Controversial Michael Moore Flick 'Sicko' Will Compare U.S. Health Care with Cuba's

[HM2VikingRN]

Health care advances in Cuba

According to the Associated Press as cited in the Post article, "Cuba has made recent advancements in biotechnology and exports its treatments to 40 countries around the world, raking in an estimated $100 million a year. ... In 2004, the U.S. government granted an exception to its economic embargo against Cuba and allowed a California drug company to test three cancer vaccines developed in Havana."

http://alternet.org/envirohealth/50911/?page=1

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

I can respect the taste to hear what others have to say,

I prefer to hear what people have to say when it represents the objective reality and shows true value of freedom and our soviergnty and our God inspired constitution not the "conservative" in sheeps clothing versions.

Is FoxNews conservative oriented? Yes.

Is CNN liberal oriented? Yes.

The difference is that, for YEARS, there was no choice but the Clinton News Network. Now, there is a choice. Don't like Fox? Don't watch it.

I wish I had had that choice when CNN was the only game in town. In fact, now I do.

Complain about lack of 'objective reality' if you wish, but that lack of objectivity is near universal. EVERYBODY has an ax to grind. The drive-by media lost its right to claim objectivity, decades ago. That's what happens when you confuse commentary for news too many times.

~faith,

Timothy.

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

Personally I think both stations CNN and FOX are middle of the road and that their slant to either direction is over exaggerated by people that sometimes hear what they don't want to hear. The channel my cable defers to when I turn it on is a local fox 24 news station and I watch it often and I'm waaaaaaaaaay to the left liberal.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Personally I think both stations CNN and FOX are middle of the road and that their slant to either direction is over exaggerated by people that sometimes hear what they don't want to hear. The channel my cable defers to when I turn it on is a local fox 24 news station and I watch it often and I'm waaaaaaaaaay to the left liberal.

I agree that both stations must appeal to the middle. Just like the strategy for winning elections, the key demographic they seek is in the swing.

And just like politicians, you can ignore the faithful somewhat to seek that middle ground. FoxNews just learned this game sooner than CNN because CNN was coddled for too long with a monopoly.

~faith,

Timothy.

[marvelous_truth]

Is FoxNews conservative oriented? Yes.

Is CNN liberal oriented? Yes.

The difference is that, for YEARS, there was no choice but the Clinton News Network. Now, there is a choice. Don't like Fox? Don't watch it.

I wish I had had that choice when CNN was the only game in town. In fact, now I do.

Complain about lack of 'objective reality' if you wish, but that lack of objectivity is near universal. EVERYBODY has an ax to grind. The drive-by media lost its right to claim objectivity, decades ago. That's what happens when you confuse commentary for news too many times.

~faith,

Timothy.

Yes Fox is more sheeple "conservatism". If the would address the facts regarding economic policy and foriegn policy they would get my attention and that of other True conservatives that understand that such issues are at the heart of freedom and conservatism. Thanks for allowing me not to watch

Buit then again everyone has their own opinion of what conservatism is.

I prefer constitutional conservatism rather than "I am not liberal" or "left is right and I am wrong" conservatism. To me its not about left vs right repub vs democrat, its about truith vs propaganda. Its about correct principles. If the mainstream "conservatism" avoids the main dangers to the constitutional republic (namely the facts regarding economic policy and foriegn policy) then they are only the lesser of two evils. I prefer correct principles and the constitution and its orginal God inspired intent over the what many call and accept as "the lesser of two evils"

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Yes Fox is more sheeple "conservatism". If the would address the facts regarding economic policy and foriegn policy they would get my attention and that of other True conservatives that understand that such issues are at the heart of freedom and conservatism. Thanks for allowing me not to watch

Buit then again everyone has their own opinion of what conservatism is.

I prefer constitutional conservatism rather than "I am not liberal" or "left is right and I am wrong" conservatism. To me its not about left vs right repub vs democrat, its about truith vs propaganda. Its about correct principles. If the mainstream "conservatism" avoids the main dangers to the constitutional republic (namely the facts regarding economic policy and foriegn policy) then they are only the lesser of two evils. I prefer correct principles and the constitution and its orginal God inspired intent over the what many call and accept as "the lesser of two evils"

The problem is that the argument has shifted so far from 'Constitutional Conservatism' since FDR that even taking far right stands towards our social contracts of 'gov't - hands off' can be seen as violations of Constitutional conservatism. Those far right stands just aren't far enough.

So, you would have to support, say a Ron Paul, that could only get a few percentage points, to stay true to your ideas.

As opposed to voting for candidates that can actually win that are 60% of the way towards your ideas, as opposed to 30%.

"Sheeple" conservatism is what you can expect in the wake of a 60 yr unchallenged argument that FDR 'saved' the nation from depression, instead of the reality that he deepened the depression so badly, it took over a decade - and a war - to revive the economy.

The result: Enumerated Powers are a joke. Justices legislate with impunity. Congress abdicates all but spending money to the Executive. Our founding 'social contracts' are 'living' - which means, they aren't worth the paper they are printed upon. The nation suffers, but hey, we all have a credit card, and an ARM mortgage, right?

All the branches of Gov't have sold out to each other. So much for 'checks and balances'.

Given all that, any ideas of a Constitutional conservatism are the truly fringe ideas. Even if I agree.

The debate has to shift fundamentally back to neutral before you can claim that all other engagements are 'the lessor of two evils'. It took 60 yrs to get where we are in an entitlement society. It won't be reversed overnight, if at all.

I prefer a rearguard holding action, than no action at all. Or, ineffective action. That is why I'm here, patiently arguing the reality that gov't restricted healthcare is truly uncompassionate.

~faith,

Timothy.

[BBFRN, BSN, PhD]

The debate has to shift fundamentally back to neutral before you can claim that all other engagements are 'the lessor of two evils'.

~faith,

Timothy.

I can totally agree with that.

[marvelous_truth]

I am amazed by the amount of people I constantly run across that share that viewpoint, as if standing for correct principles is a fringe idea that can not win, and yet so many could support such.

Thanks for you points I can understand where you are coming from better than most.

The problem is that the argument has shifted so far from 'Constitutional Conservatism' since FDR that even taking far right stands towards our social contracts of 'gov't - hands off' can be seen as violations of Constitutional conservatism. Those far right stands just aren't far enough.

So, you would have to support, say a Ron Paul, that could only get a few percentage points, to stay true to your ideas.

As opposed to voting for candidates that can actually win that are 60% of the way towards your ideas, as opposed to 30%.

"Sheeple" conservatism is what you can expect in the wake of a 60 yr unchallenged argument that FDR 'saved' the nation from depression, instead of the reality that he deepened the depression so badly, it took over a decade - and a war - to revive the economy.

The result: Enumerated Powers are a joke. Justices legislate with impunity. Congress abdicates all but spending money to the Executive. Our founding 'social contracts' are 'living' - which means, they aren't worth the paper they are printed upon. The nation suffers, but hey, we all have a credit card, and an ARM mortgage, right?

All the branches of Gov't have sold out to each other. So much for 'checks and balances'.

Given all that, any ideas of a Constitutional conservatism are the truly fringe ideas. Even if I agree.

The debate has to shift fundamentally back to neutral before you can claim that all other engagements are 'the lessor of two evils'. It took 60 yrs to get where we are in an entitlement society. It won't be reversed overnight, if at all.

I prefer a rearguard holding action, than no action at all. Or, ineffective action. That is why I'm here, patiently arguing the reality that gov't restricted healthcare is truly uncompassionate.

~faith,

Timothy.

[teeituptom, BSN, RN]

I'm a member of "NOOT".

I watch O'Reilly but sometimes find him smarmy. I like Hannity more but that show drives me crazy since no one can just have a conversation and they all talk over each other.

I love Rush Limbaugh and WOULD actually take him over MM any day of the week. I love it that he gives liberals first place in line and lets them converse for a long time and doesn't talk over them.

As to MM . . . . his theories have so many holes in them that it is pretty easy to see he is partisan and wrong.

steph[/QU

Not as many holes as Rush, including the big hole between Rushs ears. Rush would love any form of healthcare as long as it involved Vicodin

[BBFRN, BSN, PhD]

I am amazed by the amount of people I constantly run across that share that viewpoint, as if standing for correct principles is a fringe idea that can not win, and yet so many could support such.

Not everyone thinks your principles are 'correct.' If everyone agreed with you, it wouldn't be a 'fringe idea' anymore, would it?

[teeituptom, BSN, RN]

Lots of people are very smart, but personally I would choose the inspiration of a man of intelligence and wisdom like RON PAUL who has the solutions that Moore does not (which is why I posted here). I wouldnt worship any of thenm to the point of watching religiously every night, especuially a propaganda promoter such as O rielly who like ALL cartel owned media avoids many of the Facts and the objective reality regarding economic policy and foriegn policy. He cant even understand Constitutional money and economy how can he have any legitimate foundation for political discussion? Which is also rejecting the rediscovering of the sound principles that founded our constitution and our rights.

For a smart person why cant Orielly interview G Edward griffin, Aaron Russo, Bernard Von Not Haus, or even Devvy Kidd for that matter, and many others. Only the Propaganda is fair and balanced not the truth.

Are you serious, Another Republican from Texas. After the last 8 yrs who could possibly admire another Republican from Texas. That scares me to no end.

[BBFRN, BSN, PhD]

Not as many holes as Rush, including the big hole between Rushs ears. Rush would love any form of healthcare as long as it involved Vicodin

:chair:

I can't help it- that was darn funny.

[marvelous_truth]

Are you serious, Another Republican from Texas. After the last 8 yrs who could possibly admire another Republican from Texas. That scares me to no end.

LOL, NO I advocate the only true statesman as the best candidate over other poloticians. He could educate Bush and other poloticians as he has done for Guiliani after the debate.

Just happens that the statesman is from Texas. I am no supporter of Bush and I do not blindly support a party line. Neither does Ron Paul.