New Vent: Schooling Michael Moore Updated
posted at 8:05 am on June 22, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
Michelle picks apart the cherry-picked facts and half-baked logic of Michael Moore’s new crockumentary, SiCKO, which opens in theaters today. Plus, health tips from the svelte film maker.
Update: I don’t usually do this in a Vent post, but this story is worth adding here because, unlike the reporter who filed the story, I was there at the screening and the reporter has at least one fact wrong in an otherwise good story:
[U]nlike Al Gore’s film on global warming, which helped rally support on an equally controversial problem, “Sicko” is creating an awkward situation for the leading Democratic presidential candidates.
Rejecting Moore’s prescription on healthcare could alienate liberal activists, who will play a big role in choosing the party’s next standard-bearer. However, his proposal — wiping out private health insurance and replacing it with a massive federal program — could be political poison with the larger electorate.
At a special screening in Washington this week, politicians, lobbyists, media pooh-bahs and policy junkies flocked to see Moore’s film.
No one “flocked” to see this film on *Thursday, which was the lobbyist screening at Union Station theater in DC. I was there. That’s my footage in today’s Vent–I was a few feet from Moore when he entered the theater. There were a couple dozen or so red-shirted people who claimed to be RNs supporting the film, though they wouldn’t talk to me on camera or even answer when I asked whether they were really nurses or not. They didn’t even get into the lobbyist screening, at least not while I was there. They were gathered outside, waiting to get into another screening of it. There was a small group of white-haired ladies shouting “Health care not warfare” standing outside the theater, because no gathering of leftwingers is complete without some kind of anti-war demonstration, no matter how irrelevant it might be to the issue at hand. Inside, there were maybe 30 or 40 people seated to watch the film, in a room that could seat hundreds. Most of those people were probably not lobbyists at all. They just followed Moore into the theater, as I had done when he walked in. That is not “flocking” to see the film by any standard definition of the term. It’s a bunch of people letting themselves be used as props, and a few who actually watched the film as Moore’s intended targets/audience. As he entered the theater, one of Moore’s people said that he’d attracted “about a dozen” lobbyists to the screening. Is that flocking? I don’t think so.
As to the article’s larger point, that it creates a difficulty for Democrats, that’s probably true. They certainly aren’t flocking to support it, they way they flocked to get behind the pile of lies called Fahrenheit 9-11 back in 2004. Undermining a war in progress obviously didn’t create the same dilemma then that undermining a push to socialize health care creates for them now.
Correction: The lobbyist screening I attended in DC was on Wednesday, not Thursday as I said above.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Show me where in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs does it say the government must provide for the “lowest rung”.
F15Mech on June 23, 2007 at 8:26 PM
And again, I will ask you as others, what is the leading cause of crime in the United States? Would that cause be alleviated if most people got the bare necessities and could focus on a fulfilling life?
Would that cause be alleviated if most people got the bare necessities and could focus on a fulfilling life?
F15Mech on June 23, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Doh…
The text above is Seixon’s quotes.
The text in quotes is my response.
I am done (I took this thread completely off topic, sorry about that).
F15Mech on June 23, 2007 at 8:53 PM
F15,
That’s nice for you, but what about the less fortunate?
So is this supposed to be evidence that the current health care system is working…? Bankrupt hospitals = good system? Explain.
1. Why can’t the government be at least part of the answer? Just saying no isn’t an argument – that’s what anti-war liberals have been doing for 4 years now.
2. If its not the government’s job to ensure the well-being of its people, what exactly is the job of the government? What do you think Medicare is? What do you think welfare is? What do you think the public education system is? Bells and whistles? Charities are no guarantee.
Did anyone order a Strawman? A Strawman anyone? I’ve got a fresh Strawman here!
Sure, there are those who commit crime due to greed. Generally, though, who commit crimes? Poor or rich people? Why is it that in countries where there are less poor people, there is less crime? Can you explain this phenomenon? Also, sticking with your greed theme, are you more or less likely to be consumed with greed if you are poor or not poor?
I think you’d be surprised to know that most crime is exactly due to this type of thing. Desperate people use desperate measures. That’s not to suggest that all crime is done for this reason, but once you remove poverty, a lot of crime goes along with it.
Or maybe because they’re poor, because they can’t get/find a job?
Don’t get me wrong. I’ve known rich kids who jacked cars for fun. But they’re the exception, not the rule. (And they most likely got less fortunate people to help them with the promise of a quick pay-off…)
Seixon on June 24, 2007 at 1:04 AM
I am only addressing things back on topic (when Mods create new threads on topic I will gladly debate you then). Or I will give you an email address your choice…
Long story short…
Too many hospitals were treating illegal immigrants (as required by Federal law), however they never got paid as a result they ran out of money…
F15Mech on June 24, 2007 at 2:00 AM
There is the problem…part of the answer is ok(see Medicare/Medicaid).
However a national health care system run by the government is not a “part” is it?
F15Mech on June 24, 2007 at 2:34 AM
What federal law requires this? In any case, this should only happen in emergencies.
It will be part as long as private health care is still there. Perhaps a provision where anyone can get treatment at hospitals that they need, and if they cannot afford to pay, the government will step in to help. There are many different ways to achieve this goal, it just takes a bit of innovation and will.
I have no delusions about the Norwegian system, as is, working in the United States. It won’t. The US is too big, with too many people, with too much national debt, and too much pork in the budgets for that to be feasible. But that doesn’t mean that the general idea, of providing the uninsured with a safety net for health care, isn’t feasible in some way.
No wonder poor people vote for Democrats – the supposed “compassionate conservative” crowd would rather that they die of cancer than use tax money to help them. Instead of building bridges to nowhere, we could be saving lives.
Seixon on June 24, 2007 at 3:21 AM
The law is:42 U.S.C.A. § 1395dd.
pat on June 24, 2007 at 10:58 PM
And as I thought, the law is only talking about emergencies, and in those cases, the federal government will subsidize the hospitals for expenses incurred.
Seixon on June 25, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Check out my poorly written article Sicko Slug
TheSitRep on June 25, 2007 at 10:19 AM
I’m not impressed, Sexion. I pay 25% in federal income taxes, 8% in state sales taxes, and have health insurance via my current employer. In addition I have pursued both my undergraduate and masters degrees for free via my current and previous employers’ training programs.
Believe me, if I were “Emperor for a Day” I would do a lot to overhaul the current health care system. The real number of chronically uninsured Americans is only 25 million, not bad for a nation of 300 million, but that’s still unacceptable. I’d like to see more market mechanisms in place to control costs. Real medical savings accounts would be a good start. I’d also like to rein in the way drug companies game the system to extend their patents. This would give Americans access to cheaper generic drugs.
But there’s no way in hell I’m going to trust the same politicians who have been promising to “fix” the border for the last twenty years to radically overhaul the current health care system. Absolutely not.
Mike Honcho on June 25, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Right on, jessie. The number of ‘necessary’ shots out there is starting to look like they’re overdone.
Incidentally this is where many anti-vaccine groups get some of their ammunition. People will only stand being used as pincushions in their Doc’s office for so long.
Dark-Star on June 25, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2