Sorry, but for some reason, I'm not allowing to enter a title here! Anyway, this is "More of Moore". Lefty's blog from a couple of days ago along with quite a bit of press has got me thinking of Michael Moore's "Sicko" film released a couple of weeks ago. What Moore has done has torn back the veil on the health care debacle that the nation faces and yet I'm still not convinced of his arguments. Moore is, by definition, a film maker, not a documentarian. He stars in his own movies and sees to it that issues aren't discussed but that HIS beliefs on issues are propagated in the films. Truly, it's political theater and that's it. I caught Bowling For Columbine but figured that Farenheit 911 would be the same thing with slightly different content. From a logic perspective, Moore takes great liberty with argumentation and logical consistency. Moore would be a pill on any debate or legal team; his points just look good because he's got the camera to manipulate people's emotional state while delivering his points of view. With that, Moore is still vital in the sense that he's doing the one thing that no one else chooses to do - force the public to dialogue on issues that normally they wish not to on a national level. Moore's current topic, national health care, is yet another windmill that the film maker chases but IS an elephant in the room. Baby boomers, who seem to be worried about their diabetes and limp penises and medicating their children into feeling happy, will, in fifteen to twenty years, panic when their premiums are so hight that they won't be able to afford to play golf or the mortgages on their second homes. Our generation, the one that consists of the fastest-shrinking middle class in history, will struggle just to keep our children healthy. In thirty years, my generation will struggle over food on the table, groceries or medicine for our children. Pharmaceutical companies will make drugs just affordable enough for the wealthy to afford anything but the working- and middle classes to make a Sophie's choice - something no one will want to do, which means that most will not.
One thing that continues to flub up arguments for Moore and other proponents of health care reform is the statistical evidence of the nation's health. Life expectancy, insurance coverage rates and other affordability factors all omit one thing: how we treat ourselves. How can this nation's people be compared to Norwegians' health? Does any other nation consume as much soda, raw sugar or fast food? Does any other nation have such a high rate of commuters who spend hours a day in automobiles? Does any other nation have as many people living in suburban areas who find walking abhorrent or contrary to their lifestyles? How much are we to blame for our own health? Should we be angry when medical insurers do not cover lifestyle choice consequences as coverable? I don't exercise, eat terribly and sit and watch five hours of television every day; an insurer should make sure that I don't end up with the consequences of my actions? Tough call, I know, especially when life's choices are so very hard to make. I hate being a cynic but I wonder just how we can afford to abuse ourselves so badly without facing the end results.

Last, I wanted to clarify something I may have made unclear: thanks for the comment on the issue of illegal immigration. The term "illegal immigrant" is one that is accurate and fair to use. What I object to is the term "illegal" to describe someone. Watch Fox News; its correspondants continually refer to "illegal immigrants" as "illegals". It's pejorative and offensive.