michael moore sucks.

inmytree

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm not sure why people are bringing up gluttony and eating disorders. Whether or not Michael Moore (or anyone else) is obese because of their own personal gluttony or because of genetic or other factors outside of their control, it does not change the fact that they are a) still obese and b) highly questionable regarding any demands they make upon society as a result of their condition.

fyi...not all health issues are result of obesity...

farfromglorified

inmytree wrote:

fyi...not all health issues are result of obesity...

Of course not all health issues are a result of obesity. Who made that claim? But if we look at the major health issues facing the population of this nation, a good number of them are the result of or highly correlated to obesity.

I support anyone's right to be obese as they wish to be or are and to seek out whatever treatment they wish. I also support my own right to either help them or not to help them, based on my standards.

spiral out

DOSW wrote:

He's a very talented filmmaker and he's great at getting a point across. But as we all know, he's not a good source for unbiased information.

But who out there is unbiased?

People always put so much energy into attacking people like Micheal Moore who try to show the other side of the coin.

inmytree

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course not all health issues are a result of obesity. Who made that claim? But if we look at the major health issues facing the population of this nation, a good number of them are the result of or highly correlated to obesity.

I support anyone's right to be obese as they wish to be or are and to seek out whatever treatment they wish. I also support my own right to either help them or not to help them, based on my standards.

fair enough...in the post I responded to, you seemed to be implying someone who was obese should not be speaking about health care in general...

and since you'd like the right to help or not help, I'm sure you support the right of those who seek to make changes in the health care system, based on their standards...

farfromglorified

inmytree wrote:

fair enough...in the post I responded to, you seemed to be implying someone who was obese should not be speaking about health care in general...

I'm definitely not saying that. Michael Moore has every right to speak out about health care. However, I agree with some others here that there is some inherent hypocrisy there.

and since you'd like the right to help or not help, I'm sure you support the right of those who seek to make changes in the health care system, based on their standards...

Absolutely! But forcing those changes upon others in the form of mandated insurance, price limits, service procurement via other people's property, criminalization of private health care exchange, and other changes supported by people like Michael Moore are not in that spirit. They attempt to reshape not just their health care choices based on their standards, but everyone's health care choices based on their standards.

Kann

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm definitely not saying that. Michael Moore has every right to speak out about health care. However, I agree with some others here that there is some inherent hypocrisy there.

I wouldn't call that hypocrisy. When people talk about healthcare you have to see it has a whole system not as the accumulation of individual potential patients. MM is a fat bastard but you can't say 2 things :
1 - that MM will not die in an accident in a few years without costing any healthcare related money
2 - that someone else, in a perfect shape will not discover a terminal disease lasting for several years and costing insane amounts of money.
Looking at one specific case when you talk about healthcare has no sense, you have to talk about diseases/epidemics because if you had UHC you surely cannot bet that you will end up costing less than MM.
I understand your arguments against UHC, but saying that fat people reclaiming healthcare are hypocrites is wrong.

As for obesity it definitely is a problem but people have to stop blaiming genes. Some (and that's not a high percentage) people might be in that case but every person can excercise a few hours a week and reduce the massive mortality related to this condition.

farfromglorified

Kann wrote:

I wouldn't call that hypocrisy.

It is hypocrisy. If I, as a smoker, ran around telling people "smoking is bad and you should stop smoking", certainly I would be saying something that is true, but it is also hypocritical.

When people talk about healthcare you have to see it has a whole system not as the accumulation of individual potential patients. MM is a fat bastard but you can't say 2 things :
1 - that MM will not die in an accident in a few years without costing any healthcare related money
2 - that someone else, in a perfect shape will not discover a terminal disease lasting for several years and costing insane amounts of money.
Looking at one specific case when you talk about healthcare has no sense, you have to talk about diseases/epidemics because if you had UHC you surely cannot bet that you will end up costing less than MM.
I understand your arguments against UHC, but saying that fat people reclaiming healthcare are hypocrites is wrong.

It depends on what they're saying. A fat person who simply says "the healthcare system in this country is broken" is not a hypocrite. But when people like Michael Moore extend that into moralistic arguments like "America should be ashamed for not taking care of its people", there is an inherent hypocrisy there because Michael Moore is not taking care of himself.

As for obesity it definitely is a problem but people have to stop blaiming genes. Some (and that's not a high percentage) people might be in that case but every person can excercise a few hours a week and reduce the massive mortality related to this condition.

Absolutely! However, it's a sad fact and an ugly side affect of government involvement in healthcare that we even have to give a shit about why that person is obese and deal with assigning responsibility. In a system where each individual is resposible for his own healthcare, it doesn't really matter how fat Michael Moore gets, does it? But, when someone else's obesity or smoking habits or excercise habits suddenly become everyone's responsibility, we end up in these ugly blame games.

cornnifer

spiral out wrote:

But who out there is unbiased?

People always put so much energy into attacking people like Micheal Moore who try to show the other side of the coin.

Wen one ONLY shows ONE side of a coin while completely ignoring the other side, that is called biased reporting. Michael Moore, like Hannity, Limbaugh and a host of others on the far right, not only shows just ONE side of the coin, he magnifies that side of the coin and photoshops it quite a bit.

angelica

Will1659 wrote:

Four years of medical school. The combined lifetime prevalence of anorexia nervosa, bulemia nervosa, and eating disorder not otherwise specified is well under 10%. Overweight, 50%; and actually obese, around 25%. I am not trying to minimize the seriousness of eating disorders; I have seen them firsthand. I am simply saying that to pretend they're a bigger problem than the opposite end of the spectrum is to just be ignorant of the facts.

You may not be deliberately trying to minimize the seriousness of eating disorders, and yet you seem either not aware of or neglected to mention compulsive overeating or binge eating disorder, here. Given these two manifestations of eating issues would be most connected with being overweight and with obesity, they would therefore seem the most applicable of all eating disorder issues in this type of situation.

inmytree

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm definitely not saying that. Michael Moore has every right to speak out about health care. However, I agree with some others here that there is some inherent hypocrisy there.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on this point...

farfromglorified wrote:

Absolutely! But forcing those changes upon others in the form of mandated insurance, price limits, service procurement via other people's property, criminalization of private health care exchange, and other changes supported by people like Michael Moore are not in that spirit. They attempt to reshape not just their health care choices based on their standards, but everyone's health care choices based on their standards.

"spirit" and "criminalization"....? interesting choice of words...

anyhoo, I guess it could be argued the current health care system is doing the same things you list above, like forcing their (the health care industry) standards on others...forcing doctors and patients to make choices based on saving a buck for the shareholder versus providing the best care possible...

callen

angelica wrote:

I'd like to see a link to support your claims.

Your just one cool cat!

angelica

callen wrote:

Your just one cool cat!

You are pretty cool, yourself, callen.

farfromglorified

inmytree wrote:

anyhoo, I guess it could be argued the current health care system is doing the same things you list above, like forcing their (the health care industry) standards on others...forcing doctors and patients to make choices based on saving a buck for the shareholder versus providing the best care possible...

To some extent, this is very true. But if this is wrong, then going further in this direction is certainly not right. Perhaps its time to look at where force exists in these markets already and relinquish it, rather than tighten it.

Kel Varnsen

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

you ever hear of genetics? not all obese people are gluttons.

What percentage of obese people are the genetic variety and what percentage are the "I like food and I am too lazy to exercise" variety. Even if the genetic group was like 30% (which I think is high it is probably more like 5%) and even if you threw in all the people who have medical probablems that make them obese (not the other way around) and you jack it up to 40% what about the other 60% who are not taking responsibilty for their well being?

I live in Canada and I am a huge fan of our universal health care system, but at the same time I don't think a lot of people realize how much control they have over their own health, or if the do realize can't be bothered to care. And those people contribute to the fact that I have to wait 4 hours in an emergency room.

farfromglorified

Kel Varnsen wrote:

What percentage of obese people are the genetic variety and what percentage are the "I like food and I am too lazy to exercise" variety. Even if the genetic group was like 30% (which I think is high it is probably more like 5%) and even if you threw in all the people who have medical probablems that make them obese (not the other way around) and you jack it up to 40% what about the other 60% who are not taking responsibilty for their well being?

I live in Canada and I am a huge fan of our universal health care system, but at the same time I don't think a lot of people realize how much control they have over their own health, or if the do realize can't be bothered to care. And those people contribute to the fact that I have to wait 4 hours in an emergency room.

Do not extoll the virtues of your system whilst complaining about problems it helps create. UHC lowers the cost of living dangerously, prohibits private medical practice wherein doctors may offer premium services, hampers the overall supply of medical service, and makes everyone's health someone else's responsibility, and you have the gall to then say you love it while at the same time complaining about waiting for 4 hours in an emergency room??? You have to be kidding.

angelica

Kel Varnsen wrote:

What percentage of obese people are the genetic variety and what percentage are the "I like food and I am too lazy to exercise" variety.

Terms like "lazy" show personal subjective value judgment, and point to lack of objective awareness and actual understanding.

I live in Canada and I am a huge fan of our universal health care system, but at the same time I don't think a lot of people realize how much control they have over their own health, or if the do realize can't be bothered to care. And those people contribute to the fact that I have to wait 4 hours in an emergency room.

I also live in Canada. I 100% agree, people do not realize how much control they have over their own health. This issue is vast and sweeping. How do each one of us contribute to this problem?

The key to spreading both the information and the empowerment needed to support individuals in the direction of self-realization, which is where awareness and accountability stems from, is enacted through information, support and empowerment.

Criticisms and judgements that perpetuate shame and blame perpetuate the cycles that keep lack of accountability in place. Those who criticize and judge therefore are a part of the problem; while those who support, inform, etc. are part of the solution. We choose in each moment, and by our choices we reveal our positioning on the matter.

We pay one way or another when we opt to be part of the problem, just as we each subjectively reap the benefits when we choose to become part of the solution.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

...Those who criticize and judge therefore are a part of the problem...

Wouldn't that be both a criticism and a judgment?

Kel Varnsen

farfromglorified wrote:

Do not extoll the virtues of your system whilst complaining about problems it helps create. UHC lowers the cost of living dangerously, prohibits private medical practice wherein doctors may offer premium services, hampers the overall supply of medical service, and makes everyone's health someone else's responsibility, and you have the gall to then say you love it while at the same time complaining about waiting for 4 hours in an emergency room??? You have to be kidding.

Even though it has its faults, I would much rather have to wait 4 hours in an emergency room, than see a doctor and be handed a bill for his time on my way out. If that was the case I would never see a doctor unless I was on my death bed, which would be more expensive for everyone.

How is lowering the cost of living a bad thing (the standard of living in Canada is higher than in the US). With everyone having access to doctors, people are healthier (our life expectancy is higher than that of the US). Operational costs for doctors are lower because malpractice suits are typically less frequent since you are less likely to sue if you think you received bad medical care if you didn't have to pay for it. Plus things like car insurance rates are lower because the car insurance companies don't have to worry about paying for someones medical care in the event of an accident.

Plus from what I understand the US system has many of the same problems that Canada does (including long waits at emergency rooms and doctor shortages) so how can our system be any worse?

farfromglorified

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Even though it has its faults, I would much rather have to wait 4 hours in an emergency room, than see a doctor and be handed a bill for his time on my way out.

What about the guy who would happily pay a bill rather than wait 4 hours. Or do his "I"s not count?

How is lowering the cost of living a bad thing (the standard of living in Canada is higher than in the US).

Lowering the cost of living is a great thing! Lowering some people's cost of living at the expense of others, however, is not.

With everyone having access to doctors, people are healthier (our life expectancy is higher than that of the US). Operational costs for doctors are lower because malpractice suits are typically less frequent since you are less likely to sue when you didn't get a bill for bad medical care. Plus things like car insurance rates are lower because the car insurance companies don't have to worry about paying for someones medical care in the event of an accident.

All good things. Too bad they don't justify your means.

Plus from what I understand the US system has many of the same problems that Canada does (including long waits at emergency rooms and doctor shortages) so how can our system be any worse?

Just because we'll all end up dead somehow doesn't make murder justifiable.

The US system is awful! But it doesn't make your system correct.

Kel Varnsen

farfromglorified wrote:

What about the guy who would happily pay a bill rather than wait 4 hours. Or do his "I"s not count?

If that is the way you feel about publicly funded medicine, do you feel the same way about other services that the government offers. Should public education be abolished, I mean other people who couldn't afford to pay for it are getting a free high school education at your expense. What about the police force? Rich people with can afford private security guards, why should they have to pay for poor people's cops and then wait for them to show up if he happens to call 911? How about road maintenance, if I can afford to drive a Range Rover, why should I pay to fix the pot holes which will have much less affect on my car then the will on on some guy driving a crappy Kia? Hell what about the military, the super rich can hire private military contractors to defend them, why should they have to pay for the army?