ADVERTISEMENT

Michael Moore Debunks the whole "Bernie Can't Win" Argument

Nov 28, 2010
87,523
42,336
113
Maryland
http://michaelmoore.com/MyEndorsementOfBernie/

When I was a child, they said there was no way this majority-Protestant country of ours would ever elect a Catholic as president. And then John Fitzgerald Kennedy was elected president.

The next decade, they said America would not elect a president from the Deep South. The last person to do that on his own (not as a v-p) was Zachary Taylor in 1849. And then we elected President Jimmy Carter.

In 1980, they said voters would never elect a president who had been divorced and remarried. Way too religious of a country for that, they said. Welcome, President Ronald Reagan, 1981-89.

They said you could not get elected president if you had not served in the military. No one could remember when someone who hadn’t served had been elected Commander-in-Chief. Or who had confessed to trying (but not inhaling!) Illegal drugs. President Bill Clinton, 1993-2001.

And then finally “they” saId that there’s NO WAY the Democrats were going to win if they nominated a BLACK man for president — a black man who’s middle name was Hussein! America was still too racist for that. “Don’t do it!”, people quietly warned each other.

BOOM!

Do you ever wonder why the pundits, the political class, are always so sure that Americans “just aren’t ready” for something — and then they’re always just so wrong? They says these things because they want to protect the status quo. They don’t want the boat rocked. They try to scare the average person into voting against their better judgment.

And now, this year “they” are claiming that there’s no way a “democratic socialist” can get elected President of the United States. That is the main talking point coming now from the Hillary Clinton campaign office.

But all the polls show Bernie Sanders actually BEATING Donald Trump by twice as many votes than if Hillary Clinton was the candidate.

Although the polls nationally show Hillary beating Bernie among DEMOCRATS, when the pollster includes all INDEPENDENTS, then Sanders beats Trump two to one over what Clinton would do.

The way the Clinton campaign has been red-baiting Sanders is unfortunate — and tone deaf. According to NBC, 43% of Iowa Dems identify themselves more closely with socialism (sharing, helping) than with capitalism (greed, inequality). Most polls now show young adults (18-35) across America prefer socialism (fairness) to capitalism (selfishness).

So, what is democratic socialism? It’s having a true democracy where everyone has a seat at the table, where everyone has a voice, not just the rich.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary recently announced the most looked-up word in their online dictionary in 2015 was “socialism.” If you’re under 49 (the largest voting block), the days of the Cold War & Commie Pinkos & the Red Scare look as stupid as “Reefer Madness.”

If Hillary’s biggest selling point as to why you should vote for her is, “Bernie’s a socialist!” or “A socialist can’t win!”, then she’s lost.

The New York Times, which admitted it made up stories of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq & pushed us to invade that country, has now endorsed Hillary Clinton, the candidate who voted for the Iraq War. I thought the Times had apologized and reformed itself. What Is going on here?

Well, the Times likes its candidates to be realistic and pragmatic. And to them, that means Hillary Clinton. She doesn’t want to break up the banks, doesn’t want to bring back Glass-Steagall, doesn’t want to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr., doesn’t want Denmark’s free health care system. Just not realistic, I guess.

Of course, there was a time when the media said it wasn’t “realistic” to pass a constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote. They said it would never pass because only all-male legislators would be voting on it in the Congress and the State Legislatures. And that, obviously, meant it would never pass. They were wrong.

They once said that it wasn’t “realistic” to pass a Civil Rights Act AND a Voting Rights Act back to back. America just wasn’t “ready for it.” Both passed, in 1964 & 1965.

Ten years ago we were told gay marriage would never be the law of the land. Good thing we didn’t listen to those who told us to be “pragmatic.”

Hillary says Bernie’s plans just aren’t “realistic” or “pragmatic.” This week she said “single payer health care will NEVER, EVER, happen.” Never? Ever? Wow. Why not just give up?

Hillary also says it’s not practical to offer free college for everyone. You can’t get more practical than the Germans – and they’re able to do it. As do many other countries.

Clinton does find ways to pay for war and tax breaks for the rich. Hillary Clinton was FOR the war in Iraq, AGAINST gay marriage, FOR the Patriot Act, FOR NAFTA, and wants to put Ed Snowden in prison. THAT’S a lot to wrap one’s head around, especially when you have Bernie Sanders as an alternative. He will be the opposite of all that.

There are many good things about Hillary. But it’s clear she’s to the right of Obama and will move us backwards, not forward. This would be sad. Very sad.

81% of the electorate is either female, people of color or young (18-35). And the Republicans have lost the VAST majority of 81% of the country. Whoever the Democrat is on the ballot come November will win. No one should vote out of fear. You should vote for whom you think best represents what you believe in. They want to scare you into thinking we’ll lose with Sanders. The facts, the polls, scream just the opposite: We have a BETTER chance with Bernie!

Trump is loud and scary — and liberals scare easy. But liberals also like facts. Here’s one: less than 19% of the USA is white guys over 35. So calm down!

Finally, Check out this chart — it says it all: (Note: Hillary has now changed her position and is against TPP)



I first endorsed Bernie Sanders for public office in 1990 when he, as mayor of Burlington, VT, asked me to come up there and hold a rally for him in his run to become Vermont’s congressman. I guess not many were willing to go stump for an avowed democratic socialist at the time. Probably someone is his hippie-filled campaign office said, “I’ll bet Michael Moore will do it!” They were right. I trucked up into the middle of nowhere and did my best to explain why we needed Bernie Sanders in the U.S. Congress. He won, I’ve been a supporter of his ever since, and he’s never given me reason to not continue that support. I honestly thought I’d never see the day come where I would write to you and get to say these words: “Please vote for Senator Bernie Sanders to be our next President of the United States of America.”

I wouldn’t ask this of you if I didn’t think we really, truly needed him. And we do. More than we probably know.
 
I think it shows the weakness of issues outside national security and economic ones. The examples given are media driven to a large extent and voters tend to look past those when it comes to making a decision.
 
12644898_10153266654726857_9181834615666675230_n.jpg

He voted to go into Afghanistan.
 
Real Clear Politics poll averages shows Bernie with a 5.3 point lead over Trump. Hillary has a 2.7 point lead over Trump.

So, while Mr. Moore is technically correct that Bernie is beating Trump by "twice as many votes than if Hillary Clinton was the candidate" that claim is still misleading.
 
Well, how much of an expert do you have to be to see that Hillary is a conservative?
I agree. Which is why I am puzzled at the vitriol directed toward her by the right. Sure, I understand they want someone even more to the right, and preferably sporting their brand, but they should be quite happy with Hillary's positions on most issues. Not abortion but - really - what else is not to like?
 
I agree. Which is why I am puzzled at the vitriol directed toward her by the right. Sure, I understand they want someone even more to the right, and preferably sporting their brand, but they should be quite happy with Hillary's positions on most issues. Not abortion but - really - what else is not to like?

You serious, Clark?
 
Hey, nobody's perfect. Most people thought that made sense. Even today, most probably think that made sense. Still being there over 14 years later, on the other hand....

It did make sense, imo, and would have made more sense if we did the things necessary to get Bin Laden when we had him surrounded in the mountains. Instead, we took all of our resources to Iraq.
 
She seems pretty conservative to me. Bill was probably the most effective recent republican.

Hillary wants paid family and medical leave.

Hillary wants an "equal pay for equal work" law.

Hillary wants more gun control.

Hillary wants a "path to citizenship" and supports Obama's illegal executive actions on immigration.

Hillary was against gay marriage before she was for it.

Hillary is for raising the minimum wage and raising taxes on the rich.

Hillary promises to defend Obamacare.

Hillary is for throwing money down a climate change rat hole (she wants half a billion solar panels by 2020).

I will admit she talks a big game regarding national defense and foreign policy, and she'd probably be more likely to use military force than a man because she'll feel like she has to be tough to prove a woman can be tough.
 
Hillary wants paid family and medical leave.

Hillary wants an "equal pay for equal work" law.

Hillary wants more gun control.

Hillary wants a "path to citizenship" and supports Obama's illegal executive actions on immigration.

Hillary was against gay marriage before she was for it.

Hillary is for raising the minimum wage and raising taxes on the rich.

Hillary promises to defend Obamacare.

Hillary is for throwing money down a climate change rat hole (she wants half a billion solar panels by 2020).

I will admit she talks a big game regarding national defense and foreign policy, and she'd probably be more likely to use military force than a man because she'll feel like she has to be tough to prove a woman can be tough.

She says things. She also didn't push for single payer.
 
I agree. Which is why I am puzzled at the vitriol directed toward her by the right. Sure, I understand they want someone even more to the right, and preferably sporting their brand, but they should be quite happy with Hillary's positions on most issues. Not abortion but - really - what else is not to like?

The box of 'Issues' listed above is pathetic. Why are Keystone pipeline, Whistleblowing by Snowden, Prisons for Profit, and Campaign Finance reform constituted as top issues? really? Who is going to deal with an American and global economy on the brink of an ugly recession? Which candidate has real thoughts on making American jobs more plentiful for the ACTUAL workforce that is here- not the new trumped-up work force the govt is now measuring? Who is going to do some real work on the health care system of this country so it works for everyone without bankrupting the system? I don't think Bernie can win and that is too bad. he is very reasonable and creative candidate that could be a very good leader. Not sure if anyone saw M Dowds op ed this weekend on Trump. It was hysterical and spot on. The idea that Trump in his current form could be elected is the true travesty for this country. He appeals to the non-thinking majority in this country while hiding behind his inane hubris and complete inability to answer any real questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThorneStockton
I couldn't get past this loaded BS in the article....

" identify themselves more closely with socialism (sharing, helping) than with capitalism (greed, inequality). Most polls now show young adults (18-35) across America prefer socialism (fairness) to capitalism (selfishness)."

If you truly believe those descriptors fit socialism and capitalism, then you are simply sheep being lead to the slaughter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panic1769
I couldn't get past this loaded BS in the article....

" identify themselves more closely with socialism (sharing, helping) than with capitalism (greed, inequality). Most polls now show young adults (18-35) across America prefer socialism (fairness) to capitalism (selfishness)."

If you truly believe those descriptors fit socialism and capitalism, then you are simply sheep being lead to the slaughter.

Please provide your descriptors.

I don't want to get slaughtered.
 
Hillary wants paid family and medical leave.

Hillary wants an "equal pay for equal work" law.

Hillary wants more gun control.

Hillary wants a "path to citizenship" and supports Obama's illegal executive actions on immigration.

Hillary was against gay marriage before she was for it.

Hillary is for raising the minimum wage and raising taxes on the rich.

Hillary promises to defend Obamacare.

Hillary is for throwing money down a climate change rat hole (she wants half a billion solar panels by 2020).

I will admit she talks a big game regarding national defense and foreign policy, and she'd probably be more likely to use military force than a man because she'll feel like she has to be tough to prove a woman can be tough.
Take away the health care parts - because Hillary will do no more than tweak Obamacare - and maybe the minimum wage boost, and most of the rest shouldn't bother most conservatives. A few of them ought to be conservative positions.

In particular, what part of the conservative philosophy says you have to be stupid and/or dishonest about science?

The gay marriage thing certainly shouldn't be a conservative "value." It's a religious bigotry issue, plain and simple. Those people may vote R, but that doesn't mean being a religious bigot is any part of being a conservative.

But I'm a lefty, so what do I know? If cons want to insist you have to be stupid, dishonest and delusional to be counted as a conservative, who am I to argue? Shout it on the mountaintop.
 
I couldn't get past this loaded BS in the article....

" identify themselves more closely with socialism (sharing, helping) than with capitalism (greed, inequality). Most polls now show young adults (18-35) across America prefer socialism (fairness) to capitalism (selfishness)."

If you truly believe those descriptors fit socialism and capitalism, then you are simply sheep being lead to the slaughter.
More true than false - which any honest disciple of Adam Smith should be quick to acknowledge and defend - but Michael was obviously preaching to the choir and going for grins with those digs.
 
Take away the health care parts - because Hillary will do no more than tweak Obamacare - and maybe the minimum wage boost, and most of the rest shouldn't bother most conservatives. A few of them ought to be conservative positions.

In particular, what part of the conservative philosophy says you have to be stupid and/or dishonest about science?

The gay marriage thing certainly shouldn't be a conservative "value." It's a religious bigotry issue, plain and simple. Those people may vote R, but that doesn't mean being a religious bigot is any part of being a conservative.

But I'm a lefty, so what do I know? If cons want to insist you have to be stupid, dishonest and delusional to be counted as a conservative, who am I to argue? Shout it on the mountaintop.


There's nothing stupid or dishonest about not wanting our government to start pissing away money on climate change. THAT would be a bigger fiscal black hole than education (i.e., no matter how much money you throw at it, it'll never be enough).

At least with education we can test kids to make sure they're actually learning something (of course, the teachers unions want to kill that). But there is NO WAY to measure whether anything we do to fight climate changes makes any difference whatsoever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamesvanderwulf
There's nothing stupid or dishonest about not wanting our government to start pissing away money on climate change. THAT would be a bigger fiscal black hole than education (i.e., no matter how much money you throw at it, it'll never be enough).

At least with education we can test kids to make sure they're actually learning something (of course, the teachers unions want to kill that). But there is NO WAY to measure whether anything we do to fight climate changes makes any difference whatsoever.
You are simply uneducated about this. Or should that be miseducated? I REALLY REALLY urge you to correct that.

Yes, that's 2 capitalized "really"s.

It's painful to argue with someone who is willfully ignorant about something so important.
 
You are simply uneducated about this. Or should that be miseducated? I REALLY REALLY urge you to correct that.

Yes, that's 2 capitalized "really"s.

It's painful to argue with someone who is willfully ignorant about something so important.

It's completely unimportant, and considering the climate is in a constant state of change with or without man, it's impossible to know if whatever we're doing is making a difference.
 
More true than false - which any honest disciple of Adam Smith should be quick to acknowledge and defend - but Michael was obviously preaching to the choir and going for grins with those digs.

I'm OK with: sharing, helping, greed and selfishness. I'd probably swap inequality with competitive and fairness with hmm, maybe mutual sacrifice/gain?

So yeah, I'd agree, more true than false.
 
Simply wrong. Embarrassingly wrong. Again, please educate yourself.

I'm educated just fine, thank you. I've heard scientists claim that even if we reduced emissions to zero today (impossible), the climate would keep warming for hundreds of years.

Sorry, I don't believe all the gloom and doom from your side.

Furthermore, a warming world would not be all bad. Many positive things would happen. But you never hear any of the climate change poindexters talk about that. Wonder why?
 
I'm educated just fine, thank you. I've heard scientists claim that even if we reduced emissions to zero today (impossible), the climate would keep warming for hundreds of years.

Sorry, I don't believe all the gloom and doom from your side.

Furthermore, a warming world would not be all bad. Many positive things would happen. But you never hear any of the climate change poindexters talk about that. Wonder why?
Only someone who is ignorant of the subject could make such asinine statements.
 
Moore is probably not an objective spokesperson. A lot of people just write him off no matter what he says
 
http://michaelmoore.com/MyEndorsementOfBernie/

When I was a child, they said there was no way this majority-Protestant country of ours would ever elect a Catholic as president. And then John Fitzgerald Kennedy was elected president.

The next decade, they said America would not elect a president from the Deep South. The last person to do that on his own (not as a v-p) was Zachary Taylor in 1849. And then we elected President Jimmy Carter.

In 1980, they said voters would never elect a president who had been divorced and remarried. Way too religious of a country for that, they said. Welcome, President Ronald Reagan, 1981-89.

They said you could not get elected president if you had not served in the military. No one could remember when someone who hadn’t served had been elected Commander-in-Chief. Or who had confessed to trying (but not inhaling!) Illegal drugs. President Bill Clinton, 1993-2001.

And then finally “they” saId that there’s NO WAY the Democrats were going to win if they nominated a BLACK man for president — a black man who’s middle name was Hussein! America was still too racist for that. “Don’t do it!”, people quietly warned each other.

BOOM!

Do you ever wonder why the pundits, the political class, are always so sure that Americans “just aren’t ready” for something — and then they’re always just so wrong? They says these things because they want to protect the status quo. They don’t want the boat rocked. They try to scare the average person into voting against their better judgment.

And now, this year “they” are claiming that there’s no way a “democratic socialist” can get elected President of the United States. That is the main talking point coming now from the Hillary Clinton campaign office.

But all the polls show Bernie Sanders actually BEATING Donald Trump by twice as many votes than if Hillary Clinton was the candidate.

Although the polls nationally show Hillary beating Bernie among DEMOCRATS, when the pollster includes all INDEPENDENTS, then Sanders beats Trump two to one over what Clinton would do.

The way the Clinton campaign has been red-baiting Sanders is unfortunate — and tone deaf. According to NBC, 43% of Iowa Dems identify themselves more closely with socialism (sharing, helping) than with capitalism (greed, inequality). Most polls now show young adults (18-35) across America prefer socialism (fairness) to capitalism (selfishness).

So, what is democratic socialism? It’s having a true democracy where everyone has a seat at the table, where everyone has a voice, not just the rich.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary recently announced the most looked-up word in their online dictionary in 2015 was “socialism.” If you’re under 49 (the largest voting block), the days of the Cold War & Commie Pinkos & the Red Scare look as stupid as “Reefer Madness.”

If Hillary’s biggest selling point as to why you should vote for her is, “Bernie’s a socialist!” or “A socialist can’t win!”, then she’s lost.

The New York Times, which admitted it made up stories of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq & pushed us to invade that country, has now endorsed Hillary Clinton, the candidate who voted for the Iraq War. I thought the Times had apologized and reformed itself. What Is going on here?

Well, the Times likes its candidates to be realistic and pragmatic. And to them, that means Hillary Clinton. She doesn’t want to break up the banks, doesn’t want to bring back Glass-Steagall, doesn’t want to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr., doesn’t want Denmark’s free health care system. Just not realistic, I guess.

Of course, there was a time when the media said it wasn’t “realistic” to pass a constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote. They said it would never pass because only all-male legislators would be voting on it in the Congress and the State Legislatures. And that, obviously, meant it would never pass. They were wrong.

They once said that it wasn’t “realistic” to pass a Civil Rights Act AND a Voting Rights Act back to back. America just wasn’t “ready for it.” Both passed, in 1964 & 1965.

Ten years ago we were told gay marriage would never be the law of the land. Good thing we didn’t listen to those who told us to be “pragmatic.”

Hillary says Bernie’s plans just aren’t “realistic” or “pragmatic.” This week she said “single payer health care will NEVER, EVER, happen.” Never? Ever? Wow. Why not just give up?

Hillary also says it’s not practical to offer free college for everyone. You can’t get more practical than the Germans – and they’re able to do it. As do many other countries.

Clinton does find ways to pay for war and tax breaks for the rich. Hillary Clinton was FOR the war in Iraq, AGAINST gay marriage, FOR the Patriot Act, FOR NAFTA, and wants to put Ed Snowden in prison. THAT’S a lot to wrap one’s head around, especially when you have Bernie Sanders as an alternative. He will be the opposite of all that.

There are many good things about Hillary. But it’s clear she’s to the right of Obama and will move us backwards, not forward. This would be sad. Very sad.

81% of the electorate is either female, people of color or young (18-35). And the Republicans have lost the VAST majority of 81% of the country. Whoever the Democrat is on the ballot come November will win. No one should vote out of fear. You should vote for whom you think best represents what you believe in. They want to scare you into thinking we’ll lose with Sanders. The facts, the polls, scream just the opposite: We have a BETTER chance with Bernie!

Trump is loud and scary — and liberals scare easy. But liberals also like facts. Here’s one: less than 19% of the USA is white guys over 35. So calm down!

Finally, Check out this chart — it says it all: (Note: Hillary has now changed her position and is against TPP)



I first endorsed Bernie Sanders for public office in 1990 when he, as mayor of Burlington, VT, asked me to come up there and hold a rally for him in his run to become Vermont’s congressman. I guess not many were willing to go stump for an avowed democratic socialist at the time. Probably someone is his hippie-filled campaign office said, “I’ll bet Michael Moore will do it!” They were right. I trucked up into the middle of nowhere and did my best to explain why we needed Bernie Sanders in the U.S. Congress. He won, I’ve been a supporter of his ever since, and he’s never given me reason to not continue that support. I honestly thought I’d never see the day come where I would write to you and get to say these words: “Please vote for Senator Bernie Sanders to be our next President of the United States of America.”

I wouldn’t ask this of you if I didn’t think we really, truly needed him. And we do. More than we probably know.
FYI, Germany does not offer free college education to everyone.
 
That's what Rush does. He talks to politicians as part of his job. MM makes false and inaccurate documentaries as propaganda for the govt.
I might argue that Rush's "talking to politicians as part of his job" is what makes him less qualified to talk about political issues.

Michael Moore makes documentaries, yes, but he also, by reasonable perception, spends a lot of time talking to actual people.

Take "Sicko" for example. I've been to Cuba twice -- less as a tourist and more as a family visitor -- and the info brought forward by Moore's documentary matches what I learned in conversations with the family and friends I met on my two stays in Cuba.

Rush builds good arguments but often they're based on fragments of truth/fact. He's not unlike Rachel Maddow.

You may not agree with Michael Moore's worldview but if you dig into his work it's solid.
 
I might argue that Rush's "talking to politicians as part of his job" is what makes him less qualified to talk about political issues.

Michael Moore makes documentaries, yes, but he also, by reasonable perception, spends a lot of time talking to actual people.

Take "Sicko" for example. I've been to Cuba twice -- less as a tourist and more as a family visitor -- and the info brought forward by Moore's documentary matches what I learned in conversations with the family and friends I met on my two stays in Cuba.

Rush builds good arguments but often they're based on fragments of truth/fact. He's not unlike Rachel Maddow.

You may not agree with Michael Moore's worldview but if you dig into his work it's solid.

Cubans live in abject poverty. If that's what it takes to make sure everybody can see a doctor, then NO FREAKING THANKS.
 
Cubans live in abject poverty. If that's what it takes to make sure everybody can see a doctor, then NO FREAKING THANKS.
It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. France doesn't live in abject poverty. I've spent a fair amount of time there, too, and they love their health care.

I only brought up Cuba, and Sicko, to make a point that Michael Moore doesn't make "false and inaccurate" documentaries as you suggested. There is a lot of truth in his work.

Fun to compare the two here:
Rush Limbaugh
Michael Moore
 
It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. France doesn't live in abject poverty. I've spent a fair amount of time there, too, and they love their health care.

I am about to see the doctor about a black fingernail I shut in the garage door. It's not something I would normally worry about, but my neighbours are concerned. They have given me the name of three specialists in the centre of town, and someone else has slipped a recommendation under the car windscreen wiper. "It's not so bad," I told my friend next door, but he looked horrified: "It's not the fingernail - it's the reforms."

New health reforms coming into force this year are designed to curb some of the excesses of the French system, particularly patients going directly to more than one specialist. France has traditionally been very generous to its patients and its pharmacists, which is why a lot of people are hoping that the new reforms will fade away and they can continue to be ill as in the good old days.

Of greatest impact to the average French person is that everyone must register with a médecin traitant by July 1 this year, meaning they have to nominate a single doctor, thus making the system a lot more "British". Patients will be able to change their doctor, but will need to notify the social security office. The government also hopes that patients will gain access to specialists only following a GP referral, instead of going directly to see a consultant based purely on their own personal hypotheses.

It is not going down well. The French are conditioned to believe that they need to visit the doctor after experiencing even the slightest sensation of discomfort. At the front line, this means waiting rooms full of relatively healthy people with minor ailments. Chaffed palms, clicking fingers, sore shins, general malaise - they're all there for a long prescription of pharmaceuticals. Indeed, such is the desire to medicate patients that some 10% of hospital admissions are for accidents médicamenteux (drug-related accidents). And it is this Hippocratic generosity that is partly to blame for the spiralling of the French health deficit towards €12bn (£8.3bn).

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2005/mar/22/healthandwellbeing.health


What the French love is unsustainable.
 
I am about to see the doctor about a black fingernail I shut in the garage door. It's not something I would normally worry about, but my neighbours are concerned. They have given me the name of three specialists in the centre of town, and someone else has slipped a recommendation under the car windscreen wiper. "It's not so bad," I told my friend next door, but he looked horrified: "It's not the fingernail - it's the reforms."

New health reforms coming into force this year are designed to curb some of the excesses of the French system, particularly patients going directly to more than one specialist. France has traditionally been very generous to its patients and its pharmacists, which is why a lot of people are hoping that the new reforms will fade away and they can continue to be ill as in the good old days.

Of greatest impact to the average French person is that everyone must register with a médecin traitant by July 1 this year, meaning they have to nominate a single doctor, thus making the system a lot more "British". Patients will be able to change their doctor, but will need to notify the social security office. The government also hopes that patients will gain access to specialists only following a GP referral, instead of going directly to see a consultant based purely on their own personal hypotheses.

It is not going down well. The French are conditioned to believe that they need to visit the doctor after experiencing even the slightest sensation of discomfort. At the front line, this means waiting rooms full of relatively healthy people with minor ailments. Chaffed palms, clicking fingers, sore shins, general malaise - they're all there for a long prescription of pharmaceuticals. Indeed, such is the desire to medicate patients that some 10% of hospital admissions are for accidents médicamenteux (drug-related accidents). And it is this Hippocratic generosity that is partly to blame for the spiralling of the French health deficit towards €12bn (£8.3bn).

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2005/mar/22/healthandwellbeing.health


What the French love is unsustainable.
Maybe so.

I'm not here trying to convince you that Cuba's or France's health care system is perfect. Michael Moore wasn't either in "Sicko."

I was just using "Sicko" as an example of Michael Moore being more objective/truthful than you might believe (in comparison to Limbaugh).

Maybe address that?
 
Maybe so.

I'm not here trying to convince you that Cuba's or France's health care system is perfect. Michael Moore wasn't either in "Sicko."

I was just using "Sicko" as an example of Michael Moore being more objective/truthful than you might believe (in comparison to Limbaugh).

Maybe address that?

There's nothing objective about Moore's documentaries. They are carefully designed to make a specific point.

Limbaugh doesn't make movies. He's just a commentator.

Apples and oranges.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT