you what to eat, or for those milking the system like your neighbor. Besides emptying your wallet, Foodcare has drained all the pleasure you once derived from eating.

Politicians blame their scapegoat, the capitalists—grocers, chefs, food manufacturers—and pass laws to prevent any from owning a Mercedes while someone goes to bed hungry in America. They tell us profit is evil and free food for all is a moral ideal.

You wonder: Is there something wrong with this picture? The ideal isn't the private system, with happy chefs and grocers earning a good living in return for their talent and entrepreneurial skill, and satisfied customers enjoying a Shangri La of affordable food. The ideal isn't a spectacular abundance, with everyone's standard of eating—including the poor—raised dramatically, and this achieved without government force—without fleecing taxpayers and robbing consumers and suppliers of their freedom to make their own personal choices and to interact voluntarily. Instead, the ideal is to transform free, self-determining individuals into state-controlled puppets.

The Foodcare scenario is actually playing out in healthcare. Once the gold standard of the world, American medicine has fallen to its knees from decades of crippling regulation, with the final blow about to come from universal healthcare.

To stop this despotism we must repudiate the notion that healthcare is a right. No one has a right to demand for free the goods and services produced by others. We have the freedom to take action to further our own lives—to work, earn money, and pay for the things we need—while respecting the same rights of others. We don't have any right to enact laws to seize people's money, control their activities, and force them to provide services on terms dictated by Big Brother.

No good can result when the means used to achieve it are plunder and coercion. Universal healthcare merits the label "sicko"—or more accurately "tyranny."

Genevieve (Gen) LaGreca is the author of Noble Vision, an award-winning novel about a doctor's fight for freedom in a state-run health system.

Lord Xar
07-21-2007, 07:51 PM
From what i read, the MAJORITY of the uninsured in America are in fact, illegal immigrants - I believe a point Mr. Moore failed to mention.

SwordOfShannarah
07-21-2007, 08:31 PM
I've never understood why people like Moore are advocating that a big government run bureaucracy can give a service that is cheaper and more efficient than a truly free market system. It just makes no sense at all to me.

It makes perfect sense if you believe the government is trying to create a new world order in which they control everything and that Moore is a part of their media plan to create it.

Moores film pushes socialized medicine big time. Socialized medicine is the gateway to the bio-chip. First they kill the competition so you have to use gov health care, then (because it will "save money and lives") they will implement the bio-chip. At first it will be voluntary, seriously ill patients will be easily talked into it, they'll come up with all kinds of excuses for why it is better for you until one day millions and millions of Americans will use them. Then it will become mandatory- if you don't take the chip you don't get health care. The competition has been outlawed and now there is nowhere else to turn and you lose. Have a coke and a sandwich with your chips.

Of course they will also tell us it's a way to keep our kids safe in case they are abducted, it's necessary to have one in order to get into a stadium like event because with all those people we have to make sure no terrorists can get in. And so on and so on. Soon bio-chip readers will be everywhere and required to do everything.

Back to Moore.. look further at his other movies- Columbine gave the government fuel to take our guns away (which is another step towards new world order). F9/11 was a piece to take us in the direction of scandal then divert us down an alley to keep from knowing the truth. What is the truth? Well I'm not looking to start a 9/11 thread so if you want to disagree on that one no problem with me. It would be my weakest point anyway. But you do have to admit he never uncovered the info that now, for better or worse has had a major effect on our society. How did he miss all that?

Michael Moore is not on our side. He helps create the "problems" in our minds eye so the government can provide "the solution". That's a repeating pattern Problem- Reaction- Solution. Just look at immigration as a great example- such an easy problem to at least stop from increasing and yet they do nothing.. that's on PURPOSE! It's been going on for years and years and years now.

Think of this- If Moore's movies are so bad for the government how is it they get soooo much attention. Ron Paul doesn't get any attention, but they can't keep a lid on that evil muckraker Moore? He's a part of the plan man.

jonahtrainer
07-21-2007, 08:39 PM
Moore may make things up, but the people who listen to him aren't all bad. Most don't know any better, and besides, there are facts in Moore's films; its not like everything he says is malicious.

Moore only hit on the issue tangentially in the movie. If you want to listen to one of my podcasts (http://web.mac.com/tracemayer/iWeb/Team/Podcasts/8F69B9CB-698D-4026-BD63-B8A20A9C6A38.html) it hits squarely on the issue that is wrong with our 'health care' industry. It, like almost all problems, is economic at its root.

Broadlighter
07-21-2007, 08:40 PM
One of my best friends is a doctor who's last name is Patel. Knowing him, he would probably agree with most here about socialized medicine.

I saw "Sicko." In my estimation it was yet another exercise in 'smoke and mirrors' journalism that some of us would expect from Michael Moore.

First off, he protrays the problems of the HMO industry, while ignoring other healthcare options like PPOs and HSAs. He says nothing about alternative care. Believe me, I had a head-cold once and went to an acupuncture clinic. They put some needles on some points on my face, neck and chest and within a couple of hours, the fever was gone. I didn't need expensive drugs or lab tests.

Michael Moore put out a call on his website for people to share their horror stories with the health care system. He got back something like 26,000 responses. Out of those, he picked about 6 people and interviewed them. Admittedly, they were sad stories about the HMO plans they were in.

Then Michael Moore goes on to show how the Republicans over the years poo-pooed government-health care, making them look like idiots. He also feigns patriotism expressing what he wants you think were his beliefs about America and its struggles with Communism. He shows propaganda film clips from the 30's to build up hysterical notions of how Americans have been led to believe about socialism.

Next he goes to Canada, then London and Paris to show the rosy side of socialized medicine. Note - he goes into urban areas where the tax base that supports socialized medicine is more plentiful. People are happy and grateful. The doctor in London has his expensive city flat and he explains how his pay goes up when patients of his quit smoking. In Paris, he interviews an urban mother who benefits from the government-provided nanny who takes care of her baby daughter, cleans the apartment and will cook for her if asked. Wow, talk about the Nanny-state! I understand from someone I know

I understand from an Insurance marketer I know that in countries where there is socialized medicine that the higher quality care is more abundant in cities than it is in more rural areas. He basically shows the absolute worst part of American Healthcare and puts it up alongside the best of socialized healthcare in other countries and expects you to believe that this is the way it really is.

The last part is where he takes his interview subjects first to Quantanamo Bay to seek health care from the military prison. After-all, they give the Islamic terrorist suspects top notch care. How about real American's who really need it. Moore turns his boat around when the siren sounds off from the guard tower. Then he heads for Havana. This is what gets me - he gets off his boat with his compatriots without so much as a peep from a Cuban government official and starts wandering the streets of Havana. They happen on a group of guys playing chess on the streets and ask them where they can find a doctor. Of course, there's one on the nearest corner and a hospital another block away. Then Moore's patients all go into the Cuban hospital and get their free care.

Don't tell me that any American can just motor his boat into Havana harbor without the knowledge and consent of the Cuban government. And of course they'll cooperate with his film which is really about embarrassing the United States. You don't think the Cubans wouldn't want to cooperate with that?

Most of my friends who have seen the movie think Michael Moore has really exploded the myths about healthcare in the U.S. and the world. I thought it was pretty disengenuous. My only satisfaction was that I paid $7 to see this movie. Many others will pay closer to $10.

I think it would be good for Ron Paul to debate Michael Moore about universal health-care, but only after he wins the GOP Nomination. That will make voting for him in the general election even more of a no-brainer.

Gee
07-21-2007, 09:03 PM
Moore only hit on the issue tangentially in the movie. If you want to listen to one of my podcasts (http://web.mac.com/tracemayer/iWeb/Team/Podcasts/8F69B9CB-698D-4026-BD63-B8A20A9C6A38.html) it hits squarely on the issue that is wrong with our 'health care' industry. It, like almost all problems, is economic at its root.
Thanks, but I'm quite familiar with the root problems of our health care industry.

Moore is a socialist. Big deal. Plenty of people were captivated by Marxian dogma, especially (and ironically) the bourgeois.

scrosnoe
07-22-2007, 04:02 PM
This just in from John Goodman(National Center for Policy Analysis):

We have a new Michael Moore site: http://sicko.ncpa.org/. At his own
site, Michael invites visitors to send him health horror stories -- but
only about the U.S. system! To add balance, our site has health horror
stories about Canada, France and Britain (easily obtained from a
Google search).

http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/ is his blog for additional items
================================================== =====
Has anyone talked to John personally about helping Ron?
I know him, but not well enough to call and get him on the phone.
Could be a supporter already???

qednick
07-22-2007, 04:07 PM
Michael Moore says he made the film, "Sicko," to "ignite a fire for free, universal healthcare."

The one word in that line "free" makes me want to piss myself laughing.

I just love it when these socialists are trying to sell universal healthcare as "free".