Refuting the critics of Michael Moore

[Bjorn Against]

Well Michael Moore's new film is out, and inevitably so are his detractors. Interestingly enough I have yet to hear a single fact in Sicko disputed by anyone, but that is not stopping people from claiming the film is filled with lies. It seems the closest any of Moore's detractors have come to pointing out an inaccuracy in the film is to point out that the 9/11 rescue workers got to Cuba by plane rather than boat as the film implies. I have yet to hear anyone explain to me however why their method of travel is relevant to the point the film is making.

So if the best these critics can come up with is questioning whether the sick patients went on a boat or a plane it doesn't seem like they have much, but that doesn't stop them from trying to discredit Moore in every way they can. So they accuse him of cherry picking.

You see in the opinion of these people it is wrong for Moore to cherry pick his facts, but there is no problem with the HMOs, pharmaceuticals, and insurance companies offering up nothing but propaganda in the billions they spend on media.

Those who wish Moore didn't cherry pick, tell me what facts would be OK for him to leave out? After all if Moore gave every last possible argument that could be made for and against our current system the movie would be a lot more than two hours, most people wouldn't want to sit through a movie that was thousands of hours long. So given that I think we should be in agreement that Moore is under no obligation to present every last detail, and as long as he doesn't deliberately ignore facts which would completely refute other things he has said then there should be no problem.

Furthermore, it seems Moore's critics do a great deal of cherry picking of their own. We have heard them talk a lot about how long Canadians have to wait months to get a health care, and while many Canadians refute this and say they can get a doctor appointment very quickly if they need one we will just imagine for the sake of argument that Canadians do have long waits. Have you ever tried to make an appointment with a specialist in the US? The wait is often several months in this country, yet critics of single payer health care always completely ignore this simple fact that we have long waits here as well.

In addition to their complaints about waiting periods, Moore's critics have focused a lot of energy on the evils of taxation. Yet for the vast majority of Americans any tax increase they would see from a move to a single payer system, would be more than offset by the hundreds or even thousands of dollars they saved every month because they no longer had to pay their insurance premiums. Furthermore, they would know their coverage would be there for them whether they had pre-existing conditions or not.

Those who claim Moore is lying in his film, yet are unable to cite a single lie are liars themselves. No, despite the critics insistence otherwise we do not view Moore as infallible and if he is proven wrong I will be more than happy to admit it. But I am not going to see he is wrong just because some right-winger wants me to say he is wrong, if they want me to stop defending him they need to put the facts forward to refute him. They have not been able to do that, and that is why I proudly stand by Moore and wholeheartedly endorse the message of his film.

[Cerridwen]

1. Well, hell, MN Against Bush

If you can't refute the message, ya just gotta kill the messenger. A tactic used far and wide on both sides of the aisle.

Thank you, for a well reasoned post. Of course the fact that I agree with you may have influenced my perceptions.

:evilgrin:

[devilgrrl]

2. Here's a bill I recently got from Blue Cross of CA after a 1/2 hour office visit.

Medical Visit: Total Billed-$350, Patient Savings-$177.50, Co-insurance Co-payment Amount-$20, Claims Payment-$152.50

The medical facility billed the insurance company $350 for a 1/2 hour visit? :wtf:

[devilgrrl]

4. kick

eom

[Richard Steele]

3. Recommended!