ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/20/2018 12:37 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  19.307 Visits   5 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
05/19/2007 01:58 PM ID: 62549 Permalink   

Michael Moore Pays Medical Bills of Conservative Critic’s Wife

 

Jim Kenefick has had an obsession with Michael Moore for years, even setting up Moorewatch.com, which boasts it's “Watching Michael Moore’s every move”. On his blog he recently wrote about the difficulty he was having paying his wife’s medical bills.

Kenefick then received an email from an anonymous donor asking to pay his premiums of $12,000. He accepted. Now the NY Daily News has revealed from a third source that the generous donation came from Michael Moore himself who couldn't be reached.

A friend of Moore's seemingly confirmed by saying, “We sure are happy Jim’s wife received the care she needed.” Kenefick admits the money turned his life around, but is still outraged at the filmmaker whom he believes is using him to promote "Sicko".

 
  Source: www.nydailynews.com  
    WebReporter: ManilaRyce Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  85 Comments
  
  a movie a person with a message  
 
micheal moore means well.to wish harm against free speech to guy who only wants a voice i say shame on all who wish harm on him.the movie is protected in canada as it should be.those who have things to hide are speaking very loudly about it before it even has the light of day.thats ok pandoras box is open too late to stop the evil among us....
 
  by: flukemol   05/19/2007 02:52 PM     
  c'mon, c'mon  
 
let's have our conservatives here do the "five-minutes-hate" thing they've been trained to do any time someone mentions Moore. It's funny ... in a profoundly disturbing sort of way.
 
  by: l´anglais     05/19/2007 03:03 PM     
  I've only seen roger and me  
 
but honestly I thought it was so one sided, unprofessional, and biased that I decided not to watch any more of his work. He's welcome to keep creating it though, I don't mind that. I just think its better to research things yourself and decide than jump right into a topic via someones persuasive work.
 
  by: luc1ddr3am     05/19/2007 03:06 PM     
  Five Minutes Hate?  
 
Not to flame, but saying rude comments like that about someones politcal views is just as bad. Me? I'm an independent probably leading towards conservative and I still like Michael Moore. However, I must agree that while I find his movies entertaining, he uses a lack of research and interviews the worst possible people for his movies. For example, I just finished watching bowling for Columbine where he interviews one of the guys who helped in the Oklahoma City bombing. The guy is an obvious nut, so he sits down and questions the second amendment with him. Of course if you interview someone mentally unstable like that of course it's going to seem bad. Not too mention he's a lifelong member of the NRA? He's pretty hypocritical, but a good film maker. Not too mention most of his subjects in Fahrenheit 9/11 have been PROVEN false and not by Fox news, who I'm not a big fan of either. However, all conservative attempts to discredit him and prove him wrong have been pathetic and boring. Meaning Fahrenhype 9/11 was the most boring worthless movie i ever watched.
 
  by: rearanged   05/19/2007 03:44 PM     
  Hmmmm  
 
"one sided, unprofessional, and biased"

That's a perfect description of Fox News.
 
  by: JonSmith     05/19/2007 05:33 PM     
  Bollocks!  
 
Moore cites sources for each of the facts presented in his movies. He has a $$ award for anyone who can dispute his research.

What he does, like any documentarian, is arrange facts to present a viewpoint.


Regarding the medical bill payment-- this is rather charitable of Moore considering he had to lay off his staff only a few years ago before he became truly famous.

He is trying to help people- yet some people are so scared of being helped they bite back.
 
  by: theironboard     05/19/2007 06:26 PM     
  not to give kenefick publicity but...  
 
if you go to his site, he's truly disgusting. he complains that 12 grand is like pocket change to moore, and that it's “equal to his ding-dong budget for the week”. seriously, would you say something like that about someone who gave you $12,000?

he rants about how moore is using the donation to promote the movie, yet moore hasn't said a word about it. kenefick has been the one publicizing this in his own paranoid way. what's funny is that kenefick's business was failing and he wouldn't have had the money to maintain his blog if moore hadn't donated it. his charity actually enabled kenefick to continue his anti-moore agenda. and still, the douche can't even say "thank you".
 
  by: ManilaRyce     05/19/2007 07:14 PM     
  I am sorry  
 
Jim Kenefick is a moron who needs a size 12 shoe up his butt. If Moore really was trying to promote his film, why did he choose to be anonymous when donating the money? In my opinion, he respected Jim Kenefick's viewpoint and (probably) did not include this tidbit of generosity in his new film even though it is taking on the health care system. If Moore really is trying to exploit Kenefick, what better way than to include him in the film! From my understanding that is not the case however.
 
  by: s0n0fagun   05/19/2007 07:51 PM     
  @tib  
 
Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics
 
  by: lauriesman     05/20/2007 07:34 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
That sounds like the name of a rather dull book!
 
  by: theironboard     05/20/2007 07:38 AM     
  @sonofa  
 
And it never crossed your mind that perhaps moore tipped the daily news about it? What great publicity!
 
  by: lauriesman     05/20/2007 07:38 AM     
  However..  
 
Unless you can prove it, it's just baseless supposition.
 
  by: StarShadow     05/20/2007 08:30 AM     
  Not PR  
 
It's part of the film, apparently!

http://www.time.com/...

 
  by: theironboard     05/20/2007 09:46 AM     
  @starshadow  
 
Supposition, yes, baseless? Not in the least.
 
  by: lauriesman     05/20/2007 11:13 AM     
  Give back the money Kenefick.  
 
If Jim Kenefick feels so strongly that this was a promotional stunt, why not give back the money? Something tells me he won't.
 
  by: vash_the_stampede     05/20/2007 12:53 PM     
  To anyone bad mouthing  
 
Mr. Moore, he is doing exactly what Jesus taught in the Bible, turning the other cheek so much that he is saving his life. I wonder what his wife is going to think of his comments, I hope she is a strong women.
 
  by: qhobbes   05/20/2007 01:28 PM     
  @vash  
 
exactly. why willingly allow yourself to be used? kenefick says he suspected the money was from moore at the start, but took the hand-out anyway. i get the impression he wanted to take it so he could bitch about it afterwards. he got 12 grand and tons of publicity to boot. sounds like a sweet deal. like i said, if moore hadn't made the donation, none of us would even know who this guy is. he owes both his wife's health and his job to his enemy.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     05/20/2007 01:29 PM     
  wtf is wrong with the world?  
 
Here is a man that is willing to put his big butt on the line in order to improve things--- anyone from outside the US might not understand the hypocrisy of the insurance/medical 'care' system, but it really is upside down and unfair. He's trying to improve things! Can't you ****heads accept that?

When he made his famous anti-Iraq speech during a time when Bush had an approval rating of over 80 percent the lemmings all jumped onto their soapboxes and screamed bloody murder. Lies! You screamed! Fat Democrat! Should be hung! Traitor!

Well now.... things look a little different in hindsight, don't it?

The guy is leading the way in America-- he's Ralph Nader on steroids and with a movie camera. Ugly guys with good hearts.

Why, if there were more people who gave a shit then the world would be a better place-- but, shit... as long as you paranoid conservative white people are happy behind your gated communities in your air-conditioned mansions then the world is perfect, ain't it? AIN'T IT?

Moore has done more for the USA then any single person, and people still piss on him. ****ing shame.

Too bad so many Americans lost perspective, and forgot what it means to be American.
 
  by: theironboard     05/20/2007 01:57 PM     
  @ghobbes  
 
What The Hell does Jesus and the bible have to do with all this.
Moore does more for the helpless than any Myth ever could.
 
  by: turk2046   05/20/2007 02:18 PM     
  @tib  
 
Oh my gosh, I can't actually believe you said that - I had to re read that tripe three times.

Moore is leading the way and showing what it means to be American?? Oh my gosh, just.. no way.. no way, okay? Moore is a parasite, a millionaire with a swanky NY apartment, his kids in private schools etc. For all intents and purposes he is one of the 'elite'. He can more than spare the money for this guy, but instead of just giving it quietly, like he actually cared, he chose to make the guys life even more difficult just to squeeze more controversial publicity out of it.

He doesn't care who he hurts, as long as people buy into the rhetoric he spews in each mockable 'documentary'.

Perhaps we should focus on the message and not the messenger? Just what is that message then? The end justifies the means? It's okay to parasite off the hard work of others, and ruin other peoples lives, so long as you succeed at something that might approximate a good work?

Tell me, TIB, just what is socially redeemable about Moore?
 
  by: lauriesman     05/20/2007 02:36 PM     
  @lauriesman  
 
What's socially redeemable about Michael Moore?

You know what? I've already spoken my two-cents about Moore and you ask me to make a statement--- if you read what I wrote three times then you should have noticed I answered that already.

I think you need to back up all of your own insubstantial and biased statements. You have yet to present anything valid and worth fretting over.
 
  by: theironboard     05/20/2007 03:14 PM     
  @lauriesman  
 
"Moore is a parasite..."

to whom?

"...a millionaire with a swanky NY apartment"

and?

"...his kids in private schools etc."

you obviously don't know how shitty the american public school system is. you can't bash someone who can afford to properly educate their children. well, you can but it's insanely ignorant.

"For all intents and purposes he is one of the 'elite'."

and that's exactly what we need. how much information does the american public receive that doesn't come straight from washington? there are no "elites" on the left to question the powers that be. in the run up to war, when so called liberal elites at the new york times were beating the war drum, moore was one of the only people who publicly criticized the administration's case for war.

"He can more than spare the money for this guy..."

first off, why is that even an issue? 12 grand is a lot of money whether he can spare it or not. it's retarded to bash him for not donating more. kenefick is lucky moore donated anything at all. if i give a dollar to a homeless man am i an asshole for not giving a hundred?

"...instead of just giving it quietly, like he actually cared, he chose to make the guys life even more difficult just to squeeze more controversial publicity out of it."

oh please. kenefick received $12,000 without having to do anything. his wife's life and business were saved because of it. what a victim. how awful that must have been to have his enemy pay off his medical bills. this publicity you speak of was caused by kenefick, not moore. the man's pride is hurt and he's trying to save face.

"He doesn't care who he hurts, as long as people buy into the rhetoric he spews in each mockable 'documentary'."

yes, the man is a monster. wtf?

"Perhaps we should focus on the message and not the messenger?"

so after you spent the majority of your message laying out personal attacks you decide to finally address the subject? kudos.

"It's okay to parasite off the hard work of others, and ruin other peoples lives, so long as you succeed at something that might approximate a good work?"

the epa took orders from the administration to declare that new york air was safe after 9/11. this was a lie and has killed many rescue workers already. if not for moore's efforts, the workers in this movie might also be dead. so too with kenefick's wife. how many mainstream figures have brought this into the public forum?
 
  by: ManilaRyce     05/20/2007 03:23 PM     
  @tib  
 
I'm not going to rehash his previous films over nad over again, I've brought to light enough material in past threads to show you what kind of man you are championing. You know my thoughts on that matter.

 
  by: lauriesman     05/20/2007 06:06 PM     
  @manila  
 
Moore is a parasite in that he attaches himself to useful social and political issues, then uses the most dubious, dishonest and downright crass methods to create a 'documentary' that may bring to the public conciousness important issues, but at the cost of others. It is my firm belief that he does so soley to make money and to feed his messiah complex.

The fact that something good may come of his documentary work does not in itself make his works any good, nor does it make him a good or noble or honorable person as he portrays himself.

This isn't about how much money he donated, it's the fact he used the man's situation and suffering to springboard his own agenda. It's not like the money was a lot of money, Moore is a multimillionaire. He has sufficient wealth that he could retain a personal barber and dress in a new armani each month, and not feel it financially. Thats not the point. We have people saying "well why doesnt he just give the money back" - if he had the money in the first place there wouldnt have been an issue, now that the donation has been spent, you're expecting him to find 12,000 from where exactly? The man took a donation, with a touch of despiration and settled some bills, only to find out that the money was tainted and by accepting an anonymous donation he undermined his own position and gave undesired and unwarranted publicity to the very man he was publicaly decrying? It's a masterful move by Moore, but there isn't the slightest bit of philanthropic impulse behind it.

Yes, Moore's work does bring to the social conciousness issues that need to be addressed, but it also brings with it a load of absolute hogwash and twisted truths that people almost blanket accept without question - particularly when the same facts, figures, quotes, speeches et al are reiterated in popular magazines and news papers without actually examining them. When people believe the Charleton Heston is a racist, a man without honor or sensitivity, and an absolute gun nut because of Moore's rubbish, and you say "well thats okay because at least people know abotu the issue now" - that really doesn't speak well for you.

With regards to the 'bounty' the conditions are explicitly specified by Moore. The trick is, everything he uses is legitimately filmed or recorded or culled from other research sources. Therefore, by Moore's conditions, everything passes. Thereby, the use of that material in manners that completely twist the meanings and strip the context to make a point that is virtually teh antithesis of the starting material does not violate that statement of integrity.

For example, Charleton Heston again, who did indeed say the words "from my cold dead hands" - however those words were uttered in a speech over a yeal later in receipt of a reward about somethign entirely unrelated to the shootings that Moore targetted when he cut and spliced those three seperate speeches together.

I'm well acquainted with the poor state of America's health care industry. I'm also well acquanted with Michael Moores modus operandi and it is my unassailable position that he is definitely not the kind of person you want ot hold up as a role model and as a champion of the American people.
 
  by: lauriesman     05/20/2007 06:22 PM     
  @lauriesman  
 
No. Really. You haven't said anything.

And, actually-- you've said some falsehoods. For example, Moore doesn't have any children- he has a stepchild, and she is too old for private-school, so I gotta wonder where you are getting your information.

Whose lives are he ruining? George Bush and his cohorts? Yes! The people responsible for selling live ammo that is used in school-shootings? Corrupt corporate heads who don't care about the people they are screwing over?

Now he is targeting the insurance industry, which is a real criminal enterprise in the USA. Sorry, but I don't think you have any perspective on this.
 
  by: theironboard     05/20/2007 06:24 PM     
  haven't seen sicko  
 
but here is what the press has to say about it .....can't believe Fox News said that ...lol



"After the screening, several hard-nosed U.S. critics and journalists admitted to crying during the film."
-- The Wall Street Journal

"Brilliant and Uplifting"
-- FOX News

"Comedy, Poignancy and Outrage"
-- Variety

"Very Strong and Very Honest"
-- Stephen Schaefer, Boston Globe
 
  by: Hugo Chavez     05/20/2007 08:09 PM     
  @lauriesman  
 
"....it is my unassailable position that he is definitely not the kind of person you want to hold up as a role model and as a champion of the American people."

I'm deeply interested to hear which people in public life, particularly politics, you DO hold in high regard and why....

I always find it amusing when the same ppl who defend people and/or issues centred around lies and deceit (eg. the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration, etc) then go out and attack others for doing no more than the same (although Moore IMO is only using shady tactics to highlight factual issues - this unfortunately leaves him exposed for ppl to attack his methods and therefore seemingly shifting the attention from the issues).
 
  by: Flashby     05/20/2007 09:57 PM     
  @lauriesman  
 
"it is my unassailable position that he is definitely not the kind of person you want ot hold up as a role model and as a champion of the American people."

It's pretty arrogant for an Australian to tell Americans who they can and cannot hold up as champions of their people -- let alone claiming that your point is "unassailable." I personally think Rupert Murdoch is Satan's step-son, but I'm not going to tell you not to admire him.
 
  by: l´anglais     05/20/2007 10:17 PM     
  the one thing i demand from  
 
Documentary makers, one absolute thing that I cannot be swayed from and must have no matter what... is the truth.

His shameful cut and paste editing in Bowling for Columbine and other shocking deliberate falsities mean his words carry as much weight and credibility as a youtube user to me.
 
  by: koultunami     05/20/2007 11:26 PM     
  the one thing i demand from  
 
Documentary makers, one absolute thing that I cannot be swayed from and must have no matter what... is the truth.

His shameful cut and paste editing in Bowling for Columbine and other shocking deliberate falsities mean his words carry as much weight and credibility as a youtube user to me.
 
  by: koultunami     05/21/2007 12:15 AM     
  @koul  
 
Exactly.

@Others:

Who would I hold up? Hmm.... America really hasn't had that many shining lights in recent years. I would think that the best exmple that comes to mind are the fire fighters and police who fought tooth and nail to save people during 9/11.

 
  by: lauriesman     05/21/2007 10:08 AM     
  I dont get it  
 
Moore is proven to be a liar.

Bush and Moore use the exact same tactics, so why do you decry one and not the other?

Is it ok to lie if the liar agrees with your opinion?
 
  by: Gogevandire   05/21/2007 10:29 AM     
  Actually  
 
I decry both. In the appropriate topics and forums. This is an article about Moore, who people are holding up as a champion of some kind. If it was about Bush, and there were valid complaints to be made, I would be making them.

I don't support Bush any more than I support Moore. That argument is irrelevant.
 
  by: lauriesman     05/21/2007 11:27 AM     
  I like how he...  
 
...takes the money and then complains about it! A true hero sticking to his guns. What a pathetic little man
 
  by: barryriley   05/21/2007 02:10 PM     
  hmm  
 
I don't quite know how there can be such a stir about a man that makes documentaries. I find his work very informative and he addresses many issues that need improvement.

Without people like michael moore pushing issues, we would be a society of drones that would remained unchanged and unchallenged.

Every issue has two sides, Michael Moore presents his, it's no more complex then that.

You have Michale Moore on one side of the coin and on the complete opposite spectrum is Rush Limbaugh. I can imagine that those complaining the most are probably on the other side of the coin. So they do a lot of bitching and moaning and feel furious that it interjects with many things that Rush throws out there.

The plain and simple fact is that you need people like Rush and Michael to keep challenging the system pulling people back and forth. Otherwise we would be out of balance, with a system that is in continual change(micheal) or no change at all(rush).

But I do feel at this particular moment in history we have quite a bit of change to bring about from the past 7 years of de-evolution of our government. We have severally damaged our credibility with our own self serving brand of foreign policy and torn the constitution to pieces in the name of defeating terrorism through middle eastern conquest.

I think a good dose of Moore is good thing at this time and our country could use quite a bit more of him(change).

Peace out.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   05/21/2007 02:38 PM     
  @UK  
 
I'm from the UK, I have no idea who Rush Limbaugh is beyond a pro bush mouther of some kind.

There are not two sides, there are several hundred, Not liking Moore for being a lieing sack of **** does nmot mean I like Bush, who is also a lieing sack of ****.

Moore is a PROVEN outright liar, if he was on my side, I'd start looking very carefully at where I'm stood.
 
  by: Gogevandire   05/21/2007 02:57 PM     
  @kcn  
 
Michael Moore is the definition of self serving. How anyone can complain about Bush and not regard Moore with a critical eye and then go on to accuse others of bias is really beyond me.

What Bush said "we are going into Iraq to force a regime change, and to find the weapons of mass destruction".

What he really meant "we are going into Iraq for highly political, economic, and strategic reasons and so my buddies can get rich of rebuilding contracts"

What Moore says "I am making a documentary to highlight the critical state of the American health care system"

What he really meant "I'm making a film that I hope we earn me a lot of credit and money, and I don't care if I have to abuse the very people I'm making myself out as a champion of. Heck, I'll even use some guys medical bills as a spring board to further my agenda"

No matter how he might portray it, Moore gave the man the money with every intention of leaking it to the press (and putting it in his movie) knowing the position it would put the man in - who doesnt have the money to repay it, and who has been one of Moores most vocal critics. It's as evident as anything can be that Moore doesn't care.
 
  by: lauriesman     05/21/2007 03:47 PM     
  @lauriesman  
 
The difference is that Bush hasnt given ANYONE $12,000 for their medical bills! Who gives a S*it why he did it, it happened. You know, the best way this guy could have got back at Moore would have been to NOT TAKE THE MONEY. Is that what he did? I didn't think so...
 
  by: kcking05     05/21/2007 04:42 PM     
  @Kck  
 
The guy didnt know moore was donating the money, and certainly didnt know it would appear in the movie.

That you support moore in the use of someones terminaly ill spouse as a weapon against them says a lot about your charecter.
 
  by: Gogevandire   05/21/2007 04:51 PM     
  well....  
 
... f*** it. Let her die then, if that's what you want.

Moore is not a bad man, and he sure as hell isn't out to hurt anyone except the backpockets of corrupt and morally-bankrupt dirtbags.

You guys are so heartless that I have to wonder what you see in the world that is worth living for? Are you so selfish that you live just for the sake of pleasing yourself and hating others?

Some 'Christians' fail to follow the model of their saviour, Jesus, that I have to wonder what makes them think they are even remotely Christian?

Michael Moore is more saintly than the Pope- he has done more for the poor and unfortunate than most followers of Christ can make themselves do.

Some people just can't handle the fact that he's fat, kind of nerdy, and has a nasaly voice.... but his motivation in life is certainly not to attain wealth and power-- his power is to be able to communicate his dissatisfaction with a system(s) that is unfair, unjust, corrupt, and in need of revision.

Non-Americans might not ever understand what is wrong with our medical-care system. I sincerely wish you would step off this issue and leave it to Americans to fix. I don't think any country has a perfect care industry- a country like Sweden, for example, has a great system, but when it gets bogged down they'll let the elderly die. Canada isn't so perfect, neither, I bet, is Cuba.

The USA has really got to revolutionize medicare before it turns into a real civil-war.

Oh, back to the topic: let the conservative-right wing pig's wife die a slow painful and expensive death! Moore sucks because he gave money to save that couple's life from bankruptcy. Damn him for being kind! F***ing liberal do-gooder!
 
  by: theironboard     05/21/2007 09:07 PM     
  I just don't get it.  
 
Why can't people seem to understand that Moore is in fact a terrible person? Those of you who think he's so great or even just alright because he brings light to particular issues don't seem to realize that he's not presenting these issues in a factual way. I'm not America is the greatest place, but he makes it look at lot worse than it actually is. How? By misrepresenting, distorting, and lying. How anyone can find this acceptable is beyond me.

Those of you who are standing behind Moore are the ones who cry out against Bush for doing the same things, misrepresenting, distorting, and lying...yet you still defend Moore. Why? Because he has the same views as you? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

If Moore was such a great person and really cared about the issues rather than his own personal agenda, he would make a documentary with straight facts. If there really is a problem, he should have no problem showing that.
 
  by: Gnaglor     05/21/2007 09:29 PM     
  michael moore  
 
is certainly not the ideal of accurate journalism. But I can appreciate that he says something different and hopefully will get people to think about issues, which is something we really need here. Just remember how EVERY major news station was beating the war drum a few years ago. In a situation like that, anyone breaking the mold is a good thing.

I find him to be over the top and a possibly a little arrogant, but with all the assholes running this country thats nothing unique. I don't agree with Michael Moore, but I sure as hell don't agree with (or believe) George Bush in any way.

We could definitely use more people like him, not necessarily in message, but in speaking out. But some people (like but not limited to lauriesman) attack him personally and bash the fact that he gets a few bucks for making widely seen movies.
 
  by: reverend j roach     05/21/2007 09:33 PM     
  @lauriesman, all  
 
"Who would I hold up? Hmm.... America really hasn't had that many shining lights in recent years."

I can't think of too many shining lights in recent past anywhere. For every bright light, someone somewhere has much to say about how much energy the light is using, or how it has contributed to mercury pollution at some point in its past, or how that light just might be flickering a little or lighting a little inconsistently on one side. So, that light really isn't too be so highly regarded, and we shouldn't ever trust it for anything - better we just sit in the dark.

Its been said that there is no true philanthropy, and that's probably true here. Given that he's such a high-profile figure, plenty of people will demonize and deify Moore regardless of what he does. Think about it, if he sits home, people will talk about how he's just living off the fat of his previous movie and never cared. If he makes more movies, people will complain about his relentless exploitation of his subjects. His motives aside, I think that if Kenefick hasn't the money to put where his mouth is to return this evil, tainted sum to the dastardly Moore, he ought to keep it shut on the matter.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/21/2007 09:38 PM     
  I know I sound a bit brainwashed, but...  
 
... if I had to choose between... Spider-man 3 and Sicko, I'd choose Sicko.
 
  by: theironboard     05/21/2007 09:58 PM     
  @goge  
 
"The guy didnt know moore was donating the money, and certainly didnt know it would appear in the movie."

Ok, well if he found out that Moore sent it before it was spent, once again I say, he should have sent it back. If it was already spent, then pay Moore his money back or shut the h*ll up.

"That you support moore in the use of someones terminaly ill spouse as a weapon against them says a lot about your charecter."

Oh yeah, Moore used someone's terminally ill spouse as a weapon against them by giving the man $12,000!!! What exactly does that say about my character? This is an idiotic comment, had Moore not given the money, his terminally ill wife might not be alive at all.

What the hell is wrong with people? I sure as hell thought that my hatred for a man that has NEVER done anything against me personally would go away when he gave me $12,000 to save my dying wife. I guess others in this thread would rather that she die so that he couldn't put it in the damn movie! Get over yourselves!
 
  by: kcking05     05/21/2007 09:59 PM     
  So the guy  
 
Should have let his wife die or accept michael mores views as correct?

Since when was shut up or I wont save the life of your wife acceptable?

Do you not see how that easily translates into only rich people can vote?

I dont get how this hard to understand

MICHEAL MOORE IS A LIAR.

He does not tell the truth, he lies, he misquotes, he docters interviews, he splices interviews together to twist there purpose.

Do you support lies if they make your ideals look good, yes or no?
Do you want a healthcare system made on lies?
A country ran on lies?

Lies are bad, is that hard to understand?

Am I missing something?
 
  by: GogeVandire   05/21/2007 10:39 PM     
  @ Michael Moore  
 
I'm not convinced at all that this was a selfless act. I haven't seen all of Mr. Moore's movies or done a lot of research on him, but this is the what really makes me cautious about this man. He gives 12,000 dollars to save a man's wife, Great!, but wait.. it's not just any man, it's a man who is constantly critizing Michael Moore. It just seems like Mr. Moore is a master of cheap publicity. If he was really a caring person he would be giving donations to people and you would never hear about it. The fact that you hear about this ONE and he just came out with a movie about healthcare... it's not charity folks, it's publicity.
 
  by: dqwon1   05/21/2007 10:47 PM     
  @kcking, @Tib, @MOC, @Reverend  
 
KCKING: You can't give back what you do not have. If you were broke, and I gave you $5, and you spent it on something really important, and then realised that it was tainted and wanted to give it back, just how are you going to do that? You're BROKE which was the issue in the first place.

@TIB: Don't assume that just because I am Australian, and live in Australia, that I am not acquainted with your shambles of a health system. I have many close friends in America, and I know what they go through to get healthcare, I know the bullshit scam you guys call health insurance too.

MOC: Same as I said to kcking.

@rev: I couldn't care less if Moore made a billion dollars on each movie. What concerns me is HOW he is going about making those movies, and the lies and abuses of other people he perpetrates in order to make it.

A documentary is supposed to be a factual and honest critique, not a contentious brew of lies, misinformation, context shifting, and twisting of material to suit an agenda.

Personally, I think the guy should start a request for donations to pay Moore back his filthy money.
 
  by: lauriesman     05/22/2007 02:13 AM     
  Also  
 
The truth is, the state of US health care is in such crisis, there really is no need to go to such extreme and ugly ends to make an insightful and prominent film about it. It's more like shooting fish in a barrel.
 
  by: lauriesman     05/22/2007 04:17 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
"You can't give back what you do not have."

I understand that, and so he should keep his mouth shut, at least about this incident. If my enemy were to so masterfully play me, I would grumble under my breath about what an SOB he was and move on, because he's going to look at least like a sore loser and at most an ungrateful prick. Whether or not he's been had, at the end of the day he still owes Moore a debt of gratitude for the money.

Frankly, it kind of sounds like he's a dick anyway, so I care little about his predicament.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/22/2007 05:25 AM     
  @Moc  
 
I agree, and like I said, if he really is that worried he should ask for donations to cover it - there's enough people with agro against Moore that he should make 12,000 fairly quickly.

That doesn't change that what Moore did is morally wrong, dirty and underhanded. Masterful, yes - Moore is definitely a master at what he does - but utterly contemptable.
 
  by: lauriesman     05/22/2007 05:47 AM     
  @Lauriesman  
 
If Moore's motives were as black as some contend, sure. However some, and I dare say most, are not Michael Moore, and cannot say for certain.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/22/2007 07:07 AM     
  @MOC  
 
*chuckles*
 
  by: lauriesman     05/22/2007 08:06 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
you can dislike moore for being factually inaccurate, but you can't completely dismiss his intentions to do good.

http://www.youtube.com/...

if moore were simply a vile pundit on the opposite end of the spectrum then i'd agree with you. however, he does more than just bash bush. he's an activist.

i'd also like to remind you that kenefick was shutting down his site before he received the donation. moore gave him the money and perfect scenario to continue bashing him.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     05/22/2007 08:37 AM     
  @Manila  
 
So when Moore olies out of intnetion to do good its ok?
But when Bush does it its bad?

Why does Moore have a free pass for telling lies?
What am I missing, why is it ok for this man to lie?
 
  by: Gogevandire   05/22/2007 09:20 AM     
  @Gog  
 
Lol, wow... what would Micheal Moore require of you to not declare him as lucifer himself?

Call me a little nuts here, but I find it to be a hard reach to put documentaries regarding improving gun control restrictions, preventing un-unnecessary wars, and improving the health care system in the same egg basket as where you might... put an evil diabolical mastermind villainous plot...

Despite how loud you scream "lier" at the top of your lungs, I don't think his intention is to unwind the fabric of our society as we know it. But to address a possible area where there might be some room for improvement.

But take it as you will. I'll continue to watch him and his documentaries and you will still probably hate him for your own reasons.

Peace out.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   05/22/2007 09:39 AM     
  @goge  
 
when did i say it was okay for anyone to lie? care to explain my position for me?

what i did say is that moore does good actions, which makes him better than bush. most people from both sides merely engage in a battle of words without any positive action being accomplished.

punditry aside, anyone who is active in actually helping people has my respect. i can curse all day long while i'm feeding the homeless. my words may not be respectable, but my actions are.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     05/22/2007 09:40 AM     
  Define good?  
 
I very much doubt Bush walks home at night looks in the mirror and says, wow, I'm a very bad man.

Moore is a liar, yes?
And you think this is ok, yes?
Therefore, its ok to lie, yes?

@Ukcn
If gun control restrictions are good, why does moore have to tell lies to convince people of such?
If Iraq was an unnecessary war, why does Moore have to lie to convice people it was?
If its a good for the government to pay for universal healthcare, why does Moore have to lie to convice people of such?


One final point
"But take it as you will. I'll continue to watch him and his documentaries"
Why?
For what possible reason?
They're proven to be bullshit.
No more factual than a Bush administration press release.
Considerably less factual than an episode of Jericho.

Another for Manila

"i can curse all day long while i'm feeding the homeless"
Are you trying to imply Moore is doing such?

Moores docutainment films are proven to be factualy bullshit, yet your all putting him on a pedastel like he's mother terrasa.
 
  by: Gogevandire   05/22/2007 11:45 AM     
  Publicity  
 
He only paid the bills for media attention.You can easily give cash without a trace!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
  by: dawg1   05/22/2007 01:22 PM     
  @Gogevandire  
 
I stated in my previous post the positives.

Please enlighten me upon specific examples of lying? Perhaps your right, but before casting someone a flat out liar I'd like to know what the tragic travesty is that was committed?

I would like to see a source without too many hip shots, if possible.
Thanks.

 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   05/22/2007 03:14 PM     
  @goge  
 
"Moore is a liar, yes?
And you think this is ok, yes?
Therefore, its ok to lie, yes?"

i just finished saying that lying is never justified, and that i respect moore primarily for his work as an activist and not a pundit. are you trying to fill carnold's void? stop being stupid. just stop.
 
  by: ManilaRyce     05/22/2007 03:30 PM     
  @Ukcn and Manila  
 
@Ukcn
Laurie has offered plenty of examples, read above.

@Manila
Lying is never justified, well, i disagree with that, but I get what you mean.

"and that i respect moore primarily for his work as an activist"

I fail to see how Moore can champion a cause.
I dont trust anything he says, because he's a proven unappologetic liar.
Therefore, if Moore says the sky is blue, I'll look out the window and check.
Same as I would for Bush Blair or anyone else like that.

The only difference between Bush and Moore is Moore is on your "side".
 
  by: Gogevandire   05/22/2007 04:00 PM     
  @Manila  
 
"i just finished saying that lying is never justified, and that i respect moore primarily for his work as an activist and not a pundit."

This reads as, I respect a liar because he agrees with my views.
 
  by: Gnaglor     05/22/2007 08:32 PM     
  Moore  
 
Moore distorts facts to support his views. I don't think there's anything to debate there. In the one interview of Moore I saw, he was quite candid about this.

It's not praise worthy but I don't find it particularly worthy of condemnation either. There is no parallel with the Bush administration as far as I'm concerned. The government exists to serve the public, they have an obligation to not mislead the public. I don't believe that Moore has anything close to that kind of obligation to his audience. I don't believe that he incurs any such obligation by virtue of being a 'documentary' film maker.

No, Moore's documentary are not objective or fair. I don't see how anyone could create objective documentaries on social and political issues.

On this particular issue, the reality is quite simple. Moore is a human being. His motivations can be many and do not have to be consistent. Even assuming the worst of him, assuming that his only motivation is to exploit this this man's ill wife... let me ask this: so what?
 
  by: bane39   05/22/2007 09:13 PM     
  Hope.  
 
I only hope that Moore makes the average American more aware of the problems in our society and able to make decisions on their own.

9/11 seems like a cakewalk compared to health-care. Yeesh.
 
  by: theironboard     05/22/2007 09:24 PM     
  How can  
 
a lie make you more aware of something?
 
  by: GogeVandire   05/22/2007 10:05 PM     
  @GogeVandire  
 
You seem very passionate with your view on Moore as does lauriesman. But I've been over all of Lauriesman comments twice and I've yet to see a specific example of lying with regard to any source.

The only thing relative lauriesman has is the same point of view and I don't think two people screaming liar in unison is enough to turn two aligned opinions into a fact.

Again, I humbly request some proof of life with your statement of calling another man a liar.

A source rather than a gut feeling opinion would be optimal... I'll mention ahead of time that it would preferably not be something from rush or fox news... usually you scratch the surface a little with most of their politically aligned pieces and story starts to unwind quite quickly.

 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   05/23/2007 12:41 AM     
  @uk  
 
The burden of proof falls in-between the posters and readers of ShortNews. Depending on who you converse with and how many times they've already posted on the topic in previous forums, the burden of tracking down proof is sometimes left to you, the reader, and is sometimes provided by the poster.

In this case, I believe I read that lauriesman said to another poster that he's already posted links in previous forums and it is quite easy to do a search for michael moore liar and many sites will come up with the proof you are asking for.

This is going to be one of those instances when you are to search it out yourself, which is really what people should do anyways.

<a href="http://search.yahoo.com/... target=_blank>Yahoo! "michael moore liar"</a>
 
  by: Gnaglor     05/23/2007 06:28 AM     
  Heh, it's been so long...  
 
Since I've posted a link I forgot that ShortNews doesn't require html.
 
  by: Gnaglor     05/23/2007 06:29 AM     
  @Gnaglor  
 
I googled your search term of: michael moore liar.

And of what I found of the first 10 results where the following legit sources, weeded out were the copied and pasted chain emails that have been floating around that have the same puffed up attitude about Moore with no actual bite to any of the accusations.


1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Pro's and Con's of Moore. Lots of opinions no facts.

2. http://www.preventtruthdecay.com/...
Here's one with a few tidbits. I'll show them:

LIE: The Lockheed-Martin facility depicted in the film is presented as a manufacturer of weapons of mass destruction. (TRUTH: the facility produces rockets for launching satellites) - Well they did previously and they have produced cruize missles for both the Iraq and Iran wars.

LIE: The NRA is callous to gun slayings. (TRUTH: the evidence distorted to reach this infactual end is expansive. The sequence in Bowling in which Charlton Heston gives a defiant pro-gun speech in Denver is edited to unbelievable distortion. The fiery "cold dead hands" statement was not even made in Denver, but a YEAR after the Denver (annual NRA members' meeting) in Charlotte, North Carolina.

-ok, he said the words, but the exact location/time was wrong?

LIE: The impression is given in Bowling that the NRA and the KKK were (are?) parallel groups - or more likely, that when the Klan was outlawed, the NRA filled its shoes. (TRUTH: Charlton Heston is NOT a racist, as alleged in Bowling. Heston involved himself in the civil rights movement in the early 60's while the issue was still too hot for Hollywooders concerned about their careers. He also helped Martin Luther King break the Hollywood color barrier that existed at that time. After its founding in New York by two Union Officers, the NRA itself has a long and comprehensive history of aligning itself in diametrical opposition to racism and the KKK.)
- I watched bowling for columbine and my interpretation was not the same as this. Not sure how interpretation is a platform of declaring someone as a liar. Not much substance by my "impression".

LIE: Moore sympathizes with the "little boy" at Buell Elementary in Michigan who just found a gun in his uncle's house and took it to school to kill a girl. Moore says "No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl". (TRUTH: The "little boy" was the class bully and was already suspended for stabbing another child with a pencil. Since that incident, the "little boy" also stabbed another kid with a knife. Also- the "uncle's house" was a neighborhood crack house. The uncle and the "little boy's" father were, at the time, serving time for theft and cocaine possession. His aunt earned her living from drug dealing. The gun was stolen by one of the uncle's customers and purchased by him in exchange for drugs.

-So Moore should have predicted future events with his quote. Why people do what that do is hard for even Moore to guess, he's not a psychic of future events and prob not a palm reader. Being a class bully is a matter of an "impression" as well. I once accidentally fell on a friend in elementary school with a pen and I got in trouble for that. Does that make me a bull too?

Last one I'll clearify... I won't spoon feed anymore unlike what the copy & paste list is that's floating around out there of what the Moore critics would like you to believe.

And finally...

LIE: Bowling makes note of $245 million that the U.S. gave to the Taliban government of Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001 and then proceeds to illustrate the alleged "result" by showing planes hitting the twin towers. (TRUTH: The $245 million in aid was given through the U.N. and non-governmental organizations to relieve the famine that existed in Afghanistan at that time.

This one was a tough one to trace. I had to go to world bank for find the reuters report. The gov link on this transaction has since been removed.

A summary...
Since the collapse of Taliban in late 2001, the World Bank is engaged in the reconstruction of a number of sectors including public administration, health, education, community development roads. Of $315 million the bank has committed as assistance since early 2002, over 80 million has been disbursed and another 300 million is planned for 2004. "The reconstruction of Afghanistan is the rebuilding of a state that was broken by war, not just the repair of damaged infrastructure," World Bank country director Alastair Mckechnie said. He also said that a tremendous amount of work is going on in Afghanistan over the past year in the preparation of multiple programs and projects.

later... 2 paragraphs down after the timeline has been established:

Reuters, meanwhile, reports that US Treasury Secretary John Snow said on Thursday he hoped Afghanistan would receive around $2 billion in extra aid, warning that failure to rebuild the war-ravaged country "cannot be an option". US Treasury
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   05/23/2007 08:45 AM     
  more... last post was cut off  
 
Reuters, meanwhile, reports that US Treasury Secretary John Snow said on Thursday he hoped Afghanistan would receive around $2 billion in extra aid, warning that failure to rebuild the war-ravaged country "cannot be an option". US Treasury officials later said the specific amount Washington would make available for new projects in Afghanistan was $1.2 billion, of which $400 million would be available immediately and $800 million was on request from Congress. Officials said the allocation of the money would be about $564 million for security—such as police and border and highway patrols--$245 million for improving government operations and $380 million for projects for roads, schools and health clinics. Snow was due to participate in a donor conference on Afghanistan in Dubai over the weekend, which will be held on the sidelines of the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank.
(source: http://web.worldbank.org/...
midway down the page.

So take it for what it's worth. The US was involved with this funding, despite the circumstances. This isn't a lie.

But anyhow, all I will say on the issue. I doubt this will change the minds of any nay sayers, I'm sure they're pretty set with their mindset anyhow.

Keep forwarding those anti-moore chain emails around though.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   05/23/2007 08:50 AM     
  @Ukcn  
 
LIE: The NRA is callous to gun slayings. (TRUTH: the evidence distorted to reach this infactual end is expansive. The sequence in Bowling in which Charlton Heston gives a defiant pro-gun speech in Denver is edited to unbelievable distortion. The fiery "cold dead hands" statement was not even made in Denver, but a YEAR after the Denver (annual NRA members' meeting) in Charlotte, North Carolina.

-ok, he said the words, but the exact location/time was wrong?

Which makes him a liar, is that hard to understand?
He said, such a heston said this at this time, he didnt, he said over a year later, in a different interview, about something else entirely.
He knowingly spliced together different interviews and claimed they were one.

Does that not count for some reason?

Also, cruise missiles are not weapons of mass destruction under any definition.
Moore lies, note the pun.
 
  by: Gogevandire   05/23/2007 09:29 AM     
  @Gogevandire  
 
well brand him a crazy old coot liar than. I didn't expect you'd be like, you know maybe some of what he says is based upon the best information he had at the time....
Wait a min that sounds familiar to another man currently in office with a justification to WMD in Iraq...hmm..

Anyhow most of it is nit picking from my point of view. It's not 100% accurate, but in nearly every case the nit picking has very little to do with the main point of argument presented by more.

So if you were to point at something and ask me it's color and I said eeeh, i'd go with gray with this one, you would start jumping up and down and calling me a dirty no good yellow dog liar while screaming it's light beige, light BEIGE!!! And I would reply...oh.. ok. But I was pretty close though right?

Nooo! Your absolutely lying!!! And then you flip a coin and ask me hey! what side did it land on...? I say heads, and then you say nOOOOOO! You're a liar it can't be heads, you cannot speak of any truth your message is absolutely void... and I ask you what side is it and you go... hmm, it appears to be heads but that absolutely cannot be the case because you were proven a complete liar a moment ago. So the answer is anything but heads!

Well kids the point here is lets not brand a man as a lifetime liar just because you miss the message itself and go nit picking after things that are of little relevance.

If you were to live out your days in that state of mind I suggest you don't tune into the weather channels. Those baggars are the biggest bunch of lying satan worshipers! It was suppose to be sunny today, but all I got was rain!!!

Ok. Well I can't imagine that this will convert any hardened moore haters, but what can you do... nitpick, i guess...?
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   05/23/2007 10:15 AM     
  Don't forget  
 
The filming of Moore allegedly waving the picture at Heston who walks away and calling out to him etc - which has been pretty conclusively proven to be faked out of cut and spliced footage , half of which Heston was not even present for. Also, the incogruity with the length of time Moore states the interview took annd when it took place versus the clock in the film background.

But back to the speech for a moment. Others have already read about this as I have posted it before. The speech charleton heston gave after columbine at the NRA annual meeting was one of compassion and commiseration. If you read the full transcript, there is no way you can get any other impression. The NRA is legally obliged to hold an annual general meeting, and can only cancel that meeting by notifying ALL members 10 days in advance. That was not possible. If the NRA had failed to hold the meeting, their status as a tax-exempt non-profit organisation would have been revoked. Next, the NRA cancelled EVERY event they could for the meeting, everything but the meeting itself. This wasn't a pro-gun rally as Moore tries to show, it was an annual general meeting held with much somber attitude and with sensitivity.

I could go on, but if you are determined to believe that Moore is just only accidentally besmirched, twisted and connived adn that it was all just incidental, I'd be wasting my time.
 
  by: lauriesman     05/23/2007 10:22 AM     
  @Ukcn  
 
And again.

Not liking moore doesnt make me a Bushite.
I think Bush is a liar aswell.

Both of them are scum.

But as laurisman has repeatedly pointed out, Moore wasnt mis informed, he was purposefully deceitful
 
  by: Gogevandire   05/23/2007 10:29 AM     
  hmm...  
 
"This wasn't a pro-gun rally as Moore tries to show, it was an annual general meeting held with much somber attitude and with sensitivity."

Isn't the NRA the National Rifle Association? If I was a gambling man, and I knew nothing but the name itself. It's prob guess it's most likely a pro gun group, with or without Moore telling me...?
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   05/23/2007 03:47 PM     
  Ukcn  
 
Yes, they believe in legal firearms ownership, they didnt hold a "rally" though.

They held a meeting they were legaly obliged to hold, theres a difference.
 
  by: Gogevandire   05/23/2007 04:00 PM     
  But  
 
anyhow, whatever floats your boat... I agree with a good majority of Moore's message.

His work is highly controversial , no doubt about that. It points out a lot of areas that could use a improvement with our system. I agree with very much with his main message, there's always room for improvement and now is the time that we could certainly use some change, hence his documentaries win lots of awards and recognition.

The nitpicking of details to me is not all that relevant to me.

Charles Heston's "gun ownership rights from my cold dead hands" message, wether it was in Denver, Co or a NRA meeting at a salad bar at hooters filmed 6 years ago still has the meaning of a man who obviously loves root'n and shoot'n stuff. He's a gun fanatic. I knew that before Moore showed his clip, nothing new there.

Moore's work involves much radical change, so of course there will be those that disagree.

The sharp scowling criticism is expected with this much controversy...
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   05/23/2007 04:06 PM     
  @Ukcn  
 
So you think its ok for Moore to tell lies because he agrees with your views?

Do you think its great that Fox News tells lies?
 
  by: Gogevandire   05/23/2007 05:19 PM     
  lies no, message yes.  
 
n/c
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   05/23/2007 06:41 PM     
  More on Moore  
 
Whatever your take on Moore might be, he brings to light many issues that often times lack public awareness.

The awareness he offers, to me, brings about new interests in issues I was previously unaware of. I find myself looking deeper into certain issues now b/c of Moore.

That's the message I get from Moore, a new found awareness of issues.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   05/23/2007 08:03 PM     
  I know i'm off topic here but...  
 
let's say that your wife is terminally ill. You are BROKE, and cannot afford to pay for her premiums. With your wife's life at stake, you receive an anonymous donation that pays for her treatment.

WITH THAT BEING SAID...

If you really love your wife, and wanted her to live, does it matter who sent the money? Does it matter why they sent the money? Doesn't money spend the same way no matter what?

Since he didn't know who sent it initially, and he can't pay Moore back, how the hell does he have the right to be angry? If I were a 12 time felon, and I gave someone $12,000 for his wife to LIVE, I would put it in a movie too if I could, and I damn well better not hear about the guy being bitter!

WHAT THE HELL?????

@Goge
This is what is easy to understand:
The motives of an action DO NOT change the action taken. Whether you like it or not, whether you like Moore or not, Jim Kenefick's wife is alive today because of him.


P.S. I don't like Michael Moore or President Bush, but if either of them gave me $12,000 to save a loved one, the only thing I would publicly say is "THANK YOU"
 
  by: kcking05     05/23/2007 08:49 PM     
  @uck, @kcking  
 
uck: The problem is, if you accept what Moore is telling you then you are starting off and building your exploration of the issue on a fundementally flawed basis.

@kcking: He has a right to be angry because was decieved, the money was tainted and instead of being upfront about it and saying "You know, I feel sorry for your problem and I can spare the cash, let me take care of your wife's medical bills. And by the way, do you mind if I put this in the movie?" he went about it in a totally underhanded way.

Noone likes being tricked, or decieved about the nature of goods. If I gave you a bike to raffle, and you found out it was stolen, AFTER the raffle, you'd be pissed off right?
 
  by: lauriesman     05/24/2007 03:00 AM     
  Michael Moore's take on Canadian health care  
 
I am a Canadian. You poor Americans have no idea how great it is to not worry about medical bills. The propaganda you get from the insurance industry and the AMA is all distortions and lies. We don't have long waits to see a doctor. We can chose our own doctors. The equipment is there, available, and top of the line. We get great medical care. Everything Moore said is absolutely true. I have never waited more than half an hour in emergency, and I've been there many times both for myself and for my children. My father in law, in his eighties, had both knees replaced with plastic and titanium joints and was walking without a cane and dancing within two months. My son is a hemophiliac. He could never get health insurance in America. But he gets thousands of dollars worth of care and expensive treatment in Canada, all paid for by tax dollars. My mother, also in her eighties, is being treated for mouth cancer, and she is getting more attention than I can believe. And no, we aren't taxed to death. We're happy to pay for ths sytem because it is so great. Our health care system is fantastic, and I sure hope you all adopt something similar. How can the most powerful, richest country in the world do anything less?
 
  by: Themaninchina   01/13/2008 09:05 AM     
  @Themaninchina  
 
Well said.

I feel the same way about the British system, given that I grew up with it. Sure, it gets bad press sometimes. People like to whine about it. But if I ever became seriously ill I would jump on the first flight back to England. I would not risk bankruptcy in America or paying medical bills for the rest of my life. In fact my wife and I will almost certainly retire to England, because old people in America are treated so horribly when it comes to health care.

What I find amazing though is how reluctant many Americans are to see any change in the system. We just came bottom of the preventable deaths league table. The only one of 19 industrialized countries that had not seen a marked improvement over the past 5 years. According to 2007 CIA figures our infant mortality rate is not even in the top 40 countries in the world. The religious right bitch about abortion, but once the kid is born care not if it lives or dies.

Sadly, most of the people with the power to change anything have amazing world class health care. The tens of millions with no access, have no power to change anything. They've also been convinced that change would be bad for them. As a result there is little political will to try and mend this broken system.
 
  by: ZCT     01/13/2008 05:35 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com