- Jun 12, 2001
Ah I see... so when I pointed out that the biggest general criticism about the movie, from both UHC opponents and proponents alike, it that it highlighted on isolated instances both to make the US healthcare system look worse than it is and to make those of other countries look better than the are, that was a "smear."Originally posted by: shadow9d9
So we have pabster who just spams one liners and doesn't want to actually talk about the movie...Originally posted by: Vic
Heh. You are really one of the biggest laughs on this board.Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Keep smearing.Originally posted by: Vic
The instances in the movie were handpicked. That is what I said. But of course you can't acknowledge that, you're a paid shill for Michael Moore.Originally posted by: shadow9d9
You are wasting my time. Those aren't "handpicked" situations... Having our congress bought out and having profits trumping healthcare is something that gets worse every year. What is handpicked about that?Originally posted by: Vic
Anyone can handpick isolated instances. It's a rather disingenuous way of lying that the media does all day every day, and is Moore's favorite propaganda technique (hence my earlier reference about Moore's hypocrisy in BFC). That's people here have been trying to tell you, and which you have been ignoring by calling them paid shills, or saying that they haven't seen the movie. Whatever.Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I asked people to address the above points in the movie.. That is the challenge. ..and since you never saw it, you can't... so you just smear and run.
The simple truth is that the US health care system, while flawed, is not as bad as Moore makes it out to be. And that the Canadian and Europeans systems do not work as utopist rosy as Moore made them out to be (as anyone of them, including the Australian OP, could tell you).
For example, the French system almost bankrupted the entire country. "Free" healthcare doesn't work if even the government can't afford it.
Or go back about 20 or years when the British system was rampant with corruption, abuses, and a low standard of care.
And in Canada, where 5% of the population doesn't have a doctor (due to short supply), and where people are forced to wait months for treatment.
IF the solution to our health care problems were as simple as putting government in charge of it, I'd be all for it. But it's not that simple.
Poor people get dumped at the curb but a whole bunch of hospitals.. a common practice.. not a handpicked one.
People getting turned down for cancer or any expensive treatment is commonplace even for people that HAVE insurance... not handpicked.
Insurance companies pay their workers and doctors to deny claims and to find anything possible in someone's history to use as an excuse for such. This is not handpicked.. this is the way things operate.
None of these are handpicked.. they are the way things operate in the U.S... No wonder you can't respond to them.. keep generalizing and smearing.
50 corrupt politicians were handpicked for the movie?
People getting turned down for cancer or any expensive treatment is commonplace even for people that HAVE insurance...
Insurance companies pay their workers and doctors to deny claims and to find anything possible in someone's history to use as an excuse for such. T
These are handpicked for the movie when they happen every single friggin day?
Smear smear smear!
It is sad that instead of actually addressing the issues, you instead attack him, attack me, attack other countries...
but you can't and won't actually ever deal with the issues.. I only listed a handful mentioned.. I could go on for pages about others... those are just the most blatant.
You started the smear campaign long before I entered this thread by calling people "paid shills" and unfounded accusations of not having seen the movie, and I merely reminded you of that. Get a clue, eh?
We have Vic who also smears/attacks and doesn't want to actually talk about what happened in the movie...
Shills who haven't seen the movie can't actually talk about the movie in specifics, which both you and Pabster proved.. not "unfounded" when they turn out to be true.. talks and walks like a duck= a duck.
Tell me, what is the point in going into a thread about a movie that you refuse to actually discuss or address the points from? The ONLY explanation is that they have a very vested interest in denying the movies' claims and prefer to smear and attack instead of actually addressing the points made in the movie(which they can't since they never saw it).
If anyone actually wants to talk about the movie, I'll respond... Can't respond to generalities/attacks... it is a waste of everybody's time... (I once spend pages trying to explain to Vic what the definition of a fraud is... see sig for an actual response he made and couldn't understand- I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried!).
I guess I will just have to keep asking for them to address the movie and stop generalizing... let's see how long they will squirm with only attacks/generalities...(they never actually saw the movie).
Hospitals dumping people at the curb when "treatment" is done.
Insurances paying people to deny claims by looking through history to find any excuse(yeast infection)
Insurances denying claims to cancer patients(killing them)
The health industry buying out our politicians and then hiring them into big pharma positions.
Denying insurance to anyone that might possibly hurt profits.
Health insurances giving benefits to doctors that deny claims.
Congress being completely bought out and hired by big Pharma and Insurance companies(even Clinton!)
But when you round around calling people paid shills with no proof of that whatsoever except that they don't automatically agree with your agenda (which you have admitted would benefit you financially), that's calling a duck a duck.
Got it. That's some funny sh!t, moron. :laugh: