home

The "Sicko"Trailer

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Wed May 23, 2007 at 04:45:32 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The trailer for "Sicko," Michael Moore's new film on our woefully inadequate health care system is out. You can watch it here.

< McNulty vs. Goodling | Mary Cheney Delivers Baby Boy >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The "Sicko"Trailer | 108 comments (108 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I love the bit.... (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Wed May 23, 2007 at 05:40:46 PM EST
    with the dollar amounts over the heads of the members of congress....4 lobbyists per member!  If that isn't the ultimate shadyness indicator I don't know what is.

    Also, the NY Daily News published an interview with one of the 9/11 rescue workers Moore took to Cuba, he said the treatment he received there helped.  

    Can't wait to check it out...

    More? Ugh (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:44:29 PM EST
    In 1993 it was Hillary not helping and in 2007 it's Moore.

    What in God's name can we do to get a spokesperson who isn't disliked by the majority of americans, and who isn't making money off those they are pretending to worry about??

    We could ask Michael Moore (none / 0) (#12)
    by Repack Rider on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:31:54 PM EST
    After all, you have to be a right-wing whacko not to like Mr. Moore.

    Parent
    RePack (1.00 / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:37:03 PM EST
    Like Dadler you are not interested in winning, but making some assine statement.

    The Left again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Parent

    I must have missed it (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Repack Rider on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:49:41 AM EST
    you are not interested in winning, but making some assine statement.

    What did I say that was asinine?  A-S-I-N-I-N-E

    I made a reference to Mr. Moore's likability, which is undeniable except for right-wing whackos, and you're not one of those anyway.

    Get me on my bicycle, and you'll find out that I actually AM interested in winning.

    Parent

    RePack (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:29:22 AM EST
    Snark all you want, but for once try to think beyond supporting one of your idols.

    Moore brings problems. If he is involved it turn meany people against NHC, just because of him.

    I'll say it again. The Left finds ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Parent

    Wait till you see it, ppj (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:22:50 AM EST
    Moore brings problems. If he is involved it turn meany people against NHC, just because of him

    Not going to see the movie? Then you can not possibly have anyting to offer on the subject.

    WSJ reviewers cried. Sounds like a powerful movie that will wake people up.

    Parent

    he doesn't have to see it ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:40:26 AM EST
    ... rush et altell him what to think about it.

    Parent
    Squeaky (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:39:41 AM EST
    The movie has nothing to do with this. My point is that Moore has HUGE negatives attached to his name.
    We don't need that when it comes to enacting NHC.

    Remember the last time Moore made a movie that was beloved.... Bush won the Pres and the Repubs the House and the Senate.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:15:19 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 07:39:14 AM EST
    Now the Right has struck back. How accurate is the movie? At least as, and probably more than Moore's paean to ignorance, out of context nonsense and propaganda. Will it harm the Demo's chance at winning the House and the Senate? Probably. But if ABC knuckles under and pulls it, the Demos will absolutely loose the election.

    Got that wrong. Any more advice you wanna give us about winning elections?

    Parent

    Help me then (none / 0) (#23)
    by Repack Rider on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:04:09 AM EST
    Please identify the "problems" Moore brings.

    F/911 was a great piece of moviemaking, and the success of that project made Moore enough money so he no longer has to beg a big studio for resources.  I realize that even though you are highly critical of this film, YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEE IT.

    On camera Moore is entertaining, poignant, and asks important questions that no one else seems to ask, of people who are not usually questioned.

    What's wrong with that?  We used to call it journalism.

    Best line of F/911, which was ad lib, "I'll take that as a yes."  If you don't know the origin of that line, you don't know a thing about Moore.

    Question: did you see F/911 from beginning to end?  Ah.  In that case, how can you be critical of something you didn't see?  Which of his movies HAVE you seen?  Really?  None?

    In that case, your opinion is uninformed and worthless, although that has never stopped you from offering it.

    Parent

    RePack (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:40:54 AM EST
    Read my response to Squeaky (above).

    If you don't understand the negative he brings, there is little I can do to educate you.

    Parent

    of course! (none / 0) (#19)
    by Sailor on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:39:35 AM EST
    The Left again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
    Yeeees, that's why 70% of Americans disagree with you.

    BTW, the Dem party didn't just leave you, it ran away screaming, escaped to a battered spouse shelter and entered WITSEC for protection from such extreme views as you exhibit.

    Parent

    Sailor - And your point is???? (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:44:51 AM EST
    Don't equate the war with NHC.

    They are two separate issues.

    In '93 Hillary's ham handed handling of NHC cost the Demos control of the House, and effectively ended the Clinton administration.

    Parent

    And ppj invokes Sailor's Law (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Sailor on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:56:24 PM EST
    The desperation of the wrongwingers in the square of the index of the number of times they mention clinton.

    Hillary didn't kill NHC, rethuglican lies did. That also didn't end the clinton admin, he left office with over twice what bush's approval is (66%.)

    You know nothing about what the American people want because you have been demonstrably wrong about every opinion you have offered from iraq, to elections to health care.

    NHC is as easy for the country to afford as the iraq war is.

    Parent

    Fred Thompson to the Rescue (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed May 23, 2007 at 04:51:24 PM EST
    Fred lambasted Moore for the Cuba trip...a good sign that he is in the back pocket of Big Parm and the HMOs. And another poster boy for 100 percent publically funded campaigns.

    Make that (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed May 23, 2007 at 04:59:12 PM EST
    Big Pharm*

    Parent
    I'd love to hear BTD's opinion of Moore's (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed May 23, 2007 at 04:55:08 PM EST
    taking 9/11 rescue workers to Cuba to receive medical care.

    Meanwhile, my ex and I constantly tell our adult, unemployed daughter she'll never snag a job if she insists on wearing a baseball cap.  Wrong!  

    Another huge problem... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Wed May 23, 2007 at 05:37:18 PM EST
    ...with Big American Medical is its fierce resistance to mind-body medicine.  The brain is scarcely treated as anything, much less the most vital organ in the body.  The current crop of pain disorders seemingly without cause or relief (things like lower back problems, plantar fasciitis, and the unbelievably complex fibromyalgia, to name three) give lie to the purely "physical" nature of pain, disease, illness.  We are merely machines and everything wrong can be explained with a broken part.  The psyche (especially the sub-cortex) and its power are woefully ignored and underappreciated by modern medicine.  Having recently been cured of lifelong pain that had become debilitating, cured at the same time I was looking at another back operation, and doing so with something my doctor and surgeon scoff at for the most part, well, my perspective on medicine in general, and especially the insurance issue, has shifted profoundly.  While I still think we should all be covered, obviously, I also think medicine should be acknowledging the importance of the mind-body connection in human health.  Failing to do so consigns millions of people to misdiagnosis and misguided treatments and our overreliance on medication to treat everything.  To treat the SYMPTOMS of everything, it should be added.

    Our medicine is focused on symptoms far too much, and not focused on caused.  Hence my surgeon's proud pronouncement that he didn't care if I got cured by voodoo, he could care less: "I only treat symptoms," he concluded.

    That's the problem.

    Dadler (1.00 / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:41:50 PM EST
    Look. Can we talk??

    We need NHC. But can we leave all the side issues off until we can fix poor kids broken arms and out of work peoples' ulcers????

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:23:22 PM EST
    Side issues?  The most important organ, the one that that controls every aspect of your physical body, is a side issue?

    Medicine that entirely neglects half of the health equation is bad medicine.

    As for ulcers, decades ago the psychosomatic origins of them were being studied.  Then American medicine rejected psychosomatic medicine in favor of the machine and pill paradigm -- we either have a broken part or just need a pill to make us better.

    But ulcers are so thirty years ago, back pain and plantar fasciitis and depression are the conditions in vogue now, costing us billions.  And being misdiagnosed and mistreated every day.

    Parent

    Think (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:35:06 PM EST
    There will be time enough to add, or change, after we have NHC. Adding additional issues will only help  the opposition

    Parent
    Think about WHAT? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dadler on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:00:44 AM EST
    This isn't adding or subtracting anything from NHC, it is demanding that American medicine not practice negligently.  The only thing it adds is proper and effective treatment at a large cost savings.  My "cure" (which was complete and comprehensive) came at a cost of ZERO dollars, my friend.  It required no drugs, no physical therapy, no pricey treatment of any sort.  It merely required knowledge of the cause of my condition.  Knowledge is power.  Aquiring that knowledge is not burdensome or expensive, and certainly not for the medical establishment, it merely requires the rejection of failed paradigms and the acceptance of the obvious and intimate connection between mind and body.  

    Read "Healing Back Pain" by Dr. John Sarno, then move to his newest, "The Divided Mind", to read how medicine is failing its patients miserably and inexcusably.  And how it can stop, saving lives and money.

    Parent

    Dadler (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:36:51 AM EST
    Look. We all agree that we need NHC. If you start off by trying to include alternative medicene, all you have done is add resistance. That is bad politics. Remember the most important saying in the world of sales and politics is:

    The recipe for Rabbit Stew begings

    First you catch the rabbit.



    Parent
    That's Nuts (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:49:24 AM EST
    People will use what works. Just because invasive approaches are what the insurance co. will generally cover doesn't mean that If people were offered a non invasive holistic approach that worked they wouldn't choose it firt.

    I know that is surprising that people have not lost common sense totally yet, even after years of corporate bullying.

    Organic food is very popular, not just with the rich,  even if it is more expensive.

    Parent

    Squeaky (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:20:50 PM EST
    Organic food is very popular, not just with the rich,  even if it is more expensive.

    See? The above is a perfect ad base for the anti NHCers..

    NHC will make you pay for organic food for... (pick one..)

    It also will scare the farmer, big ag in general, the healthcare provider industries, etc and etc.

    First you catch the rabbit...

    Parent

    Big Farmers (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:35:06 PM EST
    Who fought organic farmers are now going organic themselves. Because that is where the market is.

    Your argument is backwards. People do not want poor quality that will make them sick. Radioactive beans that will last a century for $1.00 or fresh organic beans that will last a few weeks for $1.15.

    It is a no brainer. You are not keeping up with the times.  Just like Chrysler who lost to the Japanese market and had to be bailed out, and GM now.

    Parent

    squeaky (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:11:16 PM EST
    Sure. Just keep telling everyone will pay for organic foods as part of NHC.

    Sigh....

    Parent

    Wha (none / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:25:33 PM EST
    What are you droning about? Who suggested that organic or any food was going to be part of a NHC program? Not me, Michael Moore, or anyone else on this thread.

    Parent
    You and dadler. (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:01:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Read it again (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:13:46 PM EST
    With your glasses on this time.

    Parent
    Squeaky (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:30:37 PM EST
    Didn't know you were also an ag expert...

    Tell, what do you think is the price for August beans???

    Parent

    Zero (none / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:41:30 PM EST
    For the hill of beans you are selling.

    Parent
    This is not alternative medicine. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dadler on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:39:46 PM EST
    It IS medicine.  Neglected and ignored because, and this should be important to you, it costs virtually nothing.  No drugs, no physical therapy, nothing but knowledge.  Of how the brain works.  The sub-cortex to be exact.  There is no money in teaching patients how they can heal themselves.  Medicine is profit driven now, an industry peddling products, creating needs.  When the nature of so many disorders is psychosomatic, and when psychosomatic medicine is ignored and treated like voodoo, then patients suffer and are not treated properly, and budgets are broken by an endless cycle of misdiagnosis and continued pain and illness.  First Do No Harm is, sadly and infuriatingly, being violated every day.

    So how is something that costs almost nothing going to hold up anything?  It requires no money, no negotiations, nothing but a shift in THINKING.  But as long as NHC, which is necessary and I support, as long as it operates under current medical paragigms it will waste billions on misdiagnosis and mistreatment of some of the most prevelant and costly "conditions" Americans suffer from.  

    This is about making NHC the best it can be.  For patients AND the bottom line.  It is about America taking the lead and being imaginative and inclusive and non-discriminatory.  

    Read Dr. Sarno's books (and the Freud he references).  You can't comment on something you don't understand.  He's a respected NYU medical center physician, not some new age quack peddling products.  He writes his books because the medical establisment, despite his record of success, has rejected his diagnosis.  This despite the fact that mainstream medicine operates on people and medicates and frightens them on much less basis of fact and history of success.  Go look a rates of success in back operations, or treating "chronic pain syndrome" (fibromyalgia), or any others.  They are dreadful.   And they perpetuate conditions, and cost tons of money.

    Psychosomatic medicine, if you read up on it, offers a massive dose of hope for the millions of people not being served by current medical practice.  And that disservice costs us billions in wasted time, treatment, medication, lives.

    The stigma that psychosomatic medicine comes with is powerful to overcome.  But it must be.

    Parent

    Right on Dadler (none / 0) (#54)
    by Peaches on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:50:38 PM EST
    If it doesn't make money, you can bet it will be ignored.

    I agree with a lot of what Jim is advocating in terms of NHC, though. He brings up some good points about how it will be funded. I am not sure about the sales tax, but there needs to be some fairness. If it is a payroll tax, then Dems will need to work overtime to convince the middle class that the savings they get from what they now pay for health care will be much more than what comes out of their paycheck. However, I would be open to funding it in other ways as well.

    The money-interests will fight this all the way and what we end up with look pretty weak and be very inefficient. If their was a single-payer with no incentive of making profits off of health care transactions, then a priority on preventative care to cut costs would become common practice and what is now referred to a alternative would be advocated by our health care system as a means to keep cost lower.

    Parent

    Don't even START me on funding (none / 0) (#58)
    by Dadler on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:00:46 PM EST
    I agree, we all agree, it's vital and gonna be an ugly fight.

    Still, I know PPJ would love Sarno, love his diagnosis, his critique of the notion that, looking at the back pain epidemic for example, we've suddenly become these weak creatures with frail spines.  He'd love Sarno saying, give me a break, the human spine is strong and sturdy and evolved over millions of years, it's held up more than well over time, but now we're supposed to believe in the last two decades it's just fallen apart?  Please.  As well as with these other "popular" conditions.  I mean, speaking personally, I had that plantar fasciitis thing, too, and Sarno's diagnosis got rid of that, too.  How ridiculous is it to think there's something purely physically wrong with someone's feet when they hurt even when you get out of bed, when they haven't even HAD any weight-bearing stress on them for hours.  

    It's just absurd.  We're in a strange dark age medically in this way.

    Parent

    Peaches (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:36:26 PM EST
    then a priority on preventative care to cut costs would become common practice

    Right now a bone desity scan/test is not covered under medicare... ($200.) However a hip fracture, about $10,000, is... That's stupid to the max.

    Parent

    dadler (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:12:27 PM EST
    Yes, such treatment is routinely referred to as alternative medicene....

    You write:

    This is about making NHC the best it can be.

    I'm not arguing the validity of anything. My point is simply that before you can make anything the best it can be, you must first make "it be."

    I feel strongly about NHC because I have some up close and personal experiences, and frankly I regard your comments as "unhelpful."

    Now note that I did not say they were wrong, nor did I say your goal was wrong.

    What I have said is that first let's us win the battle to provide NHC. And then we can argue over organic foods, back treatmemt, whatever. In otherwords, reduce the battle plan to some things we can all agree on. And alternative medicene and the overal political position of Moore is not part of that plan.

    Parent

    Dadler - BTW (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:24:50 PM EST
    I take 160 mg of Saw Palmetto every day, along with a multivitamin... so I understand that various natural drugs can do good. But..... I also do an annual physical and either walk or threadmill every other day for three miles. I also take care of the Palatial Retirement Compound's 8 plus acres, not to mention the catfish pond and The Master's Garden.

    But I am not the aveage bear, and neither or you, and neither is Peaches....

    Let's fight a fight we cam win.

    Parent

    My neighbor is a doctor (none / 0) (#88)
    by Peaches on Fri May 25, 2007 at 08:13:31 AM EST
    from China. His grandparents live with his family and tend their garden while I tend mine. We don't share a language, but we watch each other and trade produce as well as knowledge about growing food.

    One day, the doctor tells me that one of his patients came to see him about a weight problem. He had tried every diet and still could not lose any wieght and wanted the doctor to recommend surgery of give him something to lose weight.

    My neighbor tells me he told the man:

    "My neighbor has a very big garden and every day he is out their tending it - rain or shine. HE is raking, hoeing, weeding, and harvesting the produce from lots of hard work. He grows lots of fruits and vegetables. You do not need surgery or any pills. You need to grow a garden. It is good exercise and you will eat good food. That is all you need."

    We are definitely not the average bear, and if we were, or when most of our ancestors in America were, America would be and was a more healthy  nation.


    Parent

    Peaches (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:46:47 AM EST
    I agree about the excercise and diet, but I wonder if our ancestors were all that more healthy... Many had terrible diets and died of a variety of diseases that we cure with over the counter drugs today...

    I think that those who survived childhood had great genes, and if they missed smallpox, plague, etc., they lived on average into their late sixties.. where they died of such diseases as pneumonia, gallstones (secondary infections), etc.

    I think that is also true today, except now we increase the survival rate of the young, and the old and age has moved to around 76 for men, more for women. I think the difference is that women no longer die in great numbers giving birth.

    The excercise, etc., has to do with the quality of life, the type of death and the cost of life extension. i.e. Non-smokers have better lives, but people who smoke and have COPD now can live almost as long...but at reduction in life quality and at huge cost. (Yes, I'm a rabid anti-smoking person.)

    Parent

    Quality of life (none / 0) (#92)
    by Peaches on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:53:52 AM EST
    can't be described by statistics and life expectancy.

    Life is wonderful and we do what we can to preserve it. Many people live today who would have died, if not for advances made in technology and, yes, on average we live longer.

    But, most of us might as well be dead, as far as I am concerned. I don't mean that I despise them or want them dead - just that, with what they do with their lives and the importance they place on the quality of life and what they do with their time - they might as well be dead.

    Takers and leavers. We have a society of takers leaving nothing for future generations. The quality of life for leavers is much greater.

    but, thats just my opinion and to be honest, I might just break even on the taking and leaving scale.

    Parent

    Great Book (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:42:13 AM EST
    Read "Healing Back Pain" by Dr. John Sarno

    And Dr Sarno is hardly fringe.

    His method really works. Some people would rather go under the knife than deal with the underlying causes as a friend of mine once made clear.

     I haven't read The Divided Mind yet but it is on my list.

    Parent

    ...Rather go under the knife (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dadler on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:46:02 PM EST
    Indeed they would.  Much easier to see yourself as a machine with a broken part than a feeling human being with a complex emotional system out of whack.

    Sarno saved me, no two ways about it.  The guy is a genius.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:55:34 PM EST
    A friend of mine was cured in a short time by him. My other friend it totally holistic but had a really, really terrible early childhood. Abuse, alcholism etc in the family. Accordingly she opts for the knife rather than delve into a traumatic past that could wind her up in the looney bin.

    I had to agree with her on that one. Sometimes repression is a good thing.

    But for most, Sarno's method is the only way to go. Glad to hear that he helped you.

    Parent

    I was traumatic childhood repressed guy (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dadler on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:04:32 PM EST
    And if I'd chosen the knife again, if I'd never found Sarno, if I'd never decided to accept and deal with all that emotional sh*t and history of abuse...I can't imagine how miserable I'd be.  

    But people are different, and some find the emotional side too difficult.  That your doctor doesn't want anything to do with your brain or subconcious, doesn't accept its role, only makes the stigma worse and the rejection of the diagnosis easier.

    Parent

    And I should add (none / 0) (#69)
    by Dadler on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:07:42 PM EST
    Sarno's diagnosis, for many people, works WITHOUT having to dredge up all the ugly sh*t.  For me, thought I did my dregdging my own, simply understanding what was at work in my sub-cortex is what cured me almost entirely.  

    For some inexplicable reason, many people are cured simply when they acquire the knowledge, as if the brain quits doing it once its trick is discovered.

    Parent

    In the End (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:08:21 PM EST
    My friend did well. She had a few back surgeries and got involved with Alexander Technique. She met a really nice guy, got married and now teaches Alexander and raises finches. Lovely woman, and now extremely happy and healthy.


    Parent
    That said, Dadler (none / 0) (#57)
    by Peaches on Thu May 24, 2007 at 01:56:38 PM EST
    and I agree one hundred percent, but I had a very good friend who was suffering for a long time from back pain and one day I went to his home to pick him up for a weekend of hiking ( I was going to carry his gear in my pack). He laid in bed crying from the pain in his back and kept telling me "I have this repressed anger, and I have to get over it soon. I hate missing these hiking trips and that makes me angrier." I said, "Dude, you might be right, but right now you can't get out of bed. I'm calling the doctor. Don't worry about it, I'll pay for it."

    He didn't go under the knife, but he got took a shot and relieved some of the pain, then he was able to go to work on centering his life and emotions.

    Parent

    Placebos work (none / 0) (#67)
    by Dadler on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:00:39 PM EST
    No doubt.  Hell, I stopped taking Celexa a few years ago, when I was still suffering, because I found out the placebo outperformed the real pill in the trials more than half the time.  But sometimes we need that temporary relief to get us in a place to make it permament, like your friend apparently.  And still, after I cured myself of the back/leg thing, I've had to battle all these other pains and ailments that have cropped up because my brain is still bound and determined in some manner to do what it's been doing since I was a kid.  Intense shoulder pain, jaw pain, depression, insomnia, my brain is really desperate to keep up the game, but it's a lost cause.  I'm on to it.  It's a process I'm in the middle of, and continually amazed by.

    Parent
    Treating symptoms, I mean (none / 0) (#70)
    by Dadler on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:14:31 PM EST
    More than placebos, though the two are connected.

    Parent
    Interesting, Dadler (none / 0) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:23:26 PM EST
    I've got a 10mm disk bulge in my L5-S1 and periodic pains and stuff down my legs - although I certainly don't want to replace it with other pains elsewhere...

    I'll look into the Sarno stuff, thanks!

    Parent

    Ack, that should read... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Wed May 23, 2007 at 05:39:41 PM EST
    "Our medicine is focused on symptoms far too much, and not focused on CAUSES."

    Parent
    Ironic (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Wed May 23, 2007 at 05:50:20 PM EST
    That the kiddie song about the body is right on the money, but ignored by the grownups. Too scary and daunting a thought for the MD's, so the body is broken down and each part is treated insolation. The chinese had it right 2000+ years ago.

    The foot bone's connected to the leg bone, The leg bone's connected to the knee bone, The knee bone's connected to the thigh bone, ...


    Parent
    YouTube version (none / 0) (#7)
    by Arlen on Wed May 23, 2007 at 05:44:48 PM EST
    A YouTube version for embedding can be found here.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Wed May 23, 2007 at 05:56:18 PM EST
    For the utube version. The other didn't work for me.

    What a great flick this looks to be.

    Crazy that so much is spent to avoid spending on the people that need help. #37 is embarrassing.

    Parent

    The problem with this movie... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Slado on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:54:22 AM EST
    Is that it glosses over the real problems of the alternative systems so it will have no credibility to anyone other then partisans who support Moore's basic point that American healthcare sucks and any alternative is better.

    Canadians critical

    Those in favor of NHC will ingonre it's realities and those who favor the current system will ignore theirs.

    IMHO we need a little of both but once we remove capatlism from the system we will slide back in terms of technology, advances etc...  

    My sister lives in Canada and she gave birth for free under their system and that is pretty cool.   But she's in real trouble if she comes down with a serious rare disease because her options become very limited, oh wait no she won't be in trouble because she's rich and can come to America for treatment.

    That's the thing NHC supporters don't talk about.   When you dumb down the system to make it affordable rich people live because like Castro they can fly in doctors from Spain or travel to America for treatment and poor people wait in line for basic tests like I wait in line to change the address on my drivers license at the DMV.

    British Healthcare

    Once's the government in control a second system or pay as you go system is developed to pick up the slack and it becomes very profitable because it doesn't now have to charge me to support the person who can't pay.   That's what really happens in America.   They guy having a triple bypass is paying for the 200 people that will show up that week in the emergency room.  

    There are real problems with our system and from what I've seen of the movie it points out real issues but to fantacise about the alternative and not give it the same treatment shows the Moore isn't intrested in solutions just making money off the problem.

    Why would this need to exist? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:00:00 AM EST
    Just a simple Google search shows what I'm talking about....

    British Private Healthcare

    If NHC worked why would this system be needed?  We all know the answer.  

    Maybe the ultimate solution is survival of the "richest" when it comes to healthcare and a national system should only be used as a safety net but somehow I don't think that's what people who complain about our system envision.

    Parent

    false assumption (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:11:27 AM EST
    Is that it glosses over the real problems of the alternative systems so it will have no credibility to anyone other then partisans who support Moore's basic point that American healthcare sucks and any alternative is better.
    You obviously haven't seen the trailer or read interviews with Moore, it makes no such assumption. Moore is advocating taking the parts that work from each system.

    And for most of America the health care system doesn't work.

    Parent

    Did you read the link? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:24:16 AM EST
    If you had you would have seen Moore dodging the questions of the Canadian reporters.

    Obviously you didn't or you ignored it.

    To your point I haven't seen the movie but I've watched the trailer and read about it.

    I get it.  He is making real points and it is ridiculous that Americans have let our system get this out of hand but my point is NHC is not the solution and Moore going to Britain to interview people leaving the hospital after having a baby and traveling to Cuba, and making ridculous statements about the Canadian system is nothing more then propoganda and if he really wanted to make a difference he'd stick to the facts.

    All that said it is a movie and after it's over he'll make another movie with partial facts about another sore subject that will get everyone who fantasizes about an unrealistic solution all riled up.

    I would bet Global Warming but Al Gore already made that ridiculous movie and Leo is right behind him so I guess that leaves mad cow disease?

    Parent

    Not a bad idea (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peaches on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:30:31 AM EST
    Mad Cow Disease or how our food supply is in danger due to the impact of industrial agriculture. It could be the 21st century's version of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle."

    I hope Moore is reading your comments Slado. He should hire you as a consultant for ideas.

    Parent

    depending on which link you meant ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Sailor on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:59:19 AM EST
    ... it was a movie reviewer giving his opinion without citing any names of reporters who were 'outraged' and without citing any actual quotes of Moore's ducking the questions. It's a movie review for dog's sake, not a news article!

    And this sure doesn't sound like ducking a question to me:"You're in a longer line than we're in because you get to live three years longer than we do. Why is that?" Moore said. "Why is it that a baby born in Toronto has a better chance of making it to its first birthday than a baby born in Detroit?"

    Oh, and the last link you had? It was to

    Private Healthcare UK is owned and run by Intuition Communication Ltd. Find out more about the editorial, management and sales team. It is a commercial site, funded by the revenues generated from advertising and enquiries for healthcare services.

    try citing facts and not some lobbying organization or movie reviewer.

    Parent

    Any system is gonna... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:15:02 AM EST
    have problems, I don't dispute that socialized medicine has issues.  I just think it's a better way to go.

    Quick healthcare story....My sister is looking into traveling to France for my niece's upcoming back surgery for scoliosis.  They have a technique in France that doesn't require additional surgeries to lengthen the rod as the child grows, which is huge for my niece because every surgery is nerve-racking with her underdeveloped lungs.  They had to abort the first attempt at the surgery due to breathing complications.  My sister and her husband just gotta find out how much, if any, insurance will cover and if they could swing it without going bankrupt.

    Point being, they seem to do allright in France on the innovation front despite offering universal care to their citizens.


    Parent

    Quick Question (none / 0) (#29)
    by Slado on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:33:25 AM EST
    Is it a private hospital and will your sister be paing for this surgery?

    I only ask because if the answer is yes then that's my point.

    The NHC systems are only afloat because the rich have options.   If they didn't the systems wouldn't last.

    Parent

    Is Moore arguing that we remove (none / 0) (#31)
    by Peaches on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:40:53 AM EST
    Rich people's options. The point is to provide quality health care for all people. The rich will always be able to pay for more and this is how it should be.

    A single payer plan modeled under SS, where everyone pays into the same pool and is covered for a minimal level of service (determined through our democratic processes) seems like it would be a fair and just system. If people want more coverage than is available through the National Health Insurance Coverage, than they can certainly pay for more.

    Parent

    I agree but.... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Slado on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:15:58 PM EST
    Is a 5 year old kid with a rare form of lukemia covered under that plan?

    Who makes the decisions to use new experimental drugs and procedures?

    In the goverment insurance system or health plan a panel of beuracrats will decide who lives and dies.

    Right now private insurers that you can sue make those decisions and there is some accountability.  Not enough IMHO and not all people are covered.

    Give control to the government and we all know what will happen.

    Again, see the VA.  If we can't properly fund education with govermental control how are we going to stay on top of healthcare?

    Parent

    Simple (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:19:17 PM EST
    Again, see the VA.  If we can't properly fund education with govermental control how are we going to stay on top of healthcare?

    Get the GOP out of office for a start. Elect people that are representing us rather than corporations.

    Parent

    By keeping the health care sytem (none / 0) (#64)
    by Peaches on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:25:45 PM EST
    and doing away with private insurers.

    The Gov't funds a minimal level of health care. I think most people would include children with debilitating diseases within the level of care. Democratic government decides what is covered.

    But, there will also be an incentive to reduce the level of leukemia and cancer(heart disease, back pain) in society through preventative measures that include, but are not limited to, removing toxins from the environment and providing better nutrition to our population.

    Government runs social security much more efficiently than any private insurers. Its administrative costs are extremely low because there is no one siphoning off funds for profits. I trust that the government can handle moving these funds from the citizens to the health care providers efficiently - although there will probably cases where payment is denied and individuals will have to look elsewhere for coverage. Private insurance may be handy in these cases for the ones who can afford it. Charity and organizations will have to pick up whatever else and if the public gets incensed by the system, then change will happen, though slowly.

    Parent

    I don't know yet.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:49:06 AM EST
    My niece's surgeon brought up the French procedure after the aborted surgery attempt last month...my sister has only started doing the research.  The surgeon said if it was his kid he'd go to France if at all possible.  I'll try to get an undate on what she's found out so far.

    I only brought it up as a counter-point to socialized medicine stiffling innovation.  France is amongst the world leaders in medical innovation.

    Very valid point about whether or not rich foreigners help keep France's system afloat.  

    Parent

    I would suspect that's but that's a guess... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Slado on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:12:02 PM EST
    Also keep in mind that comparing our system that must support 300million people to systems that support a fraction of that amount is pretty silly.

    France 60million
    UK 60million
    Canada 34 million

    It's easier to inact large social welfare plans when you have 1/10th or 1/5th the amount of people and the populace is already used to socialized government and programs.

    Even with the smaller programs it still takes private healthcare to keep the system afloat.

    I find it ironic the kinds of people who want to support this idea when it is new corporations that will benifit most from this system because you get some companies that will milk the government dry ($100 toilet seats and hammers?) and new companies that will make profits off the rich when they don't want to wait in line.

    Parent

    And Just Think (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:14:59 PM EST
    Of all the lost tax dollars from year after year of Insurance Company profits. Oh, I forgot they are on corporate welfare and do not pay taxes.

    Parent
    Surely (none / 0) (#62)
    by Slado on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:18:21 PM EST
    you realize that it's not the companies that will loose in this don't you?

    They will just turn to ripping off the government instead and then operate the private system with even higher profits then now.

    Be careful what you wish for when you play the evil corporation card.

    Parent

    Sure.... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:01:25 PM EST
    whoever gets the govt. contracts will benefit, with all the associated shadyness.  But the millions of uninsured will also benefit.  

    Still seems better than the current system, were insurance companies benefit to such a high tune that they can shell out 6 figure donations to many members of congress to maintain the highly profitable status-quo.

    iow, there will always be corruption, certian levels of corruption we can live with.


    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:26:21 AM EST
    You saw the movie already?

    No, oh, I thought so.

    Parent

    So you have? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Slado on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:34:16 AM EST
    Or are you assuming that his past history of fudnging facts won't appear in this movie?

    Parent
    well at least that's an improvement ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Sailor on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:07:26 AM EST
    ... previously the wrongwingers have said Moore lied. Now they move the goal posts to 'fudge.'
    Or are you assuming that his past history of fudnging facts won't appear in this movie?
    Show links to factual articles, not movie reviews, not lobbyists, not faux news, not lamebaugh and we might agree on that.

    He does put his best foot forward, just like anyone does in a debate, or even a resume or job interview.

    Of course this whole sideline of attacking Moore is just to avoid the actual debate ... the American healthcare system is badly broken. The gov't job is to promote the general welfare of the people, they should start doing it.

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:57:09 AM EST
    He does put his best foot forward, just like anyone does in a debate, or even a resume or job interview.

    Problem is that this isn't a game, and we're not knocking back a brew at the local pub. Scoring points and looking good while pis*ing off the other side and their supporters is counterprodictive to actually getting something done.

    In general the Left has been in opposition so long that they have no idea as to how to build a team to get something done.

    Moore can't be on that team. He can not be allowed to set the guidelines. If he is/does, then NHC is DOA.

    Parent

    Both Fox and WSJ (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:18:49 PM EST
    Gave positive reviews. How  mainstream is that? I can't imagine that it will have a negative effect on NHC except for the most hard core supporters of the status quo.  

    Moore is mobilizing the voters and the congresscritters will listen.

    Parent

    squeaky (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:26:27 PM EST
    One more time...

    This isn't a movie, and those negatives he has don't give a flip what a movie review says.

    Shorter.

    When trying to get something done in business, or politics, you do not want anyone on the team who has any negatives. Because no matter what, those negatives cancel out positives.

    Parent

    HAHAHAH (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:37:28 PM EST
    you do not want anyone on the team who has any negatives.

    Very funny. Where are you going to get someone with no negatives Mars. Oh, right,  that wouldn't work because they would be aliens.

    Parent

    squeaky (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:51:36 PM EST
    Well, the way the rest of the world does it is that simply don't allow those that do to be on team. This means that you don't select them, and if they attempt to force themselves on board you dismiss them. In public.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:55:49 PM EST
    I gather from your comments that you have never been engaged in such things as team building and managing.

    It really is simpler than it looks, if you adhere to a few small rules.

    1. Those that don't want to play as a team are gone.

    2. Those that won't play as a team are gone.

    3. Everyone has the same rules. No exceptions.


    Parent
    Duh (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:13:56 PM EST
    I finally get it. PPJ fakes being a liberal and advises us that Michael Moore is a big liability for the elections.  Just like he was for his movie farenheit 9/11 (not).

    Which proves that Michael Moore is a big threat to the GOP. It is true that ppj warned us about Michael Moore for the '06 elections.

    Re: Sully and Lehman Embrace "Fake But Accurate" (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 07:39:14 AM EST

    Now the Right has struck back. How accurate is the movie? At least as, and probably more than Moore's paean to ignorance, out of context nonsense and propaganda. Will it harm the Demo's chance at winning the House and the Senate? Probably. But if ABC knuckles under and pulls it, the Demos will absolutely loose the election.



    Parent
    Look at satisfaction rates... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Dadler on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:08:03 AM EST
    ...There are problems with every national health insurance paradigm, just as their are problems with everything in life.  However, our system fails more people at a higher rate than those others.  And their citizens are much more satisfied with their healthcare than we are.  Why have I talked to Canadian after Canadian who wouldn't trade their system for ours for anything?  

    Taking the best parts of each system is how you learn and grown and do better.  The status quo is unacceptable in every way.  Would you have us do nothing, or simply take the worst of each system.

    Michael Moore is a classic American muckraker, the kind indispensible to our society.  If he weren't pissing someone off, he wouldn't be doing his job.

    Parent

    We'll need some examples (none / 0) (#37)
    by Repack Rider on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:22:32 AM EST
    his past history of fudging facts

    Give me an example of Moore's "fudging facts" that overshadows George W. Bush's six-plus years of doing so.

    Whom would you trust more to tell you the truth about deficiencies in government, Moore or Bush?  About Iraq or Bush's military "service?"

    Parent

    RePack (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:51:18 AM EST
    Give me an example of Moore's "fudging facts" that overshadows George W. Bush's six-plus years of doing so.

    Uh. Bush isn't trying to sell the American taxpayer on NHC.

    none of the wrongwingers (none / 0) (#89)
    by Sailor on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:11:00 AM EST
    have been able to come up with any links! What a surprise.

    Bush isn't trying to sell the American taxpayer on NHC.
    No, he's just trying to sell perpetual war ... which costs a lot more than NHC.

    Parent
    Two issues (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 12:15:06 PM EST
    et al - There are two issues that must be settled.

    1. How to pay for it.

    2. How to deliver it.

    It can not be paid for by payroll taxes. If it is, the Right will just beat it to death over the middle class paying for the "welfare  queens," illegal aliens, criminals, etc.

    It must be paid for by a National Sales Tax. That brings equality into it and does pick up the "off the books" economy.

    There is no need for a new bureacracy. We have one in place now, called Medicare/Medicaid. Since the states have Medicaid, that can just be folded into  Medicare.

    You also must find a way to include the existing insurance/billing companies. We can have the patient see the same doctor/health care provider they see now, and the provider can bill Medicare/Medicaid. There is no need to try and force all the providers into a new structure. Too expensive, and since people value freedom in picking a provider, taking it away would be a serious blow against it passing.

    We should also understand that the fee schedule must be increased, and not the same as Medicare because there is no private insurance covering what isn't paid.

    Moore is an entertainer, (none / 0) (#65)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 24, 2007 at 02:53:25 PM EST
     and he's good at making entertaining films. In the sense that he focuses attention on important issues he even serves a greater purpose than entertaining, but if you are watching his films with the idea that you are receiving a balanced or rational analysis of these issues, then you've got problems.

      Maybe he should make a movie about that mind-set and  give us  a lot of laughs and a little food for thought about people who can't distinguish between sensationalized filmmaking that superficially  gives a very one-sided view of a complex subject and the actual issues that policy-makers must conquer.

      I'm thinking that if the government just gave us all free weed and a bi-weekly massage  to cure what ails us, we'd solve 90% of the health crisis. If I was a good film-maker, maybe more would agree with that.

     

    Thank God (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Thu May 24, 2007 at 04:53:34 PM EST
    we have someone here who can always be counted on to give a purely rational analysis, and, for shame to those who may have thought previously that such a thing could only be found in the Platonic realm.
    Ye of little faith.

    Another possible topic might be devoted to those who  talk as if sensationalism and superficiality weren't an integral part of the bread and butter of policy makers.

    Parent

    After all (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:38:54 PM EST
    what could more superficial and sensationalistic than the analysis of and public statments about WMDs in Iraq?

    Parent
    Jondee (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:28:27 PM EST
    OK, how do you think we should fund NHC?

    It will have to be paid for, you know.

    Parent

    by defunding the war, silly. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Sailor on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:12:17 AM EST


    Parent
    sailor (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2007 at 09:57:08 AM EST
    Might work for next week...

    But happens long term????

    Parent

    Heath care spending (none / 0) (#95)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:27:48 PM EST
    is over TWO TRILLION DOLLARS a year and some estimate it will double in the next decade. It's approximately 4 times greater than total defense spending and Iraq is believed to consume only about 1/4 of current defense spending.

      So, even if we spent nothing on Iraq that would amount to about 1/16th of current  health care spending.

      The other thing people often seem not to understand is that defense spending is not the equivalent of destroying money. Money spent on defense is spent for paying wages and purchasing goods and services. It flows through the economy as does all government and private spending. In fact, defense spending generally provides more general economic benefit than may other types of spending because we domestically manufacture such a huge percentage of the goods consumed compared to other sectors and procure services domestically as well.

       There are arguments against military spending but hurting the GNP is not among them.

     

    Parent

    It's crazy, (none / 0) (#99)
    by Peaches on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:48:31 PM EST
    but its true. Defense spending does filter back into the economy (although, to be fair, so would health care spending).

    Our spending on defense definitely helps sustain our economy by creating jobs and increasing wages. What makes it crazy is that money for defense, whether for wages or armaments, is used almost exclusively for destroying economic infrastructure. At least, this is the end result. Enemy's build their economy, bombs knock out economic infrastructure, and then we rebuild a new economy by creatingnew infrastructure.

    Everyone benefits economically. Look at post war Germany and Japan. War is profitable. Military keynesian economic policy that we have going in America stimulates our economy by deficit spending which creates aggregate demand for goods and all is well and good for our economy. When we stockpile up on the war machine, eventually - for the good of the economy - we have to find someone to to use these goods on to bring down inventory and create a demand for new armaments. Plus, we can offer contracts for rebuilding and again the global economy and ours benefits. War is profitable. Peace is not. That is why we have war and will continue to have it.

    Social Security is not profitable for anyone. That is why it must be privatized according to the profiteers. National Health Insurance will not be adopted unless there is a built-in means for siphoning off money and generating profit - all well and good in the pecuniary economy.

    Masters of War and Masters of profit go hand in hand.

    Come you masters of war
    You that build all the guns
    You that build the death planes
    You that build the big bombs
    You that hide behind walls
    You that hide behind desks
    I just want you to know
    I can see through your masks

    You that never done nothin'
    But build to destroy
    You play with my world
    Like it's your little toy
    You put a gun in my hand
    And you hide from my eyes
    And you turn and run farther
    When the fast bullets fly


    Parent

    Dylan has,somewhere, (none / 0) (#100)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri May 25, 2007 at 01:03:54 PM EST
      elaborated that MOW was aimed at war profiteers and not meant as a "pacifict" anthem. I recall that he was answering critics who accused him of "selling out"  when he turned more personal and introspective in his writing  (and playing kmore in a rock than folk idiom). He said something along the lines that he was echoing Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex.

       Military spending stimulates the economy because it creates demand for goods and services that otherwise would not exist. We would be a MUCH poorer country without the WEALTH created by meeting that demand. Rather than "destroying" money, it actually creates money.

      As I said there are plenty of good arguments against this war, against war in general, and simply against spending on military purposes. Hurting the economy is not among them.

     

    Parent

    That is why (none / 0) (#101)
    by Peaches on Fri May 25, 2007 at 01:08:39 PM EST
    I don't fall in line with those who want to End the Iraq War without looking deeper at our society and culture. To end war you have to destroy our economy. To live in peace we would have to be poorer in terms of money and material goods, but we would be infinitely richer in terms of reaping the rewards that the earth provides.

    Money, Money, Money,

    We don't need it - only the profiteers need it.

    We need clean air, clean water and clean land. We need peace. If you want to let war go, you let the money go with it.

    Parent

    well said (none / 0) (#102)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri May 25, 2007 at 01:26:01 PM EST
    To live in peace we would have to be poorer in terms of money and material goods, but we would be infinitely richer in terms of reaping the rewards that the earth provides

       I often find myself unable to shake the conviction that humans are by nature, greedy, materialistic, possessive and acquisitive.

      I have had sniping (but nothing thoughtful) at my use of Hobbes' lament  that life in the state of nature was nasty, short and brutish, but i generally believe that institutional socialization (through family, clan, tribe, national government and yes, religion) has spared us far more turmoil and allowed far more progress than could have been achieved without these constructs despite the fact we like to blame them for everything. they do deserve blame but they also deserve a lot of credit for mitigating the conflict if not destruction that likely would have prevailed in their absence.

       

    Parent

    Nicely said (none / 0) (#104)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 25, 2007 at 03:02:23 PM EST


    Parent
    The problem with Hobbes description, (none / 0) (#105)
    by Peaches on Fri May 25, 2007 at 04:07:16 PM EST
    is that we can't be sure what he is describing.

    Institutional socialization is not either the problem or the solution. It is a fact of life. Humans are social animals. We are not individuals acting in self-interests. That is just a description. We cannot be human without other humans and our intelligence is not in our minds but a product of social behavior and language.

    Humans create institutions, networks and relationships. The institutions we have today are a product of many events that coincided and evolved in a random and complex way over time. The fact that we have these institutions today and not other institutions cannot be attributed to either fate or the Spencer's Maxim "survival of the fittest."

    We can create new and better institutions. The institutions we have today can be credited for the material goods and the economy they have given us and they can be blamed for the wars, poverty, environmental destruction that has accompanied it.

    I am under no illusion that life as hunter and gatherers was difficult. I have no idea if I would have preferred this life to our own or not. I am not advocating anything that would even remotely look like this either. I am saying that our social institutions that have created this interconnected global economy with its accompanying technology and empire overseeing it all is destroying the Earth.

    As Utah Phillips says

    The earth is not dying - it is being killed. And the people who are killing it have names and addresses,

    We are killing it. Our social institutions are killing it. Our economy must be destroyed. This does not say all social infrastructure should be destroyed - only our current one to be replaced with something that can be more harmonious with the rest of the inhabitants on Planet Earth.


    Parent

    I think Hobbes (none / 0) (#109)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat May 26, 2007 at 07:25:49 AM EST
     "by state of nature" meant life in a hypothesized  world without institutions  established to make and enforce rules. Basically, a world where it's "every man for himself."

      My point is that the uncountable imperfections of our institutions do not jusstify the conclusion that the institutions have caused more harm than they have prevented.

     

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#96)
    by Sailor on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    four years of war in iraq $428,794,527,211 and counting

    Parent
    Not so good at math, eh? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:41:08 PM EST
    $428 billion dollars a year is approximately $107,000,000,000 a year.

      That's actually less than my rough estimate, which was based on $120 billion dollars a year. from which I estimated it at  approximately 1/4 of total defense spending and 1/16th of health care spending. which is approximately:

     2,100,000,000,000 a year

      It's a good idea to remember 4th grade math before calling BS.
     

    Parent

    that should read (none / 0) (#98)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:44:24 PM EST
    428 billion for 4 years....

    Parent
    It's about (none / 0) (#106)
    by jondee on Fri May 25, 2007 at 04:26:21 PM EST
    as easy to dissuade a convinced Hobbesian as it is to dissuade a convinced (and oppressed) Falwellian, Maoist, etc etc

    All I can say -- though opinions vary -- is that my life and the lives of many that I've known, hasnt been nasty and brutish.

    Hobbes was just anticipating (possibly with relish) his next nasty, brutish act. There are people like that. From what I hear, he was a bit of a kiss up, kick down kinda guy too.

    Hobbes and Nietzche (none / 0) (#107)
    by jondee on Fri May 25, 2007 at 04:32:11 PM EST
    are the two best people to quote if you're a ruthless person with an intellectual bent.

    Parent
    Before (none / 0) (#108)
    by jondee on Fri May 25, 2007 at 05:46:22 PM EST
    anyone comes back with the standard boring, wretchedly unoriginal lets-all-join-hands-and-sing-Kumbaya crap, I'll just remind you that Kumbaya means f*ck you in Swahili.

    Parent
    The "Sicko"Trailer | 108 comments (108 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment