Did anyone see this?

http://www.youtube.com/v/JpKoN40K7mA

I liked it. Cable news has an idiot bias. Sigh.

Funny story: I watched the beginning of Papa Bear at 8, and he rambled about how MM needs to bring *it* on the Factor... but that MM evades their invitations. Then, he started complaining about the U.S. being sacked by Commie Cubo-Mexican Islamo-fascists.

Lewis Black: 'you know what the fake news show on Fox News should give you? REAL NEWS!'

I was going to post a longer rant here (and I realize this is still long, and that it belongs more in All Things Political), but I wasn't happy with it. Meh.

I'll boil it down to his: The health care crisis isn't going to be an easy one to solve. Moore doesn't understand all the facts anymore than anybody else. Our health care system is very complex. It's a blending of different ideological visions of what the system should be, as well as non-ideological compromises (HMOs). His solution -- universal health care -- makes sense to people of a certain ideological disposition, while people of other ideological dispositions will immediately be opposed to it. What I find so dangerous about Moore is the way he bullies the argument -- here are the facts, here is the solution that will fix the problems. It isn't that simple, Michael. And having this big, blanket solution to all of our ills isn't a good idea. Let's examine each ill, and not just say "This is the fact. This is the problem." But examine why the facts are the facts, why those problems exist. Moore's solution doesn't depend on the reasons for the problems. It's just the cure-all.

Here, I'm going to be selective with facts too:

The federal government has, due to lobbying from the American Medical Association, put a cap on the number of students who can be admitted to medical schools. Medical schools often turn away more qualified applicants than they otherwise would.

That means fewer doctors. That means higher costs and more waiting. If we lifted the cap, we'd have more doctors, and costs would go down and there would be less waiting.

Why are prescriptions so expensive? Because people pay for the convenience of drive-thru pharmacies at every corner. Did you know that you can get the same drugs for much, much cheaper at a place like Costco? And you don't have to be a club member to use the pharmacy? When CVS heard about a New York newspaper story about this, they lowered prices the next day because they feared they would lose customers. But to the original point, here: Prices are high because people aren't simply paying for the drugs. We pay for the two CVS stores within 5 minutes walking distance of my house. This isn't necessarily a problem -- this is just supply and demand.

Yeah, I'm selective with my facts too. It's fun, and it's easy. Anybody can do it. We just don't have to be so self-righteous about it like Moore.

I agree with your critique of Moore. He is a propagandist, above all, but I think he serves an important purpose, particularly in a society without much intelligent discourse in the media* (not to suggest that he represents particularly intelligent discourse, but because he, in his pushy and propagandist way, challenges the media orthodoxy).

The fact is that the piece that appeared was a smear piece. He is Michael Moore. He 'fudges' facts, says everyone. Whatever. By that criteria, CNN fudges facts every day. The point is that CNN (in that piece and on Larry King the next day) was too caught up in picking on numbers (and defending the ever-glorious Gupta) to engage with the real issues (i.e. the media and health care). It's not really that far off from being FOX News. At least Fox News admits to and celebrates its ideological bent. I am not suggesting that CNN has a clear ideological bent. I am suggesting that the mainstream media is UNCRITICAL (except in the places where they are expected to be critical, i.e. Michael Moore films).

Something is wrong with the American health care system. Moore shoves 'socialized' health care as THE answer. While I think he is right, I recognize your point. BUT, the problem is that Michael Moore is Michael Moore. He takes a stance and shoves it down your throat. That *shouldn't* be CNN's job. Instead of framing the debate in a critical, exploratory way (i.e. the American health care system needs fixed; some things work, some don't; the socialized countries, according to Moore, offer a potential model; they have marked successes but clear problems; a mixed system a la Australia or Germany offers an example, as well; Michael, we have some questions about your argument...) rather than framing it as 'The system has problems, but Michael Moore is a blind, fact-fudging demagogue. Despite its problems, U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A.!'

* with exceptions of course

I agree that the media lets too much go by, obviously, and the Moore piece on CNN was absolutely sloppy. CNN can and should do better.

Moore really benefits from it, though. Now he can play victim. Look what CNN is doing to me! Therefore, I'm more right!

Well, I think -- whatever critiques of Moore I may have aside -- that he is right that health care should be a right, not a privilege and that our culture is too focused on ME. If that is ideological, I am troubled. I don't think Moore's activism deserves to be criticized, as much as Marx's doesn't deserve to be criticized (awaits anger). He identifies suffering and injustice (as he sees it) and makes efforts to fix them. Find him pushy, obnoxious, etc. Criticize his arguments or his method. BUT, don't suggest what he is doing is wrong. That's what the media tends to do, to treat him as a 'trouble-maker' that can and should be written off. (P.S. I am not accusing YOU of this 'error.' I am just saying that's how the media treats him. One of those logical fallacies you learn in logic class.)

P.S. He is really smart in displaying American flags EVERYWHERE he can. ha! brilliant!

And yeah, of course, I don't like him because I disagree with him ideologically. The man knows what he's doing, and I give him credit for that. I'm sure if there were some libertarian who made really good, popular argument-movies and used Moore's methods, I probably wouldn't react so negatively, and I'd be outraged if the media treated him/her the way they treat Moore.

P.S. (to borrow your method). There's a 5% chance I'll attempt to be that filmmaker.

EDIT: On a semi-related note, happy Cost of Government Day, Americans!

My feeling is that social programs (i.e. universal health care) could exist in bountiful glory WITHOUT increasing (or even decreasing?) taxes IF our government didn't spend so much money on ridiculous things. How much of our taxes go to missile defense shields? (ideologically, defense cuts are first on my list, but I won't go on) Taking care of corporate America? etc. That's the thing. Conservatives complain about the 'nanny state,' but all of their crap costs more than a welfare state anyway. I really don't mind paying taxes -- IF they go to the 'right' stuff.

I obviously have no statistics or background to prove my point. It's just my vaguely-defined sense of things.

* right as defined by me =)

That's not actually a bad idea. Optional 'where your money goes' table.

2007 spending:

Social Security: 21%
Medicare: 14%
Unemployment & Welfare: 13%
Medicaid: 10%

I imagine that stuff is what you would consider the noble welfare state. It's a pretty big chunk of change.

Defense was big too, at 17% of all spending.

Trust me, I don't like the government "taking care of corporate America" either. Nor do I like the federally funded retirement home for chimpanzees. Or, um, the 9% of budget spending that went to debt interest.

But I am curious...why should the government pay for health care for the rich? Why not just expand Medicare & Medicaid?

This may seem extreme (and I am actually open to a mixed system), but...

In principle, I think everyone, rich or poor, should have access to the same health care. And, rich people would pay for it via the (highly progressive) tax system anyway. It's not like it's free. But, it's fair and equal. 'Separate but equal' isn't possible.

But, say, the rich want more, stuff the government won't provide? Or they won't to opt out of the system, even though they are paying the higher taxes. And IF they could get better care privately, making them healthier, why not? That doesn't hurt the poor, does it? It just means that some people are a little healthier than others. Sure, you aren't making everybody's access to health care improve equally, but you're still letting everyone's improve, just some can improve more on their own.

You want things to be "equal," but you are using money as your only standard. Sure, people with money have more access to better health care. In the status quo, people who live in New York have more access to health care because there are 413 doctors for every 100,000 people. Compare that to say, Arizona, where there are only 176 doctors per 100,000. Should we level that field too?

Why should the rich have access to BETTER care? (better in whatever way -- more expensive, more skilled, better technology, etc) There is no such thing is MORE equal.

I don't think doctors should be forced to move, if that's what you are suggesting (and the scare tactics v. socialized health care suggest the same). If the level of care is jeopardized (and I don't know if it is), there could always be incentives offered for new (or old) doctors to move. Or, those AMA advocated caps you mentioned could be challenged, etc.

Your point is valid... that completely 'equal' health care will be difficult to achieve. BUT, why not try?

P.S. I am too lazy to look. Do the 2007 statistics you mentioned for defense include the military operations Iraq & Afghanistan? Or, did those numbers just include 'normal' operating budgets?

Because I don't think equality is the be-all, end-all. I'd like people to be treated equally under the law, and I'd like people to treat each other as equals, but that doesn't mean an equal condition should be forced on them.

If equality is the standard, would you rather have everyone have equal access to really shitty health care, or unequal access to a system in which everyone has at least good care but a few have really really good care? (This is a false dichotomy, naturally, and no one argues for really shitty health care, I'm just wondering what's necessarily so great about equality of outcome).

I'll look into your federal budget question and get back to you.

EDIT: The defense numbers include spending in Iraq & Afghanistan. Defense takes close to 60% of discretionary spending (discretionary spending is roughly 1/3 of the entire budget -- the rest is "mandatory" like social security).

If would prefer that everyone have the best available care, regardless of wealth or social status.

I read that Moore's next movie will be about homophobia.

I'm excited for this one.

Oh, I have some relatives he might want to talk to.