criterionforum.org

essrog wrote:As a former journalist, I can't believe I'm defending Kurt Loder, but what is so horribly wrong about his article? I'm not comparing him to Woodward and Bernstein here, but he did do enough research (even though he probably didn't have to go farther than the documentary he cites and the Google search engine) to form a reasonable counterargument against some of what Moore's film portrays, while still acknowledging its power in some scenes. (For what it's worth, Loder's egregious factual error has been corrected.)

One of the biggest points in Loder's original article was that Moore cites the outlandish figure that 18 million people would die from lack of health care; now that it's been corrected to 18,000, that makes Loder's article look far less persuasive, since 18,000 is a provable figure.

Once Loder misses with that first jab, his whole argument starts to crumble, since he's employing the same methods he's accusing Moore of.

I read another review of "SiCKO" that had this (paraphrased) line: "Moore travels to England, Canada, France and Cuba to show that life is much better there than in the U.S." Which, of course, is definitely what Moore does NOT do, but that warped description reaches out to the "Michael Moore hates America" base. I'm actually surprised that hasn't been picked up by more Moore bashers. But it's still early in the game.

tavernier wrote:So you're not giving up, huh? Not even when Moore himself has posted where he got his facts regarding Cuba's health care, but you would rather believe Loder's anti-Moore position, regardless of who fed Loder his "facts."

Except that Moore's facts say nothing about the level of care available to every Cuban, only that Cubans feel they all have access to some medical care.

tavernier wrote:I'm sure Loder was hoping for a response like yours: now if only more people are swayed by his disingenuous piece, he's got it made!

Or maybe Loder likes pissing off people like you. But yeah, he's got it made either way.

essrog wrote:For a forum that prides itself (rightly) on critical thinking, I'm surprised by the free pass Moore seems to get here. Liberals (and I'm one of them) should demand more.

I share those sentiments 100%.

Michael Kerpan wrote:Would the right-wing apologists on our list care to venture a guess about what kind of health care (and education) was available to ordinary working class (and poorer) Cubans during the era of US puppet Batista? And do they care about what kind of health care is available to ordinary people anywhere?

I'm guessing that's referring to me (among others), but you're wrong. I'm in the middle of the Danish political spectrum which makes me liberal by American standards, border-lining on "bleeding heart". I'm for welfare and socialized medicine. As I've said to someone else today I'd vote for Kucinich if I had the chance and he wasn't a garden gnome.

To the question, I'm sure conditions for ordinary Cubans were absolutely atrocious under Batista, but it is completely without relevance. Moore is presenting an alternative to the US system, but it's a system kept alive by a dictatorship that takes away the freedom of individuals and is therefore not a valid alternative unless of course you want to give of those freedoms yourself.

The Invunche wrote:To the question, I'm sure conditions for ordinary Cubans were absolutely atrocious under Batista, but it is completely without relevance. Moore is presenting an alternative to the US system, but it's a system kept alive by a dictatorship that takes away the freedom of individuals and is therefore not a valid alternative unless of course you wan to give of those freedoms yourself.

Have you actually seen the film? Moore is NOT saying that Cuba is a valid alternative to the U.S. system. He's simply showing several countries whose health care is BETTER than the U.S. and asking the question: "If they can do this in Canada, England, France and even Cuba, why can't the U.S. improve their system?"

You can cherrypick facts all you want--and complain that Moore doesn't show the obvious downsides of the health care systems in other countries--but the fact remains that "SiCKO" is an exploration of how fucked up the American health care system is, not a historical dissertation on the horrible human-rights record of Castro's Cuba, and if he leaves out certain facts you want to hear, well, that's your (and Loder's) problem.

tavernier wrote:Have you actually seen the film?

No. Hehe.

tavernier wrote:Moore is NOT saying that Cuba is a valid alternative to the U.S. system. He's simply showing several countries whose health care is BETTER than the U.S. and asking the question: "If they can do this in Canada, England, France and even Cuba, why can't the U.S. improve their system?"

Canada, England and France might be valid examples, I do not know them well enough. Cuba however is not. They can deliver that kind of care partly because the doctors and nurses aren't free to work where ever they please. I'm sure Moore could have found excellent health care facilities all over the (third) world reserved for the elite. It wouldn't help his case any more than Cuba does.

tavernier wrote:You can cherrypick facts all you want--and complain that Moore doesn't show the obvious downsides of the health care systems in other countries--but the fact remains that "SiCKO" is an exploration of how fucked up the American health care system is, not a historical dissertation on the horrible human-rights record of Castro's Cuba, and if he leaves out certain facts you want to hear, well, that's your (and Loder's) problem.

Yes, I understand the standards you hold him to are low. Mine are not. As I believe was argued earlier in the thread Moore would make a stronger case and protect himself better against attacks like Loder's if he was more honest to begin with.

Mr_sausage wrote:

Steven H wrote:Sicko is a message film, and it's wrong to stray too far from the message and focus on the details, which, while technically true, Moore plays for emotional or humorous effect.

So then "messages" are inherently made out of vague generalities? They're not made out of accumulated observation of the details of this or that subject?

Since the details are true, it seemed instead Loder was focusing on how they were used. When someone is confronted with an opinion they don't like, but can't logically refute, they attack the style in which it was presented, or the presenter. It seems that Loder has taken both tracks. You can attack Moore, or the style of the film all day, but I don't really see what they have to do with saving people's lives. Hence my message vs. details comment (which may have oversimplified my point.) Let me put it another way. Loder was focusing on idiosyncracies within the film's style and pretending as if he were pulling the rug out from under the factual matter Sicko is based on. I have a lot of issues with Moore's style myself, but the US Healthcare problem is something that I feel very strongly about, and I share Moore's opinion concerning it. Actually, I can definitely understand you taking issue with how I presented the argument, now that I take another look at it.

Moreover, what exactly is "wrong" with maintaining a perspective different (if only slightly) from the one taken by the movie, especially when said movie is tendentious and has a palpable and admitted design upon the viewer?

I made other points about the issues I took with Loder's attack. I don't recall saying that all opinions other than Michael Moore's are invalid, and while I've read a lot of dissenting ideas on this site, and others, concerning the film, most I either don't have an argument for or seem like cranks. I did have some specific problems with Loder, and aired them here.

The Invunche wrote:

tavernier wrote:Have you actually seen the film?

No. Hehe.

As I suspected...you'd actually fit right in here in the States with those who criticize without seeing what's branded as offensive. ("Golly gee, I haven't seen it, but gosh darn it, I know I wouldn't like it.")

How's this? See the film, then come back and let us know if you still agree with Loder.

From lefty CNN:

Moore focuses on the private insurance companies and makes no mention of the U.S. government-funded health-care systems such as Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program and the Veterans Affairs health-care systems. About 50 percent of all health-care dollars spent in the United States flows through these government systems.

"Sicko" also ignores a handful of good things about the American system. Believe it or not, the United States does rank highest in the patient satisfaction category. Americans do have shorter wait times than everyone but Germans when it comes to nonemergency elective surgery such as hip replacements, cataract removal or knee repair.

tavernier wrote:As I suspected...you'd actually fit right in here in the States with those who criticize without seeing what's branded as offensive. ("Golly gee, I haven't seen it, but gosh darn it, I know I wouldn't like it.")

That would have been a valid point if I had ever made any arguments that would require viewing the movie. I did not. I merely defended Loder's position that Moore ignores what makes up the medical system in Cuba. You yourself have admitted that Moore does not focus on this issue at all. Nowhere did I say the movie is bad or offensive or that I don't like it.

tavernier wrote:How's this? See the film, then come back and let us know if you still agree with Loder.

It is not a question of agreeing with Loder or not and it never was. But to someone like you who apparently sees the world as black and white I guess that's how it appears.

Barmy wrote:From lefty CNN:
"Sicko" also ignores a handful of good things about the American system. Believe it or not, the United States does rank highest in the patient satisfaction category. Americans do have shorter wait times than everyone but Germans when it comes to nonemergency elective surgery such as hip replacements, cataract removal or knee repair.

I am a "lefty" who found SICKO unfocused and disappointing. But statistics such as the one quoted above hardly help Moore's detractors.

What's more important when dealing with nonemergency elective surgery? In the States, you may get it a little quicker but you have to pay a huge deductible/financial amount. In the UK/France/Canada, etc, you may have to wait a little longer for your non-emergency surgery, but you get it completely free. I know which I would choose, and I'm not sure how this counterattacks Moore's argument.

However, I do agree that Moore's pick-and-choose journalism is getting sloppier as time goes on. I understand and completely agree with his overall point, but his arguments are for the most part unconvincing and manipulative. His depiction of the UK and French health services is almost comical in its one-sidedness. One thing that I am surprised detractors have not yet jumped on is the fact that numerous residents in countries such as Britain supplement their NHS benefits with additional private insurance, thereby giving themselves the option to go private if -- and often, when -- the wait times are too long.

And I also agree that it's discomfiting how certain people in this thread are immediately branding anyone who has the gall to speak up against Moore and his film as "right-wing." Nonsense. You can share Moore's ideals and sentiments, and still feel irked at his half-assed execution.

The Invunche wrote:But to someone like you who...

wow, well-played

rs98762001 wrote:You can share Moore's ideals and sentiments, and still feel irked at his half-assed execution.

Thank you.

I saw it this weekend. The first thing that came into my head was a tremendous missed opportunity on Moore's part. He left out all the honest business, both large and small, which are consistently struggling to cover the costs of health insurance for their employees. The only critic I've seen so far who has covered this is Timothy Noah over at slate.com. I'm an employee of a rather small business; because of that I have been witness to the incredibly high insurance costs the company has to cover in order to maintain a competitive working environment as well as simply stay in business.

nick wrote: because of that I have been witness to the incredibly high insurance costs the company has to cover in order to maintain a competitive working environment as well as simply stay in business.

Which is why, no thanks to Moore, the system will change in the States. When big companies like Ford can't compete with companies located overseas who don't have to pay for their employee's insurance then the real pressure will start to become palpable in congress.... and, ultimately, something will change. Sadly, it won't be because it's needed, or because US lawmakers see how fucked up the system is, rather it will be determined by big business.

The Invunche wrote:It is not a question of agreeing with Loder or not and it never was. But to someone like you who apparently sees the world as black and white I guess that's how it appears.

There's the pot calling the kettle black (and white).

What's funny is that I'm no knee-jerk defender of Moore, but I felt compelled to point out the various straw man/tinfoil arguments trudged out by many of his detractors (note: not all of them). When lazy writers like Denby and Loder simply grab onto whatever the current trend is in criticizing Moore--in this case, what he omitted, though obviously if he had covered everything everyone wanted him to, he'd never have finished the movie--then it's time to call them on it.

This is my last post in this thread, so take your last shot. Based on your previous "witty" retorts, I'm sure it'll be a doozy.

tavernier wrote:This is my last post in this thread, so take your last shot. Based on your previous "witty" retorts, I'm sure it'll be a doozy.

This kind of thing is normally irksome, but I suppose grandstanding is pretty appropriate for a Michael Moore thread.

I had no idea I was being witty.

More on the numbers and facts in Sicko.

Defensive crap from USA Today that invalidates not one word or image of Moores.

Next they'll claim the film was shot on a soundstage.

David Ehrenstein wrote:Defensive crap from USA Today that invalidates not one one or image of Moore.

I thought the piece was pretty evenhanded. It's not a hatchet job and frankly, it pretty much puts into context many of the facts and figures presented in the film.

I'm a pretty big believer in Sicko but I'm not so naive to think Moore doesn't distort portions of the story to suit his needs.

You're Karl Rove, aren't you?

Nah, I'm more of a James Carville.

Studs Terkel for Sicko.

Sicko spurs spontaneous audience organizing.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Sicko spurs spontaneous audience organizing.

it's little things like that occurring which make life worth living.