Total Posts:120|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Capitalism: A Love Story

Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 11:06:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Michael Moore?
Well then clearly it'll be full of BULLSHÌT.

But I think I'll watch it. If not for the lulz, then so I can get some training in refuting point by point everything the film says.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2009 11:57:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 11:06:51 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Michael Moore?
Well then clearly it'll be full of BULLSHÌT.

Yup. At least this one seems like it's funny again, neither Fahrenheit 9/11 or Sicko was. Sicko was just boring (and missed the relevant issues completely), Fahrenheit 9/11 is probably the most dishonest piece of twisted propaganda I have ever seen.

But now he seems to go back to his root of making an fool out of himself to make a point, and I like that. Citizens arrest, hehe.
So prove me wrong, then.
Osiris
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 9:59:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 11:06:51 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Michael Moore?
Well then clearly it'll be full of BULLSHÌT.



But I think I'll watch it. If not for the lulz, then so I can get some training in refuting point by point everything the film says.

Well I wouldn't say that everything he says is BS. He does touch on certain issues, but never really goes into that much depth about them. He's entitled to his opinion about things. He puts his own spin on current issues in a rather hilarious way. I plan to see it. He's a funny director.
"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 10:23:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 9:59:46 PM, Osiris wrote:
At 8/25/2009 11:06:51 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Michael Moore?
Well then clearly it'll be full of BULLSHÌT.



But I think I'll watch it. If not for the lulz, then so I can get some training in refuting point by point everything the film says.

Well I wouldn't say that everything he says is BS. He does touch on certain issues, but never really goes into that much depth about them. He's entitled to his opinion about things. He puts his own spin on current issues in a rather hilarious way. I plan to see it. He's a funny director.

Of course he's entitled to his opinion.

His, extrapolating from the trailer, incorrect one.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2009 10:53:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/26/2009 9:59:46 PM, Osiris wrote:
Well I wouldn't say that everything he says is BS. He does touch on certain issues, but never really goes into that much depth about them. He's entitled to his opinion about things.

Yes, but he is not entitled to lie, which he does quite a lot.
So prove me wrong, then.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2009 11:01:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 11:57:32 PM, regebro wrote:
Sicko was just boring (and missed the relevant issues completely)

How so (I refer to "missed the relevant issues completely")? One who refuses to admit, for example, that, while the British publicly-run healthcare system may not be the best, it is better (more universal, cheaper, fairer, more efficent and effective) than the American system (not to mention faster, fairer, and more efficient than the Canadian system of mere public insurance), would find Sicko's issues "irrelevant" in that they (being truthful) don't conform to one's ideology. Are you such a person, or do have facts you're for some reason witholding from the academic community?

Fahrenheit 9/11 is probably the most dishonest piece of twisted propaganda I have ever seen.

Come on, you can't think your word is that good. What are some examples? The film was certainly propaganda (was there any question?), but allegations of dishonesty (later strengthened by "lie") are libelous, depending on fantastical interpretation. An example of such honesty, particularly important to the vacuity of criticism of other aspects of the film, was the highlighting of consistently "twisted propaganda" from a source that actually claims to be "balanced": the mass media. Newsweek and Time were up to their usual tricks, including replacing insufficiently pro-American (I.e. too inconveniently truthful) international covers with advertiser-friendly fluff for American editions. NBC and National Geographic fired Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Peter Arnett, who was quickly rehired by British press, for doing what Walter Cronkite (opposite bipartisan consensus) had done: stating his opinion on the viability of a military action. Such intolerance is of course not normal NBC policy, as their contemporaneous hiring of the unmistakably opinionated Keith Olbermann and Michael Savage attests (the dropping of Donahue, MSNBC's top-rated though, again, insufficiently pro-American, prime-time show, had made way for new personnel). 80% of Fox (top-rated in cable news) viewers (3 times that of major public media consumers) believed in either a false connection between Hussein and 9/11 (48% being the national figure) or that WMD's had been found, or both. Then there was the DoD's military analyst program and the Pulitzer Prize-winning expose thereof. There was of course a ban on showing flag-draped coffins, but all the major media regurgitated only military figures for U.S. casualties anyway. Those killed in their audience's name, the much larger number of (minimum) Iraqi civilian casualties, were not normally mentioned. In general, the major media spared themselves much cost and personal risk by serving as a redundant middle-man between the military and the public, which is really a fascistic state of affairs. The British military calls it "information dominance", the American "information warfare". You don't have to take my word for it: simply pick up any American periodical, for example, and see how much war information is sourced other than to the military (the state, ultimately, if a rogue element thereof).
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2009 11:04:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The only Moore film I really liked was one that was shown in class one year, which was Roger and Me. Very interesting premise and very nice presentation.

Then, he came out with Fahrenheit 9/11, and I knew this guy was a quack. A lot of his video, his ideas and etc. are just ducks - they quack. I have no reason to believe this new one will be any different, but I'll see it anyways. There could be a pleasant surprise. Moore isn't stupid, his ideas are.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2009 12:22:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/27/2009 11:04:59 AM, Volkov wrote:
The only Moore film I really liked was one that was shown in class one year, which was Roger and Me. Very interesting premise and very nice presentation.

Then, he came out with Fahrenheit 9/11, and I knew this guy was a quack. A lot of his video, his ideas and etc. are just ducks - they quack. I have no reason to believe this new one will be any different, but I'll see it anyways. There could be a pleasant surprise. Moore isn't stupid, his ideas are.

I extend my challenge to regebro to you. If it's anything like my challenge to identify the incredibility of The Nation, it will meet silence. Evidently, then, you are the duck, who quacks and quacks and provides no evidence. Incidentally, the facts discussed in Fahrenheit 9/11 are well-cited by Moore. There's a lot of money to be made from a defamation suit; none have been successful, from what I understand, in so much as a settlement.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2009 12:50:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/27/2009 12:22:29 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
I extend my challenge to regebro to you. If it's anything like my challenge to identify the incredibility of The Nation, it will meet silence. Evidently, then, you are the duck, who quacks and quacks and provides no evidence. Incidentally, the facts discussed in Fahrenheit 9/11 are well-cited by Moore. There's a lot of money to be made from a defamation suit; none have been successful, from what I understand, in so much as a settlement.

http://www.davekopel.org...

Read that entire PDF, then read the more detailed and sourced part on this page (you'll have to scroll down) - http://www.davekopel.com...

I'll also rephrase what I said. Michael Moore isn't a quack; he is deceitful and I do not agree with his tactics on getting out his point. Smart man, sure, but I wouldn't take his movies upfront without doing some background checks.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2009 1:51:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/27/2009 11:01:08 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 8/25/2009 11:57:32 PM, regebro wrote:
Sicko was just boring (and missed the relevant issues completely)

How so (I refer to "missed the relevant issues completely")? One who refuses to admit, for example, that, while the British publicly-run healthcare system may not be the best, it is better (more universal, cheaper, fairer, more efficent and effective) than the American system (not to mention faster, fairer, and more efficient than the Canadian system of mere public insurance),

I'm not very familiar with Canadas system, although I have heard good things about it. However Britains system sucks. There are long waiting times (which Moore completely ignores for example). He then also talks about the French system which works very well, and has "mere public insurance" as you call it. Other countries that also has public health care which completely and utterly sucks are Spain and Poland.

But Moore tries to make it a question about "socialized or not" and it isn't. Most socialized health care is quite bad. The best public health care you find in countries like France, Holland, Belgium and Germany, which are largely private, put with public insurance. Lately Denmark has been a rising star in health care, and surprise, they have also lately been moving from a completely socialized health care to one that has private providers but "mere public insurance". Sweden, another big imagined utopia for this advocating socialized health care has also had huge problems with waiting times (and just to be clear, we are talking months in normal cases and often years) and have therefore lately been moving slowly to public insurance and private providers.

And Moore misses this distinction completely. Thereby he, intentionally or not, ends up supporting those who want to completely socialize medicine and make the government run hospitals. That is a spectacularly bad idea.

Are you such a person, or do have facts you're for some reason witholding from the academic community?

Oh please, don't come and try to claim that you or Michael Moore somehow base your standpoint on academia and have the community behind you. You'll just look stupid, don't do that.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is probably the most dishonest piece of twisted propaganda I have ever seen.

Come on, you can't think your word is that good. What are some examples?

Well, here are some: http://www.davekopel.com...

And this actually only takes up the pretty blatant lies. It ignores much of his deceit. Here is one thing I remember straight off:

Take that part when he discusses the Saudis leaving. What he does is that he interview someone who says something about bin Ladens family, and is astonished that they didn't take them in for questioning. This section strongly implies that Bush is letting the bin Laden family get away with something. That they actually know here bin Laden is, and that Bush lets them leave anyway, implying that Bush knows where bin Laden is or that he could know, but doesn't want to know.

That is excellent propaganda and completely dishonest from start to finish. Not only does it omit that 30 saudis was interviewd before being allowed to leave, the real whopper according to me is the deman that they shuold question the bin Laden family about Usama bin Ladens whereabouts before they are allowed to leave.

Hello!? Usama bin Laden had been US enemy #1 for YEARS. He already orchestrated another terrorism attack on US soil YEARS earlier, which everybody seem to have forgotten. Don't you think the US already have asked the bin Laden family about Usama? Don't you think they already have gotten all the information they can about him?

If you could sit through that part of Fahrenheit 9/11 and not go "heeey, wait a minute here...." then you need to practice your critical thinking a bit.

The film was certainly propaganda (was there any question?), but allegations of dishonesty (later strengthened by "lie") are libelous, depending on fantastical interpretation.

If you honestly believe that, then you have been completely blind.
So prove me wrong, then.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 3:02:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/27/2009 6:52:32 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Michael Moore

He's the one that starred in An American Carol ! That movie was awes. http://en.wikipedia.org...

I read the plot summary. A few faults:

1) Slavery wouldn't still exists without the civil war.
2) Islamic radicals don't have the power to take over America.

Though it does raise good points, is simple stooping to Moore's level. It gives basically decent point, but overextends it to anything.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 10:25:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/25/2009 11:57:32 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/25/2009 11:06:51 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Michael Moore?
Well then clearly it'll be full of BULLSHÌT.

Yup. At least this one seems like it's funny again, neither Fahrenheit 9/11 or Sicko was. Sicko was just boring (and missed the relevant issues completely), Fahrenheit 9/11 is probably the most dishonest piece of twisted propaganda I have ever seen.

In what way? It's been a while since I've seen it mind you!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 10:33:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2009 10:25:53 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2009 11:57:32 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/25/2009 11:06:51 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Michael Moore?
Well then clearly it'll be full of BULLSHÌT.

Yup. At least this one seems like it's funny again, neither Fahrenheit 9/11 or Sicko was. Sicko was just boring (and missed the relevant issues completely), Fahrenheit 9/11 is probably the most dishonest piece of twisted propaganda I have ever seen.

In what way? It's been a while since I've seen it mind you!

It's good a link has been posted.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 1:14:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2009 10:33:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:25:53 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/25/2009 11:57:32 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/25/2009 11:06:51 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Michael Moore?
Well then clearly it'll be full of BULLSHÌT.

Yup. At least this one seems like it's funny again, neither Fahrenheit 9/11 or Sicko was. Sicko was just boring (and missed the relevant issues completely), Fahrenheit 9/11 is probably the most dishonest piece of twisted propaganda I have ever seen.

In what way? It's been a while since I've seen it mind you!

It's good a link has been posted.

Mind you, I haven't seen Leni Riefenstahls famous "The Triumph of the will". It's also supposed to be a very good example of propaganda.
So prove me wrong, then.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 1:53:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2009 3:02:32 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/27/2009 6:52:32 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Michael Moore

He's the one that starred in An American Carol ! That movie was awes. http://en.wikipedia.org...

I read the plot summary. A few faults:

1) Slavery wouldn't still exist without the civil war.
I know. I realized that.
2) Islamic radicals don't have the power to take over America.
They didn't try to take it over. They tried to terrorize it.
Though it does raise good points, is simple stooping to Moore's level. It gives basically decent points, but overextends it to anything.
That's the point.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 3:50:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/27/2009 12:50:28 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/27/2009 12:22:29 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
I extend my challenge to regebro to you. If it's anything like my challenge to identify the incredibility of The Nation, it will meet silence. Evidently, then, you are the duck, who quacks and quacks and provides no evidence. Incidentally, the facts discussed in Fahrenheit 9/11 are well-cited by Moore. There's a lot of money to be made from a defamation suit; none have been successful, from what I understand, in so much as a settlement.

http://www.davekopel.org...

Read that entire PDF, then read the more detailed and sourced part on this page (you'll have to scroll down) - http://www.davekopel.com...

I'll also rephrase what I said. Michael Moore isn't a quack; he is deceitful and I do not agree with his tactics on getting out his point. Smart man, sure, but I wouldn't take his movies upfront without doing some background checks.

And yet you'd take this biased Kopel fellow's "Deceits" upfront without doing some background checks? In the process of debunking them, I was disconnected. Reconnected, I searched for them and found http://www.dailykos.com..., which debunks through "Deceit" 49. So I'll focus on 50-59.

50. That "[Bush] also proposed opening other veteran's hospitals" does not make "that Bush proposed closing some veteran's hospitals" a deceit. The former does not justify the latter, especially in the context of 2 wars. Even scholarly works aren't expected to balance each negative fact with a related positive fact.

51. "Pay and benefits" do not combine to equal "pay". It would have been a deceit to count benefits in the latter.

52. Would it really have helped Bush's image to note that his pay cut against combat troops was part of a redistribution of income from combat troops to non-combat personnel? And a 3.7% raise is a small gesture coming from a man who enjoys a tax-free $400,000 salary to live in comfort and safety, especially when inflation is factored in. Also, Bush's later lame duck opposition to a .5% raise further demonstrated the political motivation (a campaign promise to ape Clinton) behind his earlier support for the 3.7% raise. At any rate, we're not talking about deceit; we're talking about Moore failing in his imaginary duty to note every instance in which Bush does, as Chris Rock would put it, "what you're supposed to do!"

53. John Ashcroft was neither a "Congressman" nor the man the legislative branch gave its authority to. Nor was the Persian Gulf "in Iraq", nor Iraq (much less the insurgency, the relevant belligerent at the time of Kopel "is" writing) a naval or air power. "Congressman" can refer either to a member of one of the two houses or to a member of the lower house specifically. Kopel offers no context, so we can assume he's honestly or dishonestly unaware of this fact. It's my understanding that Moore explicitly referenced the Senate, thus making Kopel's "Congressman" either a lie or a clear reference to the House. Also, Rep. Hunter's son served as an officer, not an enlisted man. At any rate, it's unclear the difference between 1 Congressman and 2 Congressmen in terms of Moore's "ideas": in this case, that Congress was mostly unaffected by its vote.

54. If "I'd be happy to" is "offering to help" (it should be), the latter certainly isn't the same as helping. From what I understand, Kennedy never notified the Fahrenheit that he'd helped (handed out pamphlets) nor in fact helped. In fact, I'm not aware of any pro-war Congressman (without children in the military) ever recruiting his pro-war colleagues' children, as it would be embarrassingly hypocritical to do so.

55. #55 contradicts #54. If the purpose of the Moore's recruitment was to show Congress' unwillingness to individually recruit their respective children, then Kennedy's (empty) offer to help was meaningless, as he specifically referred to other Congressmen. But as Kennedy's offer to recruit other Congressmen's children was only an assent to Moore's request, clearly Moore's purpose was to demonstrate Congress' unwillingness to do what even childless Congressmen are capable of.

56. Based on common knowledge, Congressional families are infinitely more likely to have parents voting for war. If I'm not mistaken, Moore mentioned the Iraq War Resolution and nowhere suggests that their unwillingness to recruit their children is anything more than hypocritical.

57. Moore called Flint "my hometown", not "my poor, ethnic hometown". Kopel's implication (that the purpose of Moore's citing Flint as his hometown was to give the impression of a poorer, more ethnic early setting), is therefore fantasy. At any rate, Moore was born (to working class parents) and educated in Flint proper. Birth justifies "hometown", as any dictionary will tell you. (Incidentally, so do suburbs justify "hometown", in common usage, especially in a global context, as was Fahrenheit 9/11.) It's not at all clear that referring to Davison as his hometown would have been more accurate, and it clearly would have been less relevant.

58. As far as I know, the only sense in which Fahrenheit 9/11 supports the troops is in wanting to bring them home. As far as Moore wanting the other side to win, Kopel's quotes don't back that up. Moore seems to have only predicted its victory. To Moore's comparison of the insurgents to the Minutemen, Kopel speculates and speculates as to what the comparison is based on, when he needs only to look to his own quotation of Moore's words: "risen up against the occupation". Historically, the occupying power has been at a disadvantage, as the American Revolution exemplifies.

59. #59, of course, cannot be a "Deceit in Fahrenheit 9/11": it appears to have occurred after the film was finished. Nor, of course, is it a deceit at all. The managing director of the film's Middle East distributor called the support of groups linked to Hezbollah "quite natural" and "not at all controversial" "for that [Lebanese Shia] market". With the exception of 5 nations, Hezbollah is not in fact considered a "terrorist group". In Shiite Lebanon in particular, it's a major political fixture and important provider of social services.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 5:41:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/27/2009 1:51:59 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/27/2009 11:01:08 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 8/25/2009 11:57:32 PM, regebro wrote:
Sicko was just boring (and missed the relevant issues completely)

How so (I refer to "missed the relevant issues completely")? One who refuses to admit, for example, that, while the British publicly-run healthcare system may not be the best, it is better (more universal, cheaper, fairer, more efficent and effective) than the American system (not to mention faster, fairer, and more efficient than the Canadian system of mere public insurance),

I'm not very familiar with Canadas system, although I have heard good things about it. However Britains system sucks. There are long waiting times (which Moore completely ignores for example).

There were long waiting times (which absolutely plague the Canadian system) in Britain until the government decided to properly fund the NHS. Perhaps the "good things" you've heard about the Canadian system contrast it only with the American system? I suggest you either start traveling again or crack a book. And why should Moore talk about waiting times? His film is expressly about the underinsured, for whom waiting times are a fantastical concern.

He then also talks about the French system which works very well, and has "mere public insurance" as you call it.

Of course, because the film did not take a side other than against completely private systems. You may not be an American, but you should respect that Moore is, that his film was directed at an American audience, and that he was not trying to convert social democrats to socialism.

But Moore tries to make it a question about "socialized or not" and it isn't.
Most socialized health care is quite bad.

...the relevant question being whether it's worse than completely private care as practiced in the U.S. and the third world.

The best public health care you find in countries like France, Holland, Belgium and Germany, which are largely private, put with public insurance.

Compared to what? Spain and Poland? Did it ever occur to you to control for potential as the World Health Organization (WHO) does? By that more scientific approach, Spain (Poland wasn't considered) beats all of your examples except France. Italy's NHS, which I assume slipped your mind, ranks second overall.

And Moore misses this distinction completely. Thereby he, intentionally or not, ends up supporting those who want to completely socialize medicine and make the government run hospitals. That is a spectacularly bad idea.

It's a spectacularly bad idea to go from the worst system imaginable to an imperfect but better system?

Are you such a person, or do have facts you're for some reason witholding from the academic community?

Oh please, don't come and try to claim that you or Michael Moore somehow base your standpoint on academia and have the community behind you. You'll just look stupid, don't do that.

You'll look stupid if you don't produce a comprehensive study of world healtchare fairly quickly. In the meantime, studies like the WHO's, with all their anti-progressive bias, seem the best we've got.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is probably the most dishonest piece of twisted propaganda I have ever seen.

Come on, you can't think your word is that good. What are some examples?

Well, here are some: http://www.davekopel.com...

Ha ha ha! That's the same piece of garbage that came up first on Volkov's search engine! I direct you to my response to Volkov.

And this actually only takes up the pretty blatant lies. It ignores much of his deceit. Here is one thing I remember straight off:

Take that part when he discusses the Saudis leaving. What he does is that he interview someone who says something about bin Ladens family, and is astonished that they didn't take them in for questioning. This section strongly implies that Bush is letting the bin Laden family get away with something. That they actually know here bin Laden is, and that Bush lets them leave anyway, implying that Bush knows where bin Laden is or that he could know, but doesn't want to know.

As speculation about Bush's motives, what you describe wouldn't have been deceitful at all. However, as you admit, it was only a "strong implication"--which is to say, it wasn't even vaguely implied. In fact, Bush's motivation for letting the Saudis go is much simpler: the fundamentalist state of Saudi Arabia is powerful economic ally to the U.S., and treating their near-royalty like anyone else would be ill-advised. Bush is not insane: he simply put vigilance, in the case of his country's #1 enemy, in real politik's backseat.

That is excellent propaganda and completely dishonest from start to finish. Not only does it omit that 30 saudis was interviewd before being allowed to leave,

As far as I know, the film says they weren't "interviewed" at length, not that they weren't "interviewed".

Hello!? Usama bin Laden had been US enemy #1 for YEARS. He already orchestrated another terrorism attack on US soil YEARS earlier, which everybody seem to have forgotten. Don't you think the US already have asked the bin Laden family about Usama? Don't you think they already have gotten all the information they can about him?

Of course not. The important thing here is not "US enemy #1" but US people's enemy #1. Prior to 9/11, interrogating Osama's relatives in an unprecedentedly aggressive manner (we're talking about the torture President) would have been inexplicable to the Saudis. Post-9/11, it was a somewhat different story, politically, for Mr. Bush.

The film was certainly propaganda (was there any question?), but allegations of dishonesty (later strengthened by "lie") are libelous, depending on fantastical interpretation.

If you honestly believe that, then you have been completely blind.

Well, at least you didn't call me an idiot this time. As always, though, I would have preferred evidence--in this case, an example of a "lie".
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 10:52:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2009 5:41:23 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
There were long waiting times (which absolutely plague the Canadian system) in Britain until the government decided to properly fund the NHS.

There are still long waiting times.

Perhaps the "good things" you've heard about the Canadian system contrast it only with the American system?

That could very well be. In fact I just discovered that HCP in addition their comparisons of European health care now also looks at Canadian health care, and you are completely right, it's not doing well at all.

I suggest you either start traveling again or crack a book.

I suggest you buy a brain.

And why should Moore talk about waiting times? His film is expressly about the underinsured, for whom waiting times are a fantastical concern.

Not exactly. And you forgot Poland and Spain. There the problem isn't the waiting times, the problem simply is that the socialized health care sucks. So if you don't have a private health insurance, you are pretty much up poo creek anyway. Socializing health care does not necessarily fix the insurance problem.

He then also talks about the French system which works very well, and has "mere public insurance" as you call it.

Of course, because the film did not take a side other than against completely private systems.

In which case, as I mentioned, it, intentionally or not, defends socialized systems, which is a spectacularly bad idea. Again, I have to repeat my point over and over. It's annoying. Please read what I say before you answer.

You may not be an American, but you should respect that Moore is, that his film was directed at an American audience, and that he was not trying to convert social democrats to socialism.

That is how the movie is perceived both within and outside the US.

...the relevant question being whether it's worse than completely private care as practiced in the U.S. and the third world.

And the answer is: In most cases, Yes.

The best public health care you find in countries like France, Holland, Belgium and Germany, which are largely private, put with public insurance.

Compared to what? Spain and Poland?

Compared to everything.

Did it ever occur to you to control for potential as the World Health Organization (WHO) does?

Yes. When I say "best" this is based on several sources, including the UN.

By that more scientific approach, Spain (Poland wasn't considered) beats all of your examples except France. Italy's NHS, which I assume slipped your mind, ranks second overall.

You are clearly referring to the Overall Performance table from WHO's World Health Report 2000. Not only is it ten years old and therefore seriously outdated, the overall performance does not measure what you seem to think it measures. It measures efficiency, and it does that by comparing the countries life expectancy with that of other countries with similar levels of health expenditure. Life expectancy is not a particularly good indicator of how good the health system is when you reach the levels of life expectancy and health care we have in the west, first of all, and secondly, all that number says is that "for our level of health care expenditure, we have very good life expectancy". Well, most countries with low expenditure has crappy health care. If one is less crappy than the others, it gets a good ranking. That doesn't make it *good*.

Measuring health care is hard. This is a better, but still not completely good, source:
http://www.healthpowerhouse.com...

Main problems: It measures outcome only on a small number of lethal illnesses. That makes Sweden look fantastic, as it has good outcomes on that. But Sweden also has many people with non-lethal problems, and they don't get much help, but are frequently on sick leave for years. HCP misses that completely. Also they have currently gotten in their head to give a significant importance to how computerized the system is, which makes no sense...

It's a spectacularly bad idea to go from the worst system imaginable to an imperfect but better system?

It's not going to be better, you see. It's going to be worse.

You'll look stupid if you don't produce a comprehensive study of world healtchare fairly quickly. In the meantime, studies like the WHO's, with all their anti-progressive bias, seem the best we've got.

The WHO's study is thorough and has a lot of interesting data. But you, who apparently have studies this issue for about one hour, seem to think that it tells what is good or bad. It doesn't.

Well, here are some: http://www.davekopel.com...

Ha ha ha! That's the same piece of garbage that came up first on Volkov's search engine! I direct you to my response to Volkov.

OK, please direct me to that message. And it isn't a piece of garbage, you are now ignoring facts that don't fit with your pre-conceived ideas.

Take that part when he discusses the Saudis leaving. What he does is that he interview someone who says something about bin Ladens family, and is astonished that they didn't take them in for questioning. This section strongly implies that Bush is letting the bin Laden family get away with something. That they actually know here bin Laden is, and that Bush lets them leave anyway, implying that Bush knows where bin Laden is or that he could know, but doesn't want to know.

As speculation about Bush's motives, what you describe wouldn't have been deceitful at all. However, as you admit, it was only a "strong implication"--which is to say, it wasn't even vaguely implied. In fact, Bush's motivation for letting the Saudis go is much simpler: the fundamentalist state of Saudi Arabia is powerful economic ally to the U.S., and treating their near-royalty like anyone else would be ill-advised. Bush is not insane: he simply put vigilance, in the case of his country's #1 enemy, in real politik's backseat.

What I write was fully deceitful from start to finish. It willfully ignores the significant fact and uses some random guys idiotic opinion like it is representative of the truth, in order to imply something that is blatantly false.

As far as I know, the film says they weren't "interviewed" at length, not that they weren't "interviewed".

Possible. That's yet another deceit, then.

Hello!? Usama bin Laden had been US enemy #1 for YEARS. He already orchestrated another terrorism attack on US soil YEARS earlier, which everybody seem to have forgotten. Don't you think the US already have asked the bin Laden family about Usama? Don't you think they already have gotten all the information they can about him?

Of course not. The important thing here is not "US enemy #1" but US people's enemy #1. Prior to 9/11, interrogating Osama's relatives in an unprecedentedly aggressive manner (we're talking about the torture President) would have been inexplicable to the Saudis. Post-9/11, it was a somewhat different story, politically, for Mr. Bush.

That is in no way the important thing here. I fact, it completely misses the point. The point being that Moore accuses the government of not getting information about Usama bin Laden from his family directly after 9/11, when in fact the government already have gotten the information *prior* to 9/11.

And Moore is not stupid. He knows this, He knows he is lying, The problem is that people who are less intelligent and knowledgable than him falls for his lies.

If you honestly believe that, then you have been completely blind.

Well, at least you didn't call me an idiot this time. As always, though, I would have preferred evidence--in this case, an example of a "lie".

You got several. Now you are just sticking your head in the sand.
So prove me wrong, then.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 4:42:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2009 10:52:59 PM, regebro wrote:
There are still long waiting times.

"Long" is a regression from the specificity we've already achieved. British waiting times are now shorter than Canadian, U.S., French, German, and Australian waiting times, for example.

And why should Moore talk about waiting times? His film is expressly about the underinsured, for whom waiting times are a fantastical concern.

Not exactly.

To paraphrase a line in the beginning of the film: this film is about the underinsured. Accordingly, the people you see on screen are underinsured. "Waiting" implies treatment will eventually come, which of course is not the situation of the underinsured.

And you forgot Poland and Spain. There the problem isn't the waiting times, the problem simply is that the socialized health care sucks. So if you don't have a private health insurance, you are pretty much up poo creek anyway. Socializing health care does not necessarily fix the insurance problem.

Of course not. Being a rich country, which Poland isn't, is obviously and independently essential. I doubt Moore was suggesting the U.S become as poor as the average country with socialized healthcare. As for Spain, saying "the socialized health care sucks" isn't the same as demonstrating it. Of course, that the public healthcare is inferior should be expected: it's free. Being "up poo creek", as an understatement as opposed to your usage, "if you don't have private" health care is of course a defining characteristic of mere single-payer systems.

That is how the movie is perceived both within and outside the US.

Produce your evidence.

And the answer is: In most cases, Yes.

Produce your evidence?

You are clearly referring to the Overall Performance table from WHO's World Health Report 2000. Not only is it ten years old and therefore seriously outdated, the overall performance does not measure what you seem to think it measures.

Did something occur within the last ten years to make the British system a bad idea? To the contrary, the 2000 rankings were based in large part on underfunded British-style systems.

It measures efficiency, and it does that by comparing the countries life expectancy with that of other countries with similar levels of health expenditure. Life expectancy is not a particularly good indicator of how good the health system is when you reach the levels of life expectancy and health care we have in the west, first of all, and secondly, all that number says is that "for our level of health care expenditure, we have very good life expectancy". Well, most countries with low expenditure has crappy health care. If one is less crappy than the others, it gets a good ranking. That doesn't make it *good*.

I agree. What makes the Italian system good is that it got a better ranking than most of your "best". As recent British history attests, level of health expenditure is largely independent of the type of system. Expenditure must be factored in; otherwise, the recent improvement in the British system, for example, is unexplained. Of course, expenditure should not so much as exactly divide outcome, which in the WHO rankings it doesn't. And you obviously haven't read the whole report if you think expenditure is the only reason completely socialized systems generally so outrank completely privatized systems.

Measuring health care is hard. This is a better, but still not completely good, source:
http://www.healthpowerhouse.com...

Main problems: It measures outcome only on a small number of lethal illnesses. That makes Sweden look fantastic, as it has good outcomes on that. But Sweden also has many people with non-lethal problems, and they don't get much help, but are frequently on sick leave for years. HCP misses that completely. Also they have currently gotten in their head to give a significant importance to how computerized the system is, which makes no sense...

...until we reflect that computerization is useful. Incidentally, the only indicator remotely close to "computerized" is "e-Health proficiency", one of 11 "significant" indicators in one of 5 subdisciplines. And lethal illnesses are obviously more worthy of our attention than non-lethal ones. My apologies to the private healthcare systems that are way ahead in curing small breasts. Criticizing your own source, at any rate, will get you nowhere. Note that yours is a "Consumer Index", not a comparison of types of healthcare systems. Dutch healthcare, for example, is not merely a public-private system: it's a well-funded public-private system. And notice how Sweden's high score, from your own source, is only symptomatic of totally public systems in general scoring higher than totally private systems. Removing "e-Health profiency" does not change that fact.

Ha ha ha! That's the same piece of garbage that came up first on Volkov's search engine! I direct you to my response to Volkov.

OK, please direct me to that message. And it isn't a piece of garbage, you are now ignoring facts that don't fit with your pre-conceived ideas.

Page 2 of this thread. You'll find a response to each and every one of Kopel's "facts".

What I write was fully deceitful from start to finish. It willfully ignores the significant fact and uses some random guys idiotic opinion like it is representative of the truth, in order to imply something that is blatantly false.

You quote me as if you're about to respond to me, but then you completely ignore what I've said. Until you can show that my speculation is either less plausible than what you mean the film to imply or inconsistent with what the film actually says, your inference makes no sense. Can you quote or even paraphrase the "random guys idiotic opinion"? Can you point to some evidence that audiences took the film to imply your inference? Remember that your "imply" is quite broader than the general population's.

Possible. That's yet another deceit, then.

Then produce your evidence that the bin Ladens were "interviewed" at length.

That is in no way the important thing here. I fact, it completely misses the point. The point being that Moore accuses the government of not getting information about Usama bin Laden from his family directly after 9/11, when in fact the government already have gotten the information *prior* to 9/11.

From every member of the bin Laden family? At any rate, it's not unheard of for interrogators to receive relatively useless information only later to get better information through more aggressive interrogation. It was the most liberal administration in U.S. history that interned everybody of the same nationality (compare to family) as the Japanese Emporer. This was after an attack far less severe than 9/11. Of course, the Roosevelt administration didn't actually believe it was doing any good, but the chance was worth the (negligible, to them) injustice. Of course, confrontation with the Japanese had been expected, and yet there had been no preemptive (of the war) internment. Why? The political situation hadn't right for it, of course. Well, the Bush administration has tortured people on the basis of mere hearsay, as should have been expected from an ape in a cowboy hat. Do you really think it's deceitful to imply that such an administration's treatment of the bin Ladens, who've been linked to fundamentalism and even terrorism, was interesting (in this case inconsistent) from a naive perspective? The section probably got some people to research the U.S.-Saudi relationship, which more than makes up for an indefinite number of people coming to the lazy conclusion that the government didn't know about Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11, even if some of the latter are like you and later misdirect their anger at being wrong toward the film.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 1:11:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/30/2009 4:42:26 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
"Long" is a regression from the specificity we've already achieved. British waiting times are now shorter than Canadian, U.S., French, German, and Australian waiting times, for example.

I'd like a source for that, thank you. After all, I live in France and know the waiting times here, which are virtually non-existent.

I doubt Moore was suggesting the U.S become as poor as the average country with socialized healthcare. As for Spain, saying "the socialized health care sucks" isn't the same as demonstrating it.

No, but it is still true.

I notice that you do your typical mode of debating: Coming up with excuses to why you should ignore reality. That's not going to get you anywhere.

And the answer is: In most cases, Yes.

Produce your evidence?

http://www.debate.org...

Did something occur within the last ten years to make the British system a bad idea? To the contrary, the 2000 rankings were based in large part on underfunded British-style systems.

You focus on details to find excuses to ignore reality.

I agree. What makes the Italian system good is that it got a better ranking than most of your "best".

Again, that is not a ranking of "good" it's a ranking of *efficient*.

Also they have currently gotten in their head to give a significant importance to how computerized the system is, which makes no sense...

...until we reflect that computerization is useful.

Yes, but in that case it would be reflected in outcomes. By measuring it separately, you measure the effect of computerization twice, which skews the results.

And notice how Sweden's high score, from your own source, is only symptomatic of totally public systems in general scoring higher than totally private systems.

None of the systems are totally anything. The systems with a large amount of private providers and public insurance are in general scoring higher than the other systems, where public health care is provided through public hospitals only.

The listing is:

Netherlands
Austria
Luxembourg
Denmark
Germany
Switzerland
Sweden <- First one with public hospitals providing primary care.

Canada is the odd one out when it comes to the "mere public insurance" countries. The other ones are *all* at the top.

Don't ignore the facts.

Page 2 of this thread. You'll find a response to each and every one of Kopel's "facts".

No I don't. That dailykos site sucks. And I don't find a response the what I wrote.

You quote me as if you're about to respond to me, but then you completely ignore what I've said. Until you can show that my speculation is either less plausible than what you mean the film to imply or inconsistent with what the film actually says, your inference makes no sense. Can you quote or even paraphrase the "random guys idiotic opinion"?

I did. You obviously didn't even read what I wrote. Your answer here is gibberish.

Can you point to some evidence that audiences took the film to imply your inference?

"That audience"? A lie does not depend on if the person lied to falls for it.

Possible. That's yet another deceit, then.

Then produce your evidence that the bin Ladens were "interviewed" at length.

So you are now claiming that during all the years Usama bin Laden has been US enemy #1, they haven't actually tried to find him? Do you have anything to support that rather fantastic claim?

My point is that the documentary tries to take what surely is true: That they were not interviewed between 9/11 and the flights, and twist it into something that is not true: That the reason they didn't do that is because Bush is in some sort of conspiracy with the bin Ladens, when the real reason is that Usama bin Laden already was on the US list before 9/11, and hence, they had already collected all the information available about him.

From every member of the bin Laden family?

The bin Laden family has thousands of members.

At any rate, it's not unheard of for interrogators to receive relatively useless information only later to get better information through more aggressive interrogation.

I like how you are implying that the US should use "aggressive interrogation techniques" on people just because they happen to be related to a terrorist. What techniques are you thinking of?

Your response here is pathetic. You do everything you can to desperately deny the basic fact: That Michael Moore tends to lie in his movies, lie by implication and excluded facts.
So prove me wrong, then.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 2:04:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 1:11:38 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/30/2009 4:42:26 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
"Long" is a regression from the specificity we've already achieved. British waiting times are now shorter than Canadian, U.S., French, German, and Australian waiting times, for example.

I'd like a source for that, thank you. After all, I live in France and know the waiting times here, which are virtually non-existent.

Of course they are: France has an unusually (but justifiably) high expenditure. However, a comparison requires knowledge of all of the countries involved. If you have to live in a country in order to be sure about its waiting times, pack your bags for a tour of Germany, Australia, especially Britain, and most especially the US and Canada. France, of course, is a rather poor example of "mere public insurance", as 2/3 of its hospitals are government-run. I haven't studied the Australian and German sytems in depth, but I know that the Australian and French systems are based on the German system, so I can only assume it's a similar situation there. Canadian healthcare, being mostly privately run, is a much better example of "mere public insurance" and accordingly is shown to have longer waiting times than the UK by your own source. Your source didn't consider the U.S., the standard bearer for the third world you consider to "for the most part" have better healthcare than completely public systems. For that and a more comprehensive look at the other nations' waiting times, check the 2008 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Sicker Adults.

I doubt Moore was suggesting the U.S become as poor as the average country with socialized healthcare. As for Spain, saying "the socialized health care sucks" isn't the same as demonstrating it.

No, but it is still true.

I notice that you do your typical mode of debating: Coming up with excuses to why you should ignore reality. That's not going to get you anywhere.

Why don't you post the source that ranks Spain below "the most part" of completely private systems or even all systems of mere public insrance. Post the evidence, then we'll see if I ignore it. The source you gave doesn't even consider the completely private systems; Spain outranks many systems of mere public insurance. If the Spanish system "sucks", those systems "suck", and you've provided no information of any use to a comparison of types of systems.

Produce your evidence?

http://www.debate.org...

That's an anonymous going by "Republican95" making an unevidenced assertion that public healthcare hasn't worked. I remember you partially agreeing with him on a subsequent page, but I don't remember you posting evidence. In fact, you've steered clear of talking about completely private systems completely. If you're not rich, try living in America or the rest of the third world.

You focus on details to find excuses to ignore reality.

I focus on details? You're the one who brought up the year of the study. If the year should invalidate it, you should be able to explain why.

Again, that is not a ranking of "good" it's a ranking of *efficient*.

Efficiency is good. It's not the only thing that's good, accordingly it's not the only thing WHO considered. But to ignore expenditure completely would be to reward types of health care systems for things that have other causes, namely better outcomes due to better funding.

Yes, but in that case it would be reflected in outcomes. By measuring it separately, you measure the effect of computerization twice, which skews the results.

In that case, e-Health serves as a additional outcome indicator; however, the context makes it at least as likely e-Health is being valued for non-outcome reasons, such as time saved. As for outcomes, Sweden is first and Finland ahead of France.

None of the systems are totally anything. The systems with a large amount of private providers and public insurance are in general scoring higher than the other systems, where public health care is provided through public hospitals only.

The listing is:

Netherlands
Austria
Luxembourg
Denmark
Germany
Switzerland
Sweden <- First one with public hospitals providing primary care.

Canada is the odd one out when it comes to the "mere public insurance" countries. The other ones are *all* at the top.

Don't ignore the facts.

Ha ha ha! You say don't ignore the facts after you've just ignored every country after Sweden. Most of the countries in the study are public-private, so it's to be expected that most of the ones at the top will be also. Note also that Sweden is ahead of France and the "Bang-for-the-buck" index put Finland in 4th, also ahead of France. What I was referring to, however, was not the rankings but the criteria behind them: you've yet to produce criteria by which the completely private systems perform as well as completely public systems. As that's been your most extreme allegation, let's start with that.

No I don't. That dailykos site sucks. And I don't find a response the what I wrote.

Of course you don't: dailykos posted responses to your source, not your original material. It's telling that you can't debunk even one of dailykos' debunkings.

"That audience"? A lie does not depend on if the person lied to falls for it.

But you've admitted that it wasn't a lie, only a "deceit" by a weak meaning of "implication". And yet here I am trying desparately for you to provide evidence Moore wanted people to believe what you say he did.

So you are now claiming that during all the years Usama bin Laden has been US enemy #1, they haven't actually tried to find him? Do you have anything to support that rather fantastic claim?

That' a straw man. Of course they tried to find Osama, but within reason. The House of Saud is not to be fucked with.

My point is that the documentary tries to take what surely is true: That they were not interviewed between 9/11 and the flights, and twist it into something that is not true: That the reason they didn't do that is because Bush is in some sort of conspiracy with the bin Ladens, when the real reason is that Usama bin Laden already was on the US list before 9/11, and hence, they had already collected all the information available about him.

What comes after "hence" is not implied by what comes before it. As to how the facts were "twisted" into a "conspiracy" theory, you haven't shown. My request for quotation of your elusive "random" interviewee fell on deaf ears.

The bin Laden family has thousands of members.

I'm referring to the handful that left America on the 13th of course.

I like how you are implying that the US should use "aggressive interrogation techniques" on people just because they happen to be related to a terrorist. What techniques are you thinking of?

I'm not talking about what should have been done, I'm talking about what would have been consistent. Bush can kill a million innocent Iraqis to take out Hussein, but he can't break out the buttonman when in comes to bin Laden? Some of the bin Ladens who left on that plane had alleged links to terrorism, and all of them of course had links to the terrorist state of Saudi Arabia. The Unabomber was turned in by his estranged brother, for Christ's sake. Now, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with the opinion that the administration acted inconsistently, but you should recognize that such an opinion (the maximum of what Moore implied), is only that: opinion, not deception.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 2:40:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 2:04:50 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 8/31/2009 1:11:38 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/30/2009 4:42:26 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
"Long" is a regression from the specificity we've already achieved. British waiting times are now shorter than Canadian, U.S., French, German, and Australian waiting times, for example.

I'd like a source for that, thank you. After all, I live in France and know the waiting times here, which are virtually non-existent.

Of course they are: France has an unusually (but justifiably) high expenditure.

You just said they aren't (which is wrong). And it's not "unusually high".

However, a comparison requires knowledge of all of the countries involved.

Correct, and you don't have it, but instead you invent "data" with you bum to fit your arguments.

If you have to live in a country in order to be sure about its waiting times, pack your bags for a tour of Germany, Australia, especially Britain, and most especially the US and Canada. France, of course, is a rather poor example of "mere public insurance", as 2/3 of its hospitals are government-run.

The large hospitals yes. Clinics and doctors, no.

Why don't you post the source that ranks Spain below "the most part" of completely private systems or even all systems of mere public insrance.

I already did.

Post the evidence, then we'll see if I ignore it.

Done, and yes you did.

You focus on details to find excuses to ignore reality.

I focus on details? You're the one who brought up the year of the study. If the year should invalidate it, you should be able to explain why.

Yes, a study. Not a detail, a study. You focus on one detail of the study and pretend that it's all of it.

Again, that is not a ranking of "good" it's a ranking of *efficient*.

Efficiency is good. It's not the only thing that's good

I'm happy you understand that. Then stop trying to claim it is.

Yes, but in that case it would be reflected in outcomes. By measuring it separately, you measure the effect of computerization twice, which skews the results.

In that case, e-Health serves as a additional outcome indicator;

No it does not. Is there something in the above you did not understand?

Ha ha ha! You say don't ignore the facts after you've just ignored every country after Sweden.

The trend does not change.

Most of the countries in the study are public-private

More excuses.

"That audience"? A lie does not depend on if the person lied to falls for it.

But you've admitted that it wasn't a lie, only a "deceit" by a weak meaning of "implication".

Excuses.

So you are now claiming that during all the years Usama bin Laden has been US enemy #1, they haven't actually tried to find him? Do you have anything to support that rather fantastic claim?

That' a straw man.

No.

What comes after "hence" is not implied by what comes before it. As to how the facts were "twisted" into a "conspiracy" theory, you haven't shown. My request for quotation of your elusive "random" interviewee fell on deaf ears.

Excuses.

The bin Laden family has thousands of members.

I'm referring to the handful that left America on the 13th of course.

Please show that they are likely to have information they haven't already given.

I'm not talking about what should have been done, I'm talking about what would have been consistent.

But I, and Moore, was talking about what should have been done. More excuses.

You have your fingers in the ear. Take them out.
So prove me wrong, then.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 7:22:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 2:40:44 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/31/2009 2:04:50 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 8/31/2009 1:11:38 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/30/2009 4:42:26 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
"Long" is a regression from the specificity we've already achieved. British waiting times are now shorter than Canadian, U.S., French, German, and Australian waiting times, for example.

I'd like a source for that, thank you. After all, I live in France and know the waiting times here, which are virtually non-existent.

Of course they are: France has an unusually (but justifiably) high expenditure.

You just said they aren't (which is wrong). And it's not "unusually high".

It's 11.2% of GDP. Spain and the UK are both 8.4%, and Finland is 6.5%. And I didn't say waiting times weren't a vague "virtually non-existent": I said they were longer than in the UK.

However, a comparison requires knowledge of all of the countries involved.

Correct, and you don't have it, but instead you invent "data" with you bum to fit your arguments.

I sourced my data. Your source didn't include enough data on family doctor access.

If you have to live in a country in order to be sure about its waiting times, pack your bags for a tour of Germany, Australia, especially Britain, and most especially the US and Canada. France, of course, is a rather poor example of "mere public insurance", as 2/3 of its hospitals are government-run.

The large hospitals yes. Clinics and doctors, no.

That the hospitals that make up the 2/3 capacity are relatively large doesn't seem to help your argument. Would you like to particularize your condemnation of public healthcare to small hospitals and general practitioners? Originally, when you defined the most public category "nationalize the hospitals", I could not have imagined you meant to count an insignificant hospital equally to a significant one. Incidentally, 2/3 is about the same ratio as in Spain, for example; Spain's public hospital are also typically larger than its private ones, to the extent that most Spanish hospitals are private. That Spain et al. and France et al. are typically put into different categories is due to funding, not to management: France et al. are not single-payer. It's only within the category of single payer systems that management is taken into account and the Canadas are separated from the Spains.

Why don't you post the source that ranks Spain below "the most part" of completely private systems or even all systems of mere public insrance.

I already did.

Canada, the quintessential system of "mere public insurance", scored 74 points lower than Spain.

You focus on details to find excuses to ignore reality.

I focus on details? You're the one who brought up the year of the study. If the year should invalidate it, you should be able to explain why.

Yes, a study. Not a detail, a study. You focus on one detail of the study and pretend that it's all of it.

Of course I don't. I responded to every one of your criticisms of the study. "Yes", by the way, is not an explanation for your mentioning the year. If this is your playful way of conceding the point, I accept.

Again, that is not a ranking of "good" it's a ranking of *efficient*.

Efficiency is good. It's not the only thing that's good

I'm happy you understand that. Then stop trying to claim it is.

Ha ha ha! I never claimed such a thing and you know it. Accordingly, you'll fail to quote me.

Yes, but in that case it would be reflected in outcomes. By measuring it separately, you measure the effect of computerization twice, which skews the results.

In that case, e-Health serves as a additional outcome indicator;

No it does not. Is there something in the above you did not understand?

Of course not. Traditional "outcome" indicators have the disadvantage of not necessarily being due to the healthcare system. e-Health has outcomes and is definitively an aspect of the healthcare system. But if e-Health is made superfluous by Outcomes, isn't Waiting Times?

Ha ha ha! You say don't ignore the facts after you've just ignored every country after Sweden.

The trend does not change.

Exactly, the trend of mostly public-private systems doesn't change. The trend of public-private systems strictly dominating, however, does.

Most of the countries in the study are public-private

More excuses.

Ha ha ha! Don't you know anything about statistics? If you take two random categories and a random set of criteria, the larger category will tend to get the majority of top scores. Incidentally, they'll also get the majority of bottom scores. But your criteria aren't, of course, random: by ignoring expenditure, they reward per capita income. That's why the top 5 countries, in addition to being Bismarkian, are all rich Western European countries; counting from the bottom, we don't get out of poor Eastern Europe until the quintessential "mere public insurance" system rears its ugly head.

"That audience"? A lie does not depend on if the person lied to falls for it.

But you've admitted that it wasn't a lie, only a "deceit" by a weak meaning of "implication".

Excuses.

Exactly. A film is indeed excused for wild misinterpretations thereof.

So you are now claiming that during all the years Usama bin Laden has been US enemy #1, they haven't actually tried to find him? Do you have anything to support that rather fantastic claim?

That' a straw man.

No.

If you're right, you'll quote me "claiming" "they haven't actually tried to find him". Do you realize that it's a waste of time to respond to an assertion of your wrongness with simply "No"?

What comes after "hence" is not implied by what comes before it. As to how the facts were "twisted" into a "conspiracy" theory, you haven't shown. My request for quotation of your elusive "random" interviewee fell on deaf ears.

Excuses.

Excuse for what? If you can't describe the alleged interview, I have no reason to believe I missed it when I saw the film.

The bin Laden family has thousands of members.

I'm referring to the handful that left America on the 13th of course.

Please show that they are likely to have information they haven't already given.

Why? It makes no sense to require likelihood. The rational course, when the potential reward is infinitely greater than the cost, is to act on the basis of possibility.

I'm not talking about what should have been done, I'm talking about what would have been consistent.

But I, and Moore, was talking about what should have been done. More excuses.

You have your fingers in the ear. Take them out.

I don't remember Moore expressing his personal opinion on that point. I know that he happens to think they should have been questioned, but that's not a deceit and it's not necessarily in the film. Do you understand that an allegation of deceit is more serious than a disagreement of opinion?
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 11:00:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 7:22:34 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 8/31/2009 2:40:44 PM, regebro wrote:
You just said they aren't (which is wrong). And it's not "unusually high".

It's 11.2% of GDP. Spain and the UK are both 8.4%, and Finland is 6.5%.

Where do you get those numbers from?

According to this: http://www.libraryindex.com...

Some numbers are: Switzerland (11.2%), Germany (10.9%), Iceland (9.9%) France (9.7%), Canada (9.6%), and Greece (9.5%).

And since when is % of GDP a relevant number in how high the expenditure is? That would give poor countries high expenditures because much of health doesn't get cheaper. Not that france is very poor...

Converting it to PPP dollars make more sense, and then we get France, 3195, Norway, 3966, Switzerland, 4077, and a whole bunch like Austria, Germany, Belgium and Netherlands just over the 3000 dollar mark. And Luxembourg. At 5089. [HCP again]

You are just talking out of your bunghole.

And I didn't say waiting times weren't a vague "virtually non-existent": I said they were longer than in the UK.

And they still aren't. The UK still have long waiting times, France still doesn't. You are talking out of your bunghole.

I sourced my data. Your source didn't include enough data on family doctor access.

Bullsh*t. You don't source any data, and you ignore my sources, which does include family doctor access.

That the hospitals that make up the 2/3 capacity are relatively large doesn't seem to help your argument.

Again you focus on a detail without understanding the whole and uses that lack of understanding as an excuse not to listen.

Would you like to particularize your condemnation of public healthcare to small hospitals and general practitioners?

Strawman.

Canada, the quintessential system of "mere public insurance", scored 74 points lower than Spain.

Again you focus on a detail without understanding the whole and uses that lack of understanding as an excuse not to listen.

Of course I don't. I responded to every one of your criticisms of the study.

No, you focus on a detail without understanding the whole and uses that lack of understanding as an excuse not to listen.

Ha ha ha! I never claimed such a thing and you know it. Accordingly, you'll fail to quote me.

So you deny that you used the WHO report in 2000 as an argument where you claimed, based on ranking of efficiency, that countries higher up had better health care than those lower down?

No it does not. Is there something in the above you did not understand?

Of course not. Traditional "outcome" indicators have the disadvantage of not necessarily being due to the healthcare system. e-Health has outcomes and is definitively an aspect of the healthcare system. But if e-Health is made superfluous by Outcomes, isn't Waiting Times?

No. Waiting time is not something that primarily affects outcome. However, it affects how people are sick. If they are sick for two weeks or two years is very important, don't you think? Outcomes measure only if they are still alive two years later.

The trend does not change.

Exactly, the trend of mostly public-private systems doesn't change.

All the systems are "public-private" in some sense. The trend is that countries where you have a large private sector with public health insurance, fares better than where you have no public health insurance, and you instead have to go to the publically owned hospitals to get help if you have no private insurance.

Ha ha ha! Don't you know anything about statistics?

Yeah, I do in fact.

If you take two random categories and a random set of criteria, the larger category will tend to get the majority of top scores.

And this is not the case here. The relevant category, public health insurance is the smaller one. YOu think it's bigger. Why do you think itäs bigger? Because if it's bigger, you are right. But if it's smaller, you are wrong.

You *assume* that you are right, and then you invent facts to fit that, instead of looking at how the world actually is. Or in other words: You talk out of your *ss.

Incidentally, they'll also get the majority of bottom scores.

No they don't. At the bottom comes eastern european countries. They for the vast part has public health care run by public hospitals, and this health care generally suck. The rich therefore also have private insurance and go to private hospitals.

But your criteria aren't, of course, random: by ignoring expenditure, they reward per capita income.

True. Let's then look at something different. Bang for the buck: How good the health care is compared to how much you spend for it.

Country (type of system)

Estonia (Public insurance)
Austria (Public insurance)
Netherlands (Public insurance)
Finland (State controlled, NHS-style)
France (Public insurance)
Germany (Public insurance)
Cyprus (Don't know)
Sweden (NHS-style but moving towards Public insurance)
Czech Republic (Don't know)
Romania (NHS-style)
Slovakia (Public insurance)
Denmark (NHS-style but moving towards Public insurance)
Switzerland (Public insurance)
Belgium (Public insurance)
Spain (NHS-style)
Norway (NHS-style)
Lithuania (NHS-style)
Malta (Don't know)
Portugal (NHS-style)
Slovenia (NHS-style)
Ireland (NHS-style)
Italy (NHS-style)
Luxemburg (Public insurance (I assume))
Hungary (NHS-style)
Greece (NHS-style)
United Kingdom (NHS-style)
Bulgaria (NHS-style)
Poland (NHS-style)
Latvia (NHS-style)

NHS-style here means that to get state funded health care, you have to go to state-run hospitals or where you are directed by the state system. Public insurance as always means that you have a public insurance you can take to any bloody doctor/hospital you like, private or public.

That's why the top 5 countries, in addition to being Bismarkian, are all rich Western European countries

Not true.

Excuse for what?

Your making excuses for not wanting to accept facts and deal with reality.

Please show that they are likely to have information they haven't already given.

Why? It makes no sense to require likelihood.

Then your argument collapses completely. QED.

The rational course, when the potential reward is infinitely greater than the cost, is to act on the basis of possibility.

No, because then you have to interview everyone in the world, because it is possible they will have information you want. No, the rational cause is to interview those who are *likely* to have information.

You have your fingers in the ear. Take them out.

I don't remember Moore expressing his personal opinion on that point.

About you having your fingers in your ear? No, probably not. But you still do.
So prove me wrong, then.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2009 1:07:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 11:00:10 PM, regebro wrote:
Where do you get those numbers from?

According to this: http://www.libraryindex.com...

Some numbers are: Switzerland (11.2%), Germany (10.9%), Iceland (9.9%) France (9.7%), Canada (9.6%), and Greece (9.5%).

I was using WHO numbers, but yours get my point across. The top 4 of those are all Bismark systems, Canada is mere single-payer, and Greece is a Bismark-Beveridge hybrid.

And since when is % of GDP a relevant number in how high the expenditure is? That would give poor countries high expenditures because much of health doesn't get cheaper. Not that france is very poor...

...nor even the superlatively rich US, whose private system is far ahead of any other by any measure. Much of health doesn't get cheaper, but neither does much of commodities anterior to health, so it roughly balances out.

Converting it to PPP dollars make more sense, and then we get France, 3195, Norway, 3966, Switzerland, 4077, and a whole bunch like Austria, Germany, Belgium and Netherlands just over the 3000 dollar mark. And Luxembourg. At 5089. [HCP again]

You have to be more specific: I'm not going to search a bourgeois consumer group for what little information it has relevant to policy. Converting to PPP dollars may be useful, but not as useful as converting to per capita (which you appear to have unknowingly copied WHO in doing). And once again, your preferred measure does nothing to advance your argument: with the exception of the one "NHS-style" system you "coincidentally" mentioned, "NHS-style" inhabits the range of 566 to 2596 (according to the link you provided).

Bullsh*t. You don't source any data, and you ignore my sources, which does include family doctor access.

Yes, but only same-day and only 2 intervals per country. My source (I repeat, the 2008 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Sicker Adults) shows same-day and 6-day, and 100 intervals per country.

Strawman.

How can it be a straw man when it's a question? Since you admit that the French hospital system is mostly public, I'm asking you if you want to clarify that "nationalize the hospitals" in your original usage referred to all hospitals, in which case the targets of your criticism are not systems of nationalized hospitals.

Again you focus on a detail without understanding the whole and uses that lack of understanding as an excuse not to listen.

As I've never admitted to lack of understanding, I obviously couldn't have used it as an excuse. Of course, you are the one who focused on the (false) "detail" that the Spanish system loses to all systems of mere public insurance. Canada was simply a counterexample, of course. On "the whole", of course, the only European countries--of those you identified as mere "public insurance"--that aren't characterized by mostly public provision are Luxemburg, Switzerland, Belgium, and Holland. The 5 countries average 17th (below the total average and equal to the "NHS-style" average). But remember that you argued something much stronger: that completely private systems are superior to "NHS-style" systems. For "the whole" or any part of that, we would have to look beyond Europe, which you've so far been unwilling to do.

So you deny that you used the WHO report in 2000 as an argument where you claimed, based on ranking of efficiency, that countries higher up had better health care than those lower down?

Of course not, but I read the whole report so I know that the trends for types of systems are basically unaffected by the efficiency consideration. The exception is that efficiency boosts poor countries, thereby boosting completely private systems, though not enough to put them above completely public systems. You're free use that report or any other to produce non-expenditure-weighted numbers that support your argument. You haven't because they don't exist.

No. Waiting time is not something that primarily affects outcome. However, it affects how people are sick. If they are sick for two weeks or two years is very important, don't you think? Outcomes measure only if they are still alive two years later.

Exactly. They don't measure if sick patients and doctors ever lack or spend unecessary time and resources obtaining life-saving or otherwise beneficial information. But I agree that e-Health, like the related waiting times, affects outcomes in the sense that a fatal sickness can be a race against time. Non-fatal sicknesses, being generally less painful and debilitating, not to mention definitively less fatal, are obviously less important. Strange, then, that your source gives Waiting Times and Outcomes equal weight.

All the systems are "public-private" in some sense. The trend is that countries where you have a large private sector with public health insurance, fares better than where you have no public health insurance, and you instead have to go to the publically owned hospitals to get help if you have no private insurance.

According to your source, "NHS-style" systems rank 17th, on average, out of 30. That's statistically insignificant and completely ignores completely private systems anyway.

True. Let's then look at something different. Bang for the buck: How good the health care is compared to how much you spend for it.

Country (type of system)

Estonia (Public insurance)
Austria (Public insurance)
Netherlands (Public insurance)
Finland (State controlled, NHS-style)
France (Public insurance)
Germany (Public insurance)
Cyprus (Don't know)
Sweden (NHS-style but moving towards Public insurance)
Czech Republic (Don't know)
Romania (NHS-style)
Slovakia (Public insurance)
Denmark (NHS-style but moving towards Public insurance)
Switzerland (Public insurance)
Belgium (Public insurance)
Spain (NHS-style)
Norway (NHS-style)
Lithuania (NHS-style)
Malta (Don't know)
Portugal (NHS-style)
Slovenia (NHS-style)
Ireland (NHS-style)
Italy (NHS-style)
Luxemburg (Public insurance (I assume))
Hungary (NHS-style)
Greece (NHS-style)
United Kingdom (NHS-style)
Bulgaria (NHS-style)
Poland (NHS-style)
Latvia (NHS-style)

NHS-style here means that to get state funded health care, you have to go to state-run hospitals or where you are directed by the state system. Public insurance as always means that you have a public insurance you can take to any bloody doctor/hospital you like, private or public.

You forgot last-ranked Canada, and you demoted Romania 2 ranks. Neither are movements away from "NHS-style" exclusive to Sweden and Denmark, nor movements exclusively away from "NHS-style". As for "mistakes" that don't favor your side, you appear to be innocent of them. Even if your "NHS-style" designations are otherwise correct, they don't appear to be relevant. Public coverage, even of private healthcare, is socialization. The only possible caveat would be if failure to publicly cover private healthcare resulted in public healthcare. But your shining star, Estonia, for example, has more public healthcare than Spain, for example.

Why? It makes no sense to require likelihood.

Then your argument collapses completely. QED.

Ha ha ha! "QED" as a substitute for demonstration!

No, because then you have to interview everyone in the world, because it is possible they will have information you want. No, the rational cause is to interview those who are *likely* to have information.

By that logic, it would be rational to refuse 3 to 1 odds on a 2 to 1 proposition. Do you really think I, for example, am as likely to have information regarding Osama bin Laden as another fundamentalist bin Laden with links to terrorism?
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.