7
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→NHS inaccuracy: new section
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.
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)
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).