-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Michael Moore blasts CNN
- Thread starter jal41
- Start date
jal41 said:
Needless to say, CNN is biased, just not in the direction Mikey would like.
If you watched the piece you would know that CNN opened with a piece questioning the facts in his latest movie. I think Moore was pissed off because they found a few "questionable" facts and focused only on them. So he went into a tirade about CNN and all media not putting the current administration under the same scrutiny when they started the war. A valid point, but he should have just left it at that. However he continued to ask Wolf Blitzer (love that name) to apologise because CNN and all media didn't "do their job" when the war started. He should be smart enough to know that no one ever apologises for something like that, especially on live TV. By doing that I think he alienated a lot of people that might be on the fence about his new movie just because he is Michael Moore. If he kept his cool, he might have won some people over. I am a fan of his and I didn't like what he did, he could have handled it better. And all this goes to show that no matter what the facts are, its all in the presentation.
Right now the Larry King Live interview is being rebroadcast. Dr. Sanjay Gupta admitted at the beginning of the interview that there had been one error in his report during The Situation Room earlier, I think it was related to capital spending levels.
Michael Moore is a very immature individual, constantly trying to interrupt King and Dr. Gupta. In only five minutes King has cut Moore off three times, and now they're off on commercial. It's a really lame argument and it is another reason why Larry King has lost its appeal for me.
Somewhat off-topic, and I haven't seen Sicko, but Moore seems to make the Canadian health care system look like it is in much better shape than the American one. The health care system there is in shambles, with chronic doctor shortages, massive waiting times, and some patients going across the border to the States to get treatment.
Michael Moore is a very immature individual, constantly trying to interrupt King and Dr. Gupta. In only five minutes King has cut Moore off three times, and now they're off on commercial. It's a really lame argument and it is another reason why Larry King has lost its appeal for me.
Somewhat off-topic, and I haven't seen Sicko, but Moore seems to make the Canadian health care system look like it is in much better shape than the American one. The health care system there is in shambles, with chronic doctor shortages, massive waiting times, and some patients going across the border to the States to get treatment.
Tom said:
His outburst made him look worse than O'Rielly. The difference, O'Rielly has made a career of being a wall of sound that you can't have a dicussion with (unless you agree with him). SO he seems more controlled and in charge (don't forget he has people working for him behind the scenes to cut off mikes or dump video)
Look at it this way, if you were able to talk to the President for 3 minutes, would you tell him how much you like his tie or would you tell him what you think needs to be done in this country? Michael Moore had a few minutes unedited on national TV and took advantage of it. If you listen to what he said, a lot was true. The news media DID let us down by not reporting the news, by not asking the tough questions.
Personally, I think he has a point. They let us down by being afraid to report the news, and have now let us down by almost abandoning news in favor of ratings grabbing sensational opinion shows.
M.J. said:
Don't believe everything you hear. The Canadian health care system has its strengths and its weaknesses (as does any system, including our own) -- but folks that I've known who live (or lived) in Canada have generally made favorable comments about the overall level of the health care that they've received through Canada's system.
M.J. said:
And those problems don't exist in the U.S.?
"Chronic doctor shortages" = the basic, classic 'family doctor' is becoming difficult to find in many smaller U.S. towns. Salaries aren't high enough, and it seems like a lot of MDs don't want to make 'starvation' wages. Those who do practice often don't see new patients. Peer pressure evidently figures in; if a med students has aspirations of going into general practice, they often keep it to themselves. It seems most seek the high-ticket specialist gigs.
"Massive waiting times" = What do you call doctors overbooking appointments which causes long waiting-room times .... and that doesn't count the time you spend waiting in the exam room after you've been called back?? This morning, I waited a total of 45 minutes in the waiting room, followed by another 20-ish minutes in the exam room before I so much as saw my doctor. More than an hour before I saw my doctor. A bit worse than usual, however I've never seen a doctor less than 30 minutes after my appointment time! Call it what you want, but in my book "massive waiting times" is the norm in the U.S.!!
"going across the border" = Can you say "prescription drugs"? ;D
I've corresponded with several different people from Canada, and I make it a point to ask anyone I come into contact with from up there what their honest opinion is of their health system. All gave varying themes on the same point: "it's not perfect, but we're very happy with it."
The real truth is that any real change will be blocked by three powerful entities: 1) Doctors (AMA); 2) Insurance companies; and 3) the wealthy ... because they do not want to get into the same line as those of us with red blood, as I suspect is the case with Canada. I don't know for sure, but my guess is that those who do 'go across the border' to the U.S. are Canada's wealthy who want to bypass the free system and get something instantly, regardless of how much $$ it is.
However one feels about Michael Moore (and I do believe his tactics have done more harm than good, often on issues which badly need the light of debate), this is an issue which needs to be addressed. Costs are going up too much, and something is gonna have to give. Health care is a right and not a privilege.
--Russell
Russell W. said:
Before you get inevitably attacked for this, let me add something. Health care was a part of society for many years, but at reasonable rates. When it became a privilege of working people, the system began that the medical field could charge higher rates without worry of being stiffed, and the insurance companies passed that cause onto the working people.
Everyone should be responsible for their own heath care, sure, but the system has run unchecked for so long (because of both sides), it's not feasible for everyone to afford health care any longer without some kind of assistance, whether it be from the government or an employer.
If health care cost the same today as it did 30-40 years ago in adjusted dollars, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Part of what you have to look at is, are people REALLY lacking health care.
In a recent issue of Money Magazine it found that around 20% of Californians that lack health care coverage make over $70,000 a year. So why are they lacking insurance? Because they are CHOOSING to buy cell phones, air conditioning, cable TV, High Speed, fancy computers etc etc. The question is WHY aren't these people buying health insurance? See these people are people Mr Moore considers lacking health care but they COULD buy it.
There is a thing called "relative" poverty versus "absolute" poverty. You have very little absolute poverty in the United States. For instance, I was at a food bank World Harvest, every single one of the people getting free food had a cell phone.
These people are CHOOSING to buy a cell phone and pay what $25 - $50 a month for the privledge of talking on it and then going to food banks to get free food.
Another guy at the food bank told me he is on food stamps at $157.00/month just for himself. He weighs (from the looks of it) between 250 -300 pounds. I live on about $50.00 a month for food (just me) and do just fine. I could eat like a KING for $157/month. This guy doesn't NEED more food. He just wants it and doesn't want to work for it.
At the homeless shelter I volunteered at, I have NEVER seen any family or anyone at any homeless shelter that was not on drugs or mentally ill. Yet the media makes us believe the homeless are good people with jobs and families.
That is not to say these people do not exist but hard working family types that find themselves w/o a roof over their head are the exception not the RULE. And it certainly doesn't mean people abusing substances or mentally ill don't need help. They do and they deserve help.
Bottom line is health care is a NECESSITY. Cell phones, cable TV, computers, etc are NOT. If you can afford these, you can give them up and get an insurance policy.
In my 40 years of life I have only seen a few people that actually were POOR in the United States. Virtually everyone is crying poor.
In a recent issue of Money Magazine it found that around 20% of Californians that lack health care coverage make over $70,000 a year. So why are they lacking insurance? Because they are CHOOSING to buy cell phones, air conditioning, cable TV, High Speed, fancy computers etc etc. The question is WHY aren't these people buying health insurance? See these people are people Mr Moore considers lacking health care but they COULD buy it.
There is a thing called "relative" poverty versus "absolute" poverty. You have very little absolute poverty in the United States. For instance, I was at a food bank World Harvest, every single one of the people getting free food had a cell phone.
These people are CHOOSING to buy a cell phone and pay what $25 - $50 a month for the privledge of talking on it and then going to food banks to get free food.
Another guy at the food bank told me he is on food stamps at $157.00/month just for himself. He weighs (from the looks of it) between 250 -300 pounds. I live on about $50.00 a month for food (just me) and do just fine. I could eat like a KING for $157/month. This guy doesn't NEED more food. He just wants it and doesn't want to work for it.
At the homeless shelter I volunteered at, I have NEVER seen any family or anyone at any homeless shelter that was not on drugs or mentally ill. Yet the media makes us believe the homeless are good people with jobs and families.
That is not to say these people do not exist but hard working family types that find themselves w/o a roof over their head are the exception not the RULE. And it certainly doesn't mean people abusing substances or mentally ill don't need help. They do and they deserve help.
Bottom line is health care is a NECESSITY. Cell phones, cable TV, computers, etc are NOT. If you can afford these, you can give them up and get an insurance policy.
In my 40 years of life I have only seen a few people that actually were POOR in the United States. Virtually everyone is crying poor.
I just want to add, I do believe in helping those truly needy. But compasion like anything can be misplaced, and just because something is expensive doesn't mean it's unaffordable. You can always move into a flat with a roommate instead of a renting your own 1 bedroom. Yet Americans feel they have the right to free healthcare. If that's what you feel, so be it, but again let me repeat, just because something is EXPENSIVE doesn't mean you can't afford it. You most likely can afford it, you're choosing "THINGS" over your health.
Ouch, I touched the third rail. 
Maybe I should've used a different word than "right." Still, what we have here is broken and needs changing. I'm not saying the Canada model is our solution ..... although I don't see how it's worse than what we have right now. I stand by my claims that we have a lot of Canada's "problems" - down here, they're just cleverly disguised.
The two-tiered price structure (insurance-nego'ed lower prices) is unfair to those who lack insurance and are forced to pay cash. I say that even as I benefit from that, as one of the (lucky) ones who has a decent insurance plan. It's funny - the doctors and hospitals whine about the insurance companies and the insurers gripe about hospital charges. Instead of using this tension to craft a real solution, they keep up their profitable finger-pointing. Just like Coke and Pepsi 'pretend' to compete, while both work together to keep RC Cola shelf space as tiny as possible.
One problem which needs solving is the indigent situation. And as for cellphones, cable TV, etc. -- dropping all of those wouldn't get you anywhere near the average premium for an outside health plan! And even if one went for a policy that could be afforded, it would be a high-deductible major medical policy. Okay, fine. Let's say you have such a plan now. You've cut the cable, have no cellphone, no computer in order to afford it. You're being a good steward of what little you make. Well, you're covered just in case you have something really big, such as a major operation -- that is, after the $1,000+ deductible. Real money, whether you have a cellphone or not.
What if one of your children gets sick? What about an accident (they do happen, ya know)? ERs are overburdened because they're being used as a de facto "clinic" when people get really sick ... because they cannot turn anyone away. And that's when it gets expensive - ultimately sticking all of us with the tab.
One solution? Some time back, I read an article in USA Today about some CVS drug stores adding 'mini-clinics' which take care of simple ailments, and have nurse practitioners on duty all the time. Best of all, the prices for everything ARE ALL POSTED. Just like at Mickey D's. In exchange for not having an actual MD diagnose you (NPs are just as good at the basic stuff, imho), you pay lower prices. And if it's a real problem, you get referred to the ER. That would help immensely with the indigent care problem, and free up ER resources for what it's really intended for in the first place.
The non-insurance walk-ins are still a bit steep (the one here in Savannah is $60.00 up front). That's quite a hit for many -- even for those who don't go out and buy bluetooth phones and X-Box 360s. No not everybody is genuinely poor, but not all poor are "Cadillac queens", either! And I won't go into the untold problem of underinsurance - where, after you have a hospital visit or doctor procedure done, you get hit with an ugly balance-bill. Sure, I have $350 laying around here somewhere, let me check between my sofa cushions.
If we could get ourselves to a system where basic, preventive care and simple illnesses could be covered for a low price ($25, maybe? Equal to an average HMO or PPO co-pay) ..... I mean, Wal-Mart, etc. now have many generic Rx drugs at $4.00 -- a start in the right direction!! Certainly that would be possible. Maybe at $25, the health system would take a loss at the beginning ..... but would ultimately win as the cost of unnecessary ER visits plummet. And it might get Mr. Moore and pro-Canada sentiment off their backs. Everybody wins.
Again, something has to be done ... only the AMA, insurance companies and the filthy-wealthy benefit from things as they are now. If we keep down this road, a kneejerk is inevitable. They should give a little for a sensible solution, or else risk a backlash.
Flame away...........
--Russell
Maybe I should've used a different word than "right." Still, what we have here is broken and needs changing. I'm not saying the Canada model is our solution ..... although I don't see how it's worse than what we have right now. I stand by my claims that we have a lot of Canada's "problems" - down here, they're just cleverly disguised.
The two-tiered price structure (insurance-nego'ed lower prices) is unfair to those who lack insurance and are forced to pay cash. I say that even as I benefit from that, as one of the (lucky) ones who has a decent insurance plan. It's funny - the doctors and hospitals whine about the insurance companies and the insurers gripe about hospital charges. Instead of using this tension to craft a real solution, they keep up their profitable finger-pointing. Just like Coke and Pepsi 'pretend' to compete, while both work together to keep RC Cola shelf space as tiny as possible.
One problem which needs solving is the indigent situation. And as for cellphones, cable TV, etc. -- dropping all of those wouldn't get you anywhere near the average premium for an outside health plan! And even if one went for a policy that could be afforded, it would be a high-deductible major medical policy. Okay, fine. Let's say you have such a plan now. You've cut the cable, have no cellphone, no computer in order to afford it. You're being a good steward of what little you make. Well, you're covered just in case you have something really big, such as a major operation -- that is, after the $1,000+ deductible. Real money, whether you have a cellphone or not.
What if one of your children gets sick? What about an accident (they do happen, ya know)? ERs are overburdened because they're being used as a de facto "clinic" when people get really sick ... because they cannot turn anyone away. And that's when it gets expensive - ultimately sticking all of us with the tab.
One solution? Some time back, I read an article in USA Today about some CVS drug stores adding 'mini-clinics' which take care of simple ailments, and have nurse practitioners on duty all the time. Best of all, the prices for everything ARE ALL POSTED. Just like at Mickey D's. In exchange for not having an actual MD diagnose you (NPs are just as good at the basic stuff, imho), you pay lower prices. And if it's a real problem, you get referred to the ER. That would help immensely with the indigent care problem, and free up ER resources for what it's really intended for in the first place.
The non-insurance walk-ins are still a bit steep (the one here in Savannah is $60.00 up front). That's quite a hit for many -- even for those who don't go out and buy bluetooth phones and X-Box 360s. No not everybody is genuinely poor, but not all poor are "Cadillac queens", either! And I won't go into the untold problem of underinsurance - where, after you have a hospital visit or doctor procedure done, you get hit with an ugly balance-bill. Sure, I have $350 laying around here somewhere, let me check between my sofa cushions.
If we could get ourselves to a system where basic, preventive care and simple illnesses could be covered for a low price ($25, maybe? Equal to an average HMO or PPO co-pay) ..... I mean, Wal-Mart, etc. now have many generic Rx drugs at $4.00 -- a start in the right direction!! Certainly that would be possible. Maybe at $25, the health system would take a loss at the beginning ..... but would ultimately win as the cost of unnecessary ER visits plummet. And it might get Mr. Moore and pro-Canada sentiment off their backs. Everybody wins.
Again, something has to be done ... only the AMA, insurance companies and the filthy-wealthy benefit from things as they are now. If we keep down this road, a kneejerk is inevitable. They should give a little for a sensible solution, or else risk a backlash.
Flame away...........
--Russell
Mark said:
Maybe, maybe not.
Yeah, there are some people who are making reckless decisions and not insuring themselves when they can.
But...
I also recognize that health insurance for a family can get quite costly. The average cost for employer-provided insurance for a family of four is now somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000 per month. If one or more members of that family have a pre-existing condition, that can go *much* higher. Someone who is working at a place that isn't able to provide a group plan (which is an increasingly large number of small businesses) or who is working as a contractor/temp worker can be pulling in good money and still be unable to afford to buy health insurance on their own.
- Status