<p>I could not find a section of medical threads where this would be most appropriate. So, I rather thought why not post it in the most populous section? So, do you think Michale Moore exaggerated certain things and rather showed one side of a lot of things? Do you think health care in the US going to deteriorate further? (a recent UN report already shows that US is not one of the top in terms of health care system of the developed countries).</p>
<p>1.) Yes. As CNN (hardly a paragon of conservatism) points out, Moore has a habit of going through and picking his favorite statistics from easily a dozen or more studies. If one says that the US is spending $1B and Cuba $.5B, while the second says the US is spending $4B and Cuba $2B, he'll use the $4B and $.5B to make it seem like the US is outspending Cuba 8:1.</p>
<p>2.) He paints a dramatically too-rosy picture of health care in other countries, even as those countries are generally moving (slightly) towards the US model thanks to their internal dissatisfactions.</p>
<p>3.) The format which Moore uses (using specific cases to "prove" larger points) lends itself to abuse. For all we know, when he shows a case, it might represent the experience of 47 million Americans (what he implies), or 10,000 Americans, or 1 American. The "evidence" doesn't say.</p>
<p>4.) The WHO study Moore uses is absurd, as it is a measure of many things, some of which health insurance has nothing to do with. If I remember correctly, the WHO report uses infant mortality, life expectancy, etc. to rank the US #37. One analyst has pointed out (Stossel?) that when you remove car crashes and gun deaths from all countries, though, the US will shoot right back up to #1. Maybe this statistic was more appropriate to Bowling for Columbine.</p>
<p>And Moore also neglects to mention that his much-idolized Cuba actually does even worse in these rankings.</p>
<p>5.) Still. The health system clearly has problems. Moore points them out. I don't think anybody's going to dispute that.</p>
<p>Yes. Michael Moore documentaries are biased and they're propaganda, they're always exaggerated. I kind of take everything he says with a grain of salt, but he sure is good at getting people all fired up, so I guess it gets the job done.</p>
<p>Meh, a majority of his work uses omissions and half-truths to illustrate one side of the argument only. However, Moore is important in that his films stir debate and awareness; something increasingly apathetic and busy-bee Americans don't care for it seems.</p>
<p>The Moore movie actually helped me prepare for my interviews... lol... however pathetic that sounds. Of course I did also do some additional research on health care policy on my own.</p>