Difference between revisions of "Talk:SiCKO"
Thereeltruth (Talk | contribs) |
(→NHS inaccuracy: new section) |
||
(18 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Aschlafly - You have such a strong opinion on this film that is still being shown in previews. Have you even seen it? [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 16:50, 25 June 2007 (EDT) | Aschlafly - You have such a strong opinion on this film that is still being shown in previews. Have you even seen it? [[User:Guitarplayer|Guitarplayer]] 16:50, 25 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
:He may have. Its now available on the internet. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]<small>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</small> 17:26, 25 June 2007 (EDT) | :He may have. Its now available on the internet. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]<small>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</small> 17:26, 25 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | :[[Michael Moore]]'s films: garbage in, garbage out. How often does [[Sicko]] talk about rationing that results from government-controlled medicine???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Front page news == | ||
+ | |||
+ | I find it amusing that the front page tells people that ''Sicko'' was critically panned but the article itself only features a quote from a critic lauding the movie. I'd ask someone to change the front page if I could to reflect the actual article. | ||
+ | Anyway, I've seen the movie. It makes a powerful case - not so much that other countries' healthcare systems are better but rather that our system's failings are much worse. The "Let's do something less bad than this" is a good argument, and the case is made well. --[[User:TraitortotheCause|TraitortotheCause]] 15:30, 30 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Embargo Investigation== | ||
+ | I've noticed that this article does not cover SiCKO's embargo violation investigation[http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1118621]. I've written a section on it: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <small>The production of SiKO has brought about a controversy concerning Moore’s adherence to the [[United States]] broad trade embargo imposed against [[Cuba]] since 1962. A United States Treasury Department letter implied that Moore did not receive authorization before traveling to Cuba to film his documentary; this would be in direct conflict with the embargo’s rules<ref> http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1118621</ref>. Moore is now facing a U.S. government probe on the legality of the Cuba trip<ref> http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/05/11/1920233.htm</ref>. He has hired a Washington attorney, David Boies, to represent him in the matter, and states, "I have broken no laws, and I have nothing to hide.”<ref> http://au.news.yahoo.com/070510/2/13f42.html</ref></small> | ||
+ | |||
+ | Should it be added? | ||
+ | --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 15:17, 3 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | : Good idea, and apparently well-supported. Please add. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:42, 7 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ::Thanks Aschlafly, but since the page is locked to me I would appreciate if a sysop could add it to the article. Thanks again for the help,--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:21, 8 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
+ | :::I added it. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:23, 8 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Bias?== | ||
+ | It's pretty sad when you call the film biased; when you're review is even more biased. Even if you didn't like, at least '''try''' to seem like you see both sides of the arguement. | ||
+ | |||
+ | :Do you realize this is a [[conservative]] website? We are <u>not</u> going to have a NPOV. Of course, the film has a [[liberal]] bias, as does the filmmaker. You should not be surprised to see a conservative analysis here. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | I agree with Crocoite, the only bias there is the liberal bias. Conservapedia has no responsibility to represent their falsehood. --[[User:BiancaW|BiancaW]] 18:30, 30 June 2008 (EDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | == NHS inaccuracy == | ||
+ | |||
+ | "in fact NHS policies vary between the four constituent countries of the UK" -this is completely inaccurate, NHS policy is the same all over the UK. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Also for clarity prescription charges are a flat fee of £6.85 regardless of what the drug costs. NHS dentists are heavily subsidised and only a nominal fee is charged (although if you are unemployed or elderly you are not charged). |
Latest revision as of 21:27, November 5, 2008
Aschlafly - You have such a strong opinion on this film that is still being shown in previews. Have you even seen it? Guitarplayer 16:50, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
- Michael Moore's films: garbage in, garbage out. How often does Sicko talk about rationing that results from government-controlled medicine???--Aschlafly 20:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Front page news
I find it amusing that the front page tells people that Sicko was critically panned but the article itself only features a quote from a critic lauding the movie. I'd ask someone to change the front page if I could to reflect the actual article. Anyway, I've seen the movie. It makes a powerful case - not so much that other countries' healthcare systems are better but rather that our system's failings are much worse. The "Let's do something less bad than this" is a good argument, and the case is made well. --TraitortotheCause 15:30, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
Embargo Investigation
I've noticed that this article does not cover SiCKO's embargo violation investigation[1]. I've written a section on it:
The production of SiKO has brought about a controversy concerning Moore’s adherence to the United States broad trade embargo imposed against Cuba since 1962. A United States Treasury Department letter implied that Moore did not receive authorization before traveling to Cuba to film his documentary; this would be in direct conflict with the embargo’s rules[1]. Moore is now facing a U.S. government probe on the legality of the Cuba trip[2]. He has hired a Washington attorney, David Boies, to represent him in the matter, and states, "I have broken no laws, and I have nothing to hide.”[3]
Should it be added? --Tash 15:17, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
- Good idea, and apparently well-supported. Please add. Thanks.--Aschlafly 09:42, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
Bias?
It's pretty sad when you call the film biased; when you're review is even more biased. Even if you didn't like, at least try to seem like you see both sides of the arguement.
- Do you realize this is a conservative website? We are not going to have a NPOV. Of course, the film has a liberal bias, as does the filmmaker. You should not be surprised to see a conservative analysis here. --Crocoite 18:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
I agree with Crocoite, the only bias there is the liberal bias. Conservapedia has no responsibility to represent their falsehood. --BiancaW 18:30, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
NHS inaccuracy
"in fact NHS policies vary between the four constituent countries of the UK" -this is completely inaccurate, NHS policy is the same all over the UK.
Also for clarity prescription charges are a flat fee of £6.85 regardless of what the drug costs. NHS dentists are heavily subsidised and only a nominal fee is charged (although if you are unemployed or elderly you are not charged).