Michael Moore's Movie "Sicko" Raises Concerns about Insurance Issues

My dad is the same. In fact, I suspect his hearing is worse than either mine or my daughter's. Somehow I thought my starting to wear hearing aids might spur him to at least think about it, but no. I work at what I consider to be the best clinic in the US, and I can't even get him to make an appointment he wouldn't even have to pay for ! I gave up pushing a long time ago, but seriously, the stuff I know he isn't hearing makes me very sad, and I dread the day he possibly has an accident because he can't localize sound worth beans.

The biggest problem with elderly hearing loss (from my perspective) is that for the most poart, these people spent their whole lives functioning as hearing individuals. You don't just develop compensatory skills overnight.

It's not just concerts, I think in my father's case it was power tool use with no ear protection. For lots of people his age (going on 75), it is artillary damage from being in the military (Korea/Vietnam)

WEAR THOSE STUPID LOOKING EAR MUFFS WHEN YOU ARE WORKING WITH POWER TOOLS OR GUNS !! They may be the difference between hearing your grandchild say "Grampa" for the first time, and not.

Sheri


dreama said:
My dad is a bit deaf now. I wouldn't presume to suggest he get a hearing aid as not everyone likes them. My great grandmother was very deaf and refused to have a hearing aid. She had a right to that choice. I don't think we should push elderly people into getting hearing aids if they don't want them.
Click to expand...
 
Sheri, It is a shame people are still reluctant to get hearing aids. It is not just the old either, geez my family really got after me to get some hearing aids. You would have thought they were making me walk the "GREEN MILE" .
I did not know they felt so strongly about it because my grandfather was hit by a car and killed several years before I was born. They felt he did not hear the car because was not wearing his hearing aids.

I wonder how many people have been killed or injured in accidents because they did not have hearing aids because of the cost. In some cases insurance comapanies could be paying way more to take care someone after an accident that maybe could have been prevented if the person had hearing aids. If the Hospital bill for this person was $100,000 that would pay for about 16 pairs of good hearing aids at $6000 a pair.
 
jillio said:
Oh, for heaven's sake! The website you referenced is put out by someone trying to sell their own book. He has a vested interested in his claims-financial. He's no more impartial than you accuse Moore of being.
Click to expand...

<Groan>

I did not cite that person as being impartial. I did not even claim I read that website. All I did was say that there are many websites that advance "what some consider his lies", and gave an example.

Irregardless, it doesn't make a bit of difference whether the author of the website I posted is biased or not. The fact is that Moore takes liberties in the way he presents information because that's how he likes to make movies. The most anti-Moore person in the world could point this out and it wouldn't change the veracity of the statement. I don't personally care because that's how he makes attention-grabbing films and I'm ok with that - as long as the audience understands that they are not what most would consider to be true "documentaries". The fact is that some people consider these liberties that Moore takes with editing to be "lies".

I gave you an example in response to your question, and you act like I stated everything on the site was on the level of "academic research" and take me to task over it. I really don't get it, jillio.

[By the way, I agree with the foundational point of some of Moore's opinions, and his Sicko film may do some good in getting people to think about the healthcare system, but as I said before, I feel that the way he goes about grabbing the attention and making the point are harmful to his cause because you never know what he has "retouched" to illustrate his message. That's just my view on him as a filmmaker - I'd rather have the straight truth.]
 
I've always wanted to do a "safety" study for people with hearing impairments and compare them to folks with normal hearing and use the results (if they are what you and I both suspect) to convince insurers that it is more expensive to NOT cover hearing aids than to cover them.

Unfortunately with all my day-to-day appeals and no funding for such a study, it is quite low on my priority list. But I will get to it someday . . .

Sheri

set2 said:
Sheri, It is a shame people are still reluctant to get hearing aids. It is not just the old either, geez my family really got after me to get some hearing aids. You would have thought they were making me walk the "GREEN MILE" .
I did not know they felt so strongly about it because my grandfather was hit by a car and killed several years before I was born. They felt he did not hear the car because was not wearing his hearing aids.

I wonder how many people have been killed or injured in accidents because they did not have hearing aids because of the cost. In some cases insurance comapanies could be paying way more to take care someone after an accident that maybe could have been prevented if the person had hearing aids. If the Hospital bill for this person was $100,000 that would pay for about 16 pairs of good hearing aids at $6000 a pair.
Click to expand...
 
Sherry on the other hand, most kids born dhh can develop some compensating mechanicisms to compensate for not being able to localize sound. I can't localize sound worth shit, and I've got bilateral aids.
It's never been a problem for me, and actually has never been a problem for most of the dhh folks I know.
 
jillio said:
Okay. You're entitled to your opinion. But do you agree that the private health insurers have had many negative consequences on the health care received by United States citizens?
Click to expand...

No. And I HAVE paide for private health insurance. Before HMO's (t.kennedys offereing) private health insurance was basically for major medical coverage. It worked fine for the self employed. After HMO's costs really began to escalate. We had to change to a PPO in the late 80's and costs continued to increase, we really didn't need a PPO, major medical would have been enough. sigh.

Here's and interesting take (commentary) in the Chi. trib.
What Michael Moore left on the cutting room floor | Chicago Tribune

I have had contact with a woman who lives in England with her kids, the youngest adopted, who has Down Syndrome. He needs to get his ears (wax) cleaned out requently. It's free, but from the time she calls for an appointment to the time she actually sees the ENT it can be up to 3 or more months. Here you can get much faster appointments, at the clinic I work at the wait is usually about 4 weeks max to get in for an appointment. But the biggie there is if you are willing to pay you go to the front of the line.

Then we have our neighbors up north who if they have enough money come here to get their by passes and stuff done because of the wait times there.

And if everything is so great in Cuba one wonders why so many people rist dying to get here. and so on and so on. Oh and of course Hillary's behind closed doors offering back in the 90's would have actually made it illegal for any of us to actually pay to get to the front of the line. (while making sure that all those current and former lawmakers continued to get their excellent and timely care)



The best thing for our health care system would be for the goverment to not get any more involved (forcing coverage) then it is now.
 
jag said:
No. And I HAVE paide for private health insurance. Before HMO's (t.kennedys offereing) private health insurance was basically for major medical coverage. It worked fine for the self employed. After HMO's costs really began to escalate. We had to change to a PPO in the late 80's and costs continued to increase, we really didn't need a PPO, major medical would have been enough. sigh.

Here's and interesting take (commentary) in the Chi. trib.
What Michael Moore left on the cutting room floor | Chicago Tribune

I have had contact with a woman who lives in England with her kids, the youngest adopted, who has Down Syndrome. He needs to get his ears (wax) cleaned out requently. It's free, but from the time she calls for an appointment to the time she actually sees the ENT it can be up to 3 or more months. Here you can get much faster appointments, at the clinic I work at the wait is usually about 4 weeks max to get in for an appointment. But the biggie there is if you are willing to pay you go to the front of the line.

Then we have our neighbors up north who if they have enough money come here to get their by passes and stuff done because of the wait times there.

And if everything is so great in Cuba one wonders why so many people rist dying to get here. and so on and so on. Oh and of course Hillary's behind closed doors offering back in the 90's would have actually made it illegal for any of us to actually pay to get to the front of the line. (while making sure that all those current and former lawmakers continued to get their excellent and timely care)



The best thing for our health care system would be for the goverment to not get any more involved (forcing coverage) then it is now.
Click to expand...

I have contact also with England, Canada, also Greece, Australia, and New Zealand. Not ONE has ever complained of waits. I live in Florida, have amazing insurance, and I have to wait often for appointments. 3-4 weeks for my ob/gyn, 2 weeks for my son's allergist, I make my kids check up 2 months in advance because last time I didn't I had to wait 1 month. When I had strep throat my doctor could NOT see me that day. Luckily, after driving around all day trying to find an open clinic that takes my insurance, I found one. Had to wait 2 hours to be seen. All for something that would take 5 seconds to diagnose.

My husband is Greek. He has many relatives who live in Canada and Greece. His aunt and uncle own homes in all three places (and are considered citizens in Greece and Canada not sure if they are here), and pay for health insurance here in the US. They NEVER see a doctor here, NEVER. It's always Greece or Canada. My Father-in-law who has had 3 heart attacks, has NO qualms about staying in Greece 4 months a year on a little tiny island. My friend in Canada had to wait a whole...gasp...2 months for gastric bypass surgery.

As for Cuba, you are wrong, they DO have a much better health care system than we do. They send doctors all over the world (who don't defect). Cubans swim to Florida for all sorts of reasons, but I doubt lack of medical care is one of them. We rank below Cuba in every medical/health area according to WHO. If America's health care system is so wonderful, why don't we see world citizens with socialized medicine in an uproar because they don't have it? Why is Paris not burning for profit driven health care?

I lived in Minnesota and North Dakota until I was 18. I have never met a Canadian who came here for medical care, not because of lack of a specialist or because of waits. Not saying it doesn't happen but you DO know we have many Americans going to India and Mexico for health care. It started as cheap plastic surgery offers, and then grew into hip replacements, heart valves, etc. American companies are finding it cheaper to send their employees to freaking India instead of having the insurance cover a surgery.

I don't want our government forcing coverage (I'm ASSuming you mean health insurance) either. I want insurance companies OUT OF BUSINESS in regards to health. Medicare has a MUCH lower overhead (3% compared to 11% for insurance companies, and 1.7% for Canada). My insurance refuses to cover CI (i don't want them, but still), but according to many on this site, if I can get on medicare CIs would be paid for.

Here is the website for WHO WHO | World Health Organization

To check another site, here is the CIA World Fact Book. You can look up all sorts of stats and compare countries for yourself.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
 
As a Canadian now living in the US, I think I have a unique perspective to share on this topic, and reality frequently lies between the two extremes that JAG and akoutsourais have outlined, though both positions can be true.

In Canada, the waiting lists and quality of health care are extremely regional. 1/2 of Canadians live in cities of 1 million or over in population with 100 miles of the US border, the other half basically live scattered all over a HUGE country, frequently in the middle of nowhere. Got a sprained ankle in Toronto, the flu in Montreal, having a baby in Vancouver? You are good to go, nobody beats the Canadian system for taking care of stuff like that. Got something rare or live in a rural area? Then you are in for more of a struggle, and you are in for a really rough time if you have something rare AND live in a rural or underserved area.

And I'm sorry, but in Canada, for SURE there are waits for medical conditions not considered life threatening -- one uncle waited eight months for a knee replacement, I waited 18 months for fertility treatment, my aunt waited nine months for a cataract removal. None of us lived in rural areas. Every member of my family has stories about wait lists, but no one has been permanently harmed by the required wait.

Another uncle with kidney cancer in Nova Scotia recently spent a week sitting as an inpatient in the hospital doing NOTHING because they couldn't get him on the surgery calendar, but didn't want to discharge him on the chance that the hospital would be full up and couldn't readmit him when the OR and surgeon constellations finally came into alignment. A little girl with a rare syndrome including hearing impairment that I'm trying to help in Saskatchewan has to travel 10 hours by car every time she needs to see a specialist because they have to drive to Calgary. So, it is not a perfect system.

On the flip side, if my uncle or the little girl in Saskatchewan were in the US, the care they would be receiving here would range from zero to fabulous depending ONLY on the quality of their private health plan, and their out of pocket cost would vary widely as well, from zero to unaffordable. The best thing about the Canadian system is a) everyone has access to it, and b) the cost is the same for all.

Don't like it and have money? Go to another country for treatment. It's like Fed-ex. You can pay $.41 to mail a letter first class or $20 to get it there overnight. The extra $19.59 is the "opportunity cost" to have a guaranteed overnight delivery.

I have type 1 diabetes and need insulin to survive. If I lost my private insurance and had more than $2000 in assets (including a car or a house) but no cash, I couldn't afford the $100 a month I currently spend on insulin, but probably wouldn't qualify for public insurance. If I went to the ER and said "hey, I need insulin, please give me some for free" they would laugh me right out the door. If I don't have any insulin for three weeks and end up in end-stage renal failure, suddenly I automatically qualify for Medicare and the federal government will suddeny cough up $500,000 or more to keep me alive, give me a kidney transplant, and then keep me on anti-rejection drugs costing $20,000 a year for the remainder of my now-shortened life. Someone PLEASE explain to me how this is not the most broken system on the planet?

Sheri
 
LTHFAdvocate said:
As a Canadian now living in the US, I think I have a unique perspective to share on this topic, and reality frequently lies between the two extremes that JAG and akoutsourais have outlined, though both positions can be true.

In Canada, the waiting lists and quality of health care are extremely regional. 1/2 of Canadians live in cities of 1 million or over in population with 100 miles of the US border, the other half basically live scattered all over a HUGE country, frequently in the middle of nowhere. Got a sprained ankle in Toronto, the flu in Montreal, having a baby in Vancouver? You are good to go, nobody beats the Canadian system for taking care of stuff like that. Got something rare or live in a rural area? Then you are in for more of a struggle, and you are in for a really rough time if you have something rare AND live in a rural or underserved area.

And I'm sorry, but in Canada, for SURE there are waits for medical conditions not considered life threatening -- one uncle waited eight months for a knee replacement, I waited 18 months for fertility treatment, my aunt waited nine months for a cataract removal. None of us lived in rural areas. Every member of my family has stories about wait lists, but no one has been permanently harmed by the required wait.

Another uncle with kidney cancer in Nova Scotia recently spent a week sitting as an inpatient in the hospital doing NOTHING because they couldn't get him on the surgery calendar, but didn't want to discharge him on the chance that the hospital would be full up and couldn't readmit him when the OR and surgeon constellations finally came into alignment. A little girl with a rare syndrome including hearing impairment that I'm trying to help in Saskatchewan has to travel 10 hours by car every time she needs to see a specialist because they have to drive to Calgary. So, it is not a perfect system.

On the flip side, if my uncle or the little girl in Saskatchewan were in the US, the care they would be receiving here would range from zero to fabulous depending ONLY on the quality of their private health plan, and their out of pocket cost would vary widely as well, from zero to unaffordable. The best thing about the Canadian system is a) everyone has access to it, and b) the cost is the same for all.

Don't like it and have money? Go to another country for treatment. It's like Fed-ex. You can pay $.41 to mail a letter first class or $20 to get it there overnight. The extra $19.59 is the "opportunity cost" to have a guaranteed overnight delivery.

I have type 1 diabetes and need insulin to survive. If I lost my private insurance and had more than $2000 in assets (including a car or a house) but no cash, I couldn't afford the $100 a month I currently spend on insulin, but probably wouldn't qualify for public insurance. If I went to the ER and said "hey, I need insulin, please give me some for free" they would laugh me right out the door. If I don't have any insulin for three weeks and end up in end-stage renal failure, suddenly I automatically qualify for Medicare and the federal government will suddeny cough up $500,000 or more to keep me alive, give me a kidney transplant, and then keep me on anti-rejection drugs costing $20,000 a year for the remainder of my now-shortened life. Someone PLEASE explain to me how this is not the most broken system on the planet?

Sheri
Click to expand...

I really don't think I was extreme in my perspective of the Canadian system, if you NEED care you get care. If what ever ails you at the moment won't kill you may have to wait (like my friend with the gastric bypass surgery....she did have to wait 3 months, and lives in Montreal, as do most of my husbands Greek-Canadian relatives).

It's really no different here. In the rural areas the access to care isn't as good as in the more populated areas. I live near Tampa, and I am ALWAYS waiting for an appointment, never over 2 months though. The same can be said for surgery. I needed a cyst removed, had to make an appointment to reserve an OR for 2 months later. By then the cyst had shrunk and the surgeon did not want to operate. 6 months later it happened again. Luckily I have had no problems with it and will just leave it alone. Also, luckily I have a small dedectible, as the visit to the doctor for this cyst was over $1000, that was just the freaking visit! My deductible was met through that visit alone.

Here people DO die from treatable illnesses because they either don't have insurance or can't afford the out of pocket deductibles (which is what a large part of bankruptcies are blamed on). We have the lowest infant mortality rates and the shortest life expectancy compared to all other industrialized nations, yet we pay the most for health care. Yet we are brainwashed into believing "USA #1 in health care". We may have great doctors, nurses (haha, they are working their tired asses off because of profit driven health care), and facilities, but what does that mean when 45 million Americans have no access to them (except the ER)? What about the many insured Americans with outrageous deductibles and co-pays?
 
I think we are pretty much in agreement then. The biggest problem I see with the Canadian system is the lack of specialists and the wait times when the medical issue you are experiencing is more of a "quality of life" problem rather than a life-threatening issue. But maybe that's the price a community decides they need to pay in exchange for universal coverage,

Not only do I agree that America isn't even close to being #1, California (where I currently live) was just ranked 50th out of 51 (DC was counted separately) by a nationwide study of health care quality.

Every week, I get at least one phone call from a hysterical parent because they want to get their child hearing aids or a cochlear implant, but can't because of insurance problems. These calls break my heart, having "been there, done that" eleven years ago with my own child. That is why our insurance advocacy program exists, however, for every mom that calls me, there have to be 100 that don't, and my program only addresses one tiny little corner of the health care world. Fortunately we are able to help many of these families.

Sheri

akoutsourais said:
I really don't think I was extreme in my perspective of the Canadian system, if you NEED care you get care. If what ever ails you at the moment won't kill you may have to wait (like my friend with the gastric bypass surgery....she did have to wait 3 months, and lives in Montreal, as do most of my husbands Greek-Canadian relatives).

It's really no different here. In the rural areas the access to care isn't as good as in the more populated areas. I live near Tampa, and I am ALWAYS waiting for an appointment, never over 2 months though. The same can be said for surgery. I needed a cyst removed, had to make an appointment to reserve an OR for 2 months later. By then the cyst had shrunk and the surgeon did not want to operate. 6 months later it happened again. Luckily I have had no problems with it and will just leave it alone. Also, luckily I have a small dedectible, as the visit to the doctor for this cyst was over $1000, that was just the freaking visit! My deductible was met through that visit alone.

Here people DO die from treatable illnesses because they either don't have insurance or can't afford the out of pocket deductibles (which is what a large part of bankruptcies are blamed on). We have the lowest infant mortality rates and the shortest life expectancy compared to all other industrialized nations, yet we pay the most for health care. Yet we are brainwashed into believing "USA #1 in health care". We may have great doctors, nurses (haha, they are working their tired asses off because of profit driven health care), and facilities, but what does that mean when 45 million Americans have no access to them (except the ER)? What about the many insured Americans with outrageous deductibles and co-pays?
Click to expand...
 
LTHFAdvocate said:
I think we are pretty much in agreement then. The biggest problem I see with the Canadian system is the lack of specialists and the wait times when the medical issue you are experiencing is more of a "quality of life" problem rather than a life-threatening issue. But maybe that's the price a community decides they need to pay in exchange for universal coverage,

Not only do I agree that America isn't even close to being #1, California (where I currently live) was just ranked 50th out of 51 (DC was counted separately) by a nationwide study of health care quality.

Every week, I get at least one phone call from a hysterical parent because they want to get their child hearing aids or a cochlear implant, but can't because of insurance problems. These calls break my heart, having "been there, done that" eleven years ago with my own child. That is why our insurance advocacy program exists, however, for every mom that calls me, there have to be 100 that don't, and my program only addresses one tiny little corner of the health care world. Fortunately we are able to help many of these families.

Sheri
Click to expand...

It really burns my ass that BCBS (the federal program) will pay 50% for eye glasses, viagra, fertility treatments, etc, but won't pay squat towards my aids. I needed new ones, but could not afford even analog. Luckily VR came through for me and I got new ones, but they are analog and tire my brain more than they really help me. Can't wait to find a new job so I can buy some quality ones.

Both systems (profit driven and one payer) have their downsides. But, to me at least, the downsides of socialized medicine are mere inconveniences. The downsides here in America can be fatal or debilitating. The fact is Americans are paying more for health care under the system we have now, than citizens in countries with socialized medicine do through their "high" taxes. With socialized medicine people wouldn't be beholden to work a job they hate (think of all the small business that could pop up), small business would be more attractive to workers as health insurance wouldn't be a problem. Car insurance would go down (well this is logic, but when do insurance companies use logic?), as lawsuits would have to cover the medical costs. Workers would be more likely to get the care they need, instead of putting it off until they can't work.
 
akoutsourais said:
The fact is Americans are paying more for health care under the system we have now, than citizens in countries with socialized medicine do through their "high" taxes.
Click to expand...

Nods. That's the irony and it's not as if the results of the US private medical system are better than that found under socialized medical systems. The US has a higher child mortality rate than other comparable countries for example.

Here in Australia we have both a private sector and a socialized sector. I've used both and I have to say that the best doctors are found in the socialized sector. You basically go private over here to get things like your own room, nurses who pamper you, a choice of food to eat from a menu and being able to pick and choose your own doctor (many of whom also work some of their time in the socialized sector anyway). Sometimes the wait is shorter for private (e,g, if you are an adult wanting a CI) but often, surprisingly it's not for many other things. All the high level facilities here e.g. intensive care units, medical schools and highly specialised doctors are all found in the public sector.

I am personally willing to pay higher taxes to ensure wider coverage of medical care for the population.

In the case of hearing aids in Australia, it is means tested. If a deaf person is unemployed or on a very low income then they will get their hearing aids for free.
 
Whether Moore is a liar is beside the point. He is a manipulative purveyor of propaganda. He attempts to use people's emotions against them in the worst possible way. He uses the pain and suffering of innocent victims in order to sell far-fetched ideas and worse to rake in money. He misrepresents his sources and those he interviews.

I'm all for government policies, and American involvement in the world. But Moore is on par with Jerry Springer. We'd be better off not considering his input.

My two cents.
 
The best thing for our health care system would be for the goverment to not get any more involved (forcing coverage) then it is now.
Click to expand...
I take it you're a conservative?
The government really needs to step in. The private sector is out of control.........and its rediclous. We have private insurances covering sex change operations (in San Francisco......and those are essentially plastic surgeries) viagra and fertility treatment (not to say its something superfical, but its not as vital as say treatment for cancer or whatever) but we don't have too many insurances coveing hearing aids or birth control.
 
LTHFAdvocate said:
Focus on the message, not the messenger -- there are very few people that I know that would contend that the American health insurance system doesn't require extremely fundamental changes if not a complete overhaul.

For what it's worth, the family I worked with is thrilled with how the movie turned out. Also, there is supposedly a People magazine follow-up article coming, if anyone sees it and could let me know, I would very much appreciate it.

Sheri
Click to expand...

Sheri,

I do not disagree with you that changes are needed although personally we have not had any insurance issues, knock wood, but I cannot believe that the government will do a better job then private insurance. After all, what program does the government run that is actually efficient and cost effective?

You are more knowlegable then most and deal with the issues daily, what would you change? Can there be a hybrid between private insurance and government run medical care?
Rick
 
rick48 said:
Sheri,

I do not disagree with you that changes are needed although personally we have not had any insurance issues, knock wood, but I cannot believe that the government will do a better job then private insurance. After all, what program does the government run that is actually efficient and cost effective?

You are more knowlegable then most and deal with the issues daily, what would you change? Can there be a hybrid between private insurance and government run medical care?
Rick
Click to expand...

you have to be kidding me. Lets privatize war then! How about our fire departments and law enforcement. Haven't heard cons screaming to privatize the CIA and FBI.

I live in Florida, almost everything is privatized and NOTHING works right. DCF here is privatized, and children go missing all the time in the system. Our prisons are privatized and there are prisoners grossly mistreated and guards who are understaffed and underpaid.

Whenever there is a profit involved you are going to get shitty pay and shitty services. At least that's my experience here in Florida.
 
Excellent point............A lot of conservatives think that privatizing things automaticly improves things. But there has been privatizing of things like school administration, prisons, healthcare etc............but there hasn't been an increase in quality of services, or even a "streamlining" in delivery of services.

although personally we have not had any insurance issues,
Click to expand...
You're VERY lucky in that area.
Can there be a hybrid between private insurance and government run medical care?
Click to expand...
Yeah I've always wondered that.............Yes, the government isn't exactly efficent and cost effective, but then again private economy isn't always efficent and cost effective.
 
rick48 said:
You are more knowlegable then most and deal with the issues daily, what would you change? Can there be a hybrid between private insurance and government run medical care?
Rick
Click to expand...

We have such a system here in Australia, so it can work. People that want to go private, can do so and people that cannot afford it can go public. Every person that qualifies for a CI for example can get one under the public sector - it means a longer wait if you are an adult, but you'll get it eventually.
 
Drew's Dad said:
<Groan>

I did not cite that person as being impartial. I did not even claim I read that website. All I did was say that there are many websites that advance "what some consider his lies", and gave an example.

Irregardless, it doesn't make a bit of difference whether the author of the website I posted is biased or not. The fact is that Moore takes liberties in the way he presents information because that's how he likes to make movies. The most anti-Moore person in the world could point this out and it wouldn't change the veracity of the statement. I don't personally care because that's how he makes attention-grabbing films and I'm ok with that - as long as the audience understands that they are not what most would consider to be true "documentaries". The fact is that some people consider these liberties that Moore takes with editing to be "lies".

I gave you an example in response to your question, and you act like I stated everything on the site was on the level of "academic research" and take me to task over it. I really don't get it, jillio.

[By the way, I agree with the foundational point of some of Moore's opinions, and his Sicko film may do some good in getting people to think about the healthcare system, but as I said before, I feel that the way he goes about grabbing the attention and making the point are harmful to his cause because you never know what he has "retouched" to illustrate his message. That's just my view on him as a filmmaker - I'd rather have the straight truth.]
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about "academic research". But since it was Moore's credibility that was being questioned, I just naturally assumed that when you gave an example, you would offer information from someone whose credibility was considered to be higher than Moore's. I was simply pointing out that it is ineffective to support the claim of lack of credibility by one with the same lack of credibility from a second source. If both sources are not credibile, then neither one escapes scepticism.

I agree with your BTW. Unfortunately, it seems that in this country, it is necessary to add some sort of shock value entertainment quality to get people to stop long enough to hear the message. I would much prefer the straight truth, as well--but then I am used to wading through research articles and statistical anaysis so boring doesn't bother me.
 
Sherry, wait..............you say " you can't see how someone would get one implant if their hearing in the other ear was somewhat aidable." Yet canidacy for CI states that you can get one if your speech reception thresholds with an aid are up to 60%. Nothing wrong whatsoever with getting bilateral implants if you can't get anything or if you have very poor speech percetion with an aid. However, if the CI gives you really good hearing, then even if you have something like 10% SRT, the input that you get from an aid can really flesh it out.
 
Back
Top