Debate and Discussion

Sicko and the US health care system
CharleyHorse at 2:32PM, Dec. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 627
joined: 12-7-2006
this is a perfect encapsulation of why the Micael Moore film IS correct and germane when it comes to the U.S.' health care system

Someone
Indeed so why should I be financially liable for a bunch of people to stupid to avoid scam-artists. You're saying my taxes should go HIGHER just because a smooth talking agendist who is every bit as vile as the GOP talking mouths you despise showed you a couple statistics. I should sacrifice my financial freedom just because “millions” of americans are victimized by politicians, and ethically void legal entities?
Shove it. I don't like the system, and I won't be trapped into defending it. Yet at the same time the subject of this thread was Michael Moore's film and his trustworthiness. Insofar as that goes I'd rather trust a coyote with my only chicken than take his opinions and films at face value.

I couldn't have crafted better proof had I spent an hour or two fabricating it just for it's tale tell effect on the reader.

There's no need to fix a system when any possible victims DESERVE their victim hood because they were not born to wealth and privilege in a system designed to promote the interests only of the wealthy. This is republican think in it's purest form. Victims deserve victimization for being victims in the first place.

My taxes, my taxes! AWK! Polly want a cracker! Let's put ourselves hugely in debt for generations to come by borrowing against the future in order to give the already wealthy in this nation tax breaks AND finance the ongoing disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq but do NOTHING of any real value for our people at home because that would cost money and come out of MY taxes.

Sadly, these are the very things that Michael Moore routinely points out in his documentaries as the cause of untold misery for millions of people in the lower classes and yet someone endorsing that very system as the best possible system in existence, far, far better than anything else available anywhere else in the world, considers Michael More . . . untrustworthy?

Dude, do you even realize that you just PROVED Michael Moore's primary and reoccurring documentary points and illustrated just why his films and his voice are so very very necessary in this nation that has become hell on earth in many ways for people no born into at least the middle class?

So to bring this back around, yes - as proven by his own diatribe quoted in this reply - Michael Moore is far more correct regarding his analysis of what is wrong in this nation and it's health care system than are the status-quo supporters of the right and far right.

The chances are Black_Kitty that had you come down here to seek medical treatment you would simply have lost everything you had and still suffered all the emotional tragedy and trauma as well. Eventually, anyway.

In this nation money, and ONLY money matters when you are in trouble, in real trouble. Were you in a financial situation where you could have spent tens of thousands of dollars and still recovered from such an expenditure? Because it most certainly would have cost between fifty thousand to a hundred and fifty thousand dollars for any serious and extended medical treatments if you did not possess one of those rich person's elite medical insurance contracts.

Of course, since we are talking precondition here, it's highly unlikely that you would have been sold such a medical insurance contract had you come down to the states. Money and only money talks in this nation.



last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
imshard at 2:34PM, Dec. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
You have a clear partisan bias and it bugs me. Your class warfare mentality also leaves a sour taste in my mouth charley. As though nobody ever crosses party lines either. So did you get your talking points from http://www.moveon.org/ ? Please don't make me throw up. If it were as clear as rich vs poor we'd be living in France. I doubt Bush and the GOP thought to themselves “Gee let's engineer a situation to totally corn-hole our support base and possible voters”. Y'know why its messy and impossible to get coverage? Because hospitals are required to help people no matter what, waiting lines aside. Hospitals are flooded with people who don't have insurance or medicare, and they don't get paid for it. So the cost goes to the people who can pay, as usual.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
CharleyHorse at 2:55PM, Dec. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 627
joined: 12-7-2006
SpANG, about medical insurance. I am currently trying to convince my wife to drop our coverage because the monthly payments are brutal for our income level and I'm almost positive that should our health conditions hit the spinning fan blades of fate all that money we've been dumping into the plan for years would prove to have gone down a rat hole and most of our claims would be denied. So far no sell, but I keep trying.

Oh and imshard having seen things from the standpoint of the lowest of the lowest class and yet also having had abundant exposure to middle and upper class perspectives and daily activities I am in the position to judge and have come to the conclusion that if anything I am a bit overly generous when I come down to my judgments of the wealthy in this nation of their politicians and as for the Bush gang; holy-moley, surely you wouldn't want to waste time defending them or the criminal politicians in the legislative branch that rubber-stamped their robber baron fiscal policies for all those years?!

Oddly enough I don't peruse the pages of Moveon.org nor regularly surf my way to leftist groups on the internet. I do my thinking for myself, and my thoughts are based on a life time of interacting with life itself.

I can see the tricky slick and slimy things the republican politicians have done to this nation by way of policy decisions since 2000 and I know that they are meant to benefit only the wealthy and the privileged.

Still, to return to the thrust of this thread, should Michael Moore's work be considered a viable source of information for anyone wanting to understand what's happening inside the borders of this nation? You betcha. Should his detractors be trusted? No, because the big noises are known professional propagandists working for the professional politicians via known intermediary companies such as Clear Channel designed exclusively to further the interests of the wealthy and the privileged in this nation. Something that the politicians affiliated with these groups prove every time they pass or try to pass a piece of legislation purportedly in the best interests of all the nation but that always, ALWAYS turns out in the end to really only have been in the best interests of the wealthy and the powerful.

So it goes.

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
imshard at 3:27PM, Dec. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
CharleyHorse
Oh and imshard having seen things from the standpoint of the lowest of the lowest class and yet also having had abundant exposure to middle and upper class perspectives and daily activities I am in the position to judge and have come to the conclusion that if anything I am a bit overly generous when I come down to my judgments of the wealthy in this nation of their politicians and as for the Bush gang; holy-moley, surely you wouldn't want to waste time defending them or the criminal politicians in the legislative branch that rubber-stamped their robber baron fiscal policies for all those years?!

Oddly enough I don't peruse the pages of Moveon.org nor regularly surf my way to leftist groups on the internet. I do my thinking for myself, and my thoughts are based on a life time of interacting with life itself.

I can see the tricky slick and slimy things the republican politicians have done to this nation by way of policy decisions since 2000 and I know that they are meant to benefit only the wealthy and the privileged.

Still, to return to the thrust of this thread, should Michael Moore's work be considered a viable source of information for anyone wanting to understand what's happening inside the borders of this nation? You betcha. Should his detractors be trusted? No, because the big noises are known professional propagandists working for the professional politicians via known intermediary companies such as Clear Channel designed exclusively to further the interests of the wealthy and the privileged in this nation. Something that the politicians affiliated with these groups prove every time they pass or try to pass a piece of legislation purportedly in the best interests of all the nation but that always, ALWAYS turns out in the end to really only have been in the best interests of the wealthy and the powerful.

So it goes.

I too have seen all sides. I grew up looking forward to hand-me-downs and zero inheritance. I went from a negative earnings childhood and worked a series of crap-end jobs until I worked my way above the poverty line the hard way. As well I also like to think for myself instead of simply accepting somebody else's opinion. And just what makes you think that the republicans are the only corrupt party? Myself, I see all the politicians as corrupt. It makes it much easier to understand people's motivations when you remove the liberal/conservative scale from being a perception filter. Hate to point out a parallel but the democrats have their own professional propagandists and intermediary companies. Liberal politicians are just as rich and blind as the conservative ones. And their are so many logical fallacies in branding the term “wealthy” that I can't shake a stick at them. what is wealthy to you? anybody who earns more than you? $20 million salary? Owning a company? belonging to the GOP? C'mon now you're smarter and wiser than that I hope. There is no vast conspiracy to keep the masses down, just a small bunch of people looking to increase their earnings. Really I've been exposed to enough “rich” people to know they don't worry about the poor catching up to them they only look for financial increases.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
CharleyHorse at 4:37PM, Dec. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 627
joined: 12-7-2006
Nope, not going to drag the thread further off topic. I think that unless someone comes up with something besides the piddly stuff already presented to discredit Michael Moore's take on the U.S. health care system the case for the defense rests. The jury has adjourned and, by golly, returned already with the verdict. Michael Moore's detractors don't, in general, have a leg to stand on.

Mr. Moore has done that which the far rightist's news channel, Fox news, is inherently incapable of doing in almost any of its news segments covering social issues and health policies, in that Mr. Moore has presented a fair and balanced analysis of the U.S.' health care system.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
bobhhh at 4:57PM, Dec. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
CharleyHorse
Nope, not going to drag the thread further off topic. I think that unless someone comes up with something besides the piddly stuff already presented to discredit Michael Moore's take on the U.S. health care system the case for the defense rests. The jury has adjourned and, by golly, returned already with the verdict. Michael Moore's detractors don't, in general, have a leg to stand on.

Mr. Moore has done that which the far rightist's news channel, Fox news, is inherently incapable of doing in almost any of its news segments covering social issues and health policies, in that Mr. Moore has presented a fair and balanced analysis of the U.S.' health care system.

My favorite thing about Sicko is that it isn't about people who aren't covered,that would be bad enough, but instead it's about people who are supposedly covered, and how the profit driven private Insurance companies labor endlessly to screw their own customers.

You know big corporations are going to always try to cut costs and make maximum profit, its in their nature to be greedy. I think Moore rightly realizes that greed and profit margins should never stand in the way of citizens access to health care, period. If it's happens once, its one too many times.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
imshard at 5:02PM, Dec. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Fair and balanced… nah don't think so but you won't be dissuaded because his views are to closely aligned with your own and you behave as though any critique to his work is a personal affront. That sir is a bias whether you like it or not. Moore's detractors do not in fact have the ability to attack this subject without being undermined by accusations of being corrupt. The actual film simply outlined how much red tape patients have. In watching the film he doesn't actually address what would happen if free medical care were doled out to everybody. Just listening to his choice of words betrays his own one-sided views. Accurate or not any film that focuses solely on one aspect of an issue is not fair and balanced. Mr. Moore himself stated at the beginning of sicko that the film was only about Insured patients who could not receive care they had been promised. Additionally he used relative good aspects in other health systems to highlight the bad aspects of selected cases in ours. Not a balanced view at all. I would have accepted it if he had compared people having trouble getting care in this country to their analogs in other countries but his method of mis-matching criteria erased any academic honesty the study would have had. Finally a series of media stunts (for gods sakes he took them to Cuba just to be unconventional) does not constitute accurate portrayal of real-life situations. The term documentary doesn't apply in my mind but propaganda flick does.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
bobhhh at 8:19PM, Dec. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
imshard
Fair and balanced… nah don't think so but you won't be dissuaded because his views are to closely aligned with your own and you behave as though any critique to his work is a personal affront. That sir is a bias whether you like it or not. Moore's detractors do not in fact have the ability to attack this subject without being undermined by accusations of being corrupt. The actual film simply outlined how much red tape patients have. In watching the film he doesn't actually address what would happen if free medical care were doled out to everybody. Just listening to his choice of words betrays his own one-sided views. Accurate or not any film that focuses solely on one aspect of an issue is not fair and balanced. Mr. Moore himself stated at the beginning of sicko that the film was only about Insured patients who could not receive care they had been promised. Additionally he used relative good aspects in other health systems to highlight the bad aspects of selected cases in ours. Not a balanced view at all. I would have accepted it if he had compared people having trouble getting care in this country to their analogs in other countries but his method of mis-matching criteria erased any academic honesty the study would have had. Finally a series of media stunts (for gods sakes he took them to Cuba just to be unconventional) does not constitute accurate portrayal of real-life situations. The term documentary doesn't apply in my mind but propaganda flick does.

Sorry, but what part of free health care doesn't click with you??

They have, it we don't. It's pretty simple.

You may point to accusations that Canadiens don't get timely or equal care, but that sounds like bunk to me. Although I am an American citizen now, I was born in Canada, and half of my cousins still live in Montreal, and they crack up when they hear Americans compare their free health care to our bloodsucking insurance companies. I tell you what, I openly ask any Canadiens on this board, would you be willing to trade your free health care for the crap that passes as health insurance here?

I'm willing to bet that all complaints aside, that the answer would be no.

What I never fail to understand is how super rich people in this country never figure out how little would make poor folks shut up and be happy. Free health care would really change the dynamic between the haves and the have nots. And the best part is that rich folks can still spend all the money they want on fancy medicine, just like now!!

Toss in a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon, cheap iPhones and free cable and you could be elected pope of America for life!!

Everyone wins!!
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
ozoneocean at 7:53AM, Dec. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,056
joined: 1-2-2004
imshard
I've only met one person named Cletus in my life, and he was a member of the mensa group.
With a name like Cletus I'm not surprised…What kind of weirdos join groups like Mensa anyway? lol! It's one step down from Scientology -_-

Heh, everyone complains about their healthcare systems, All the people in all the countries like mine with government funded systems complain just as much. The only difference is that we don't have to go into debt for life because we get ill. ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:29PM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 8:07AM, Dec. 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
bobhhh
Sorry, but what part of free health care doesn't click with you?

The part where you make it “free”.

Someone has to pony up for the bills. Sure the govt could just print more money but that would just create more inflation. You could tax the hell out of the rich, but since they are already dodging all the taxes they can it would just pass down to the middle class to pony up for it again. You could try to cut costs by paying doctors less but then you wind up with less incentive to go through the years and years of training they need. You could make medical education free but again someone would have to pay for that because teachers and colleges want to get their 30 pieces of silver.

Any way you look at it someone has to get screwed, So who do you want to hand the Vaseline to?
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
bobhhh at 11:31AM, Dec. 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
ozoneocean
imshard
I've only met one person named Cletus in my life, and he was a member of the mensa group.
With a name like Cletus I'm not surprised…What kind of weirdos join groups like Mensa anyway? lol! It's one step down from Scientology -_-

Heh, everyone complains about their healthcare systems, All the people in all the countries like mine with government funded systems complain just as much. The only difference is that we don't have to go into debt for life because we get ill. ;)

So I'm takin that as a no, you wouldn't trade. :)
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
horseboy at 9:24PM, Dec. 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 139
joined: 8-27-2006
Awh, crap I'm too tired to think. I'll chime in after my Omega 3's kick in.

Alright, Michael Moore is every bit the left wing demagogue that Rush Limbaugh is to the right. If you choose to believe him will be determined by your political leanings.

American Healthcare system: The root problem with the American Health care system is that it is neither a free market nor a well, whatever. It's a series on megalithic monopolies trying to hide the fact that they've succeeded in squeezing out any sense of competition. The PP in a PPO stands for Preferred Provider. These are medical offices that the insurance company owns parts of. If you want to be covered you have to go to them. If you don't go to them, they will penalize you by charging you more.

Say three different people go into this office. They each are billed around $150 each for the office visit. The person who's part of the PPO of that group, will pay a co-pay, something like $50. The rest of the amount is charged to their insurance. The insurance will pay, oh, $80. The remaining amount is TWIPped. (Take What Insurance Pays) The company then uses the $20 loss to show that they have to charge more to make up for the difference. This is then used to show that the price for an office is inflated this year, and that it will “cost” more, so they have to raise premiums.

The person that on Medicare/Medicaid comes in (every freaking day, cause they don't have anything else to do) They charge the bureaucracy and it gets rubber stamped. They make money hand over fist.

The poor schulb with no insurance an no Medicare/Medicaid goes in and gets hit with a $150 bill, just to find out it was nothing serious in the first place.

My mom was in medical billing for almost 30 years, she'd come home and bitch about it when the relatives came over for holidays. Now a days, she's the EEO officer for a small civil construction company, pulling down $5k a year, working for insurance.

Quality of care: Well, my mom went in for a routine mammogram. Afterwards her and dad went to Ryans, (A buffet restaurant). They had just sat down when they had gotten a phone call. The radiologist had tried calling her, but at the time she was in a dead cell. They called her doctor (whom she used to work for). He called her. They set up an emergency biopsy within the hour. They removed a lump the size of a tennis ball from her left breast. They then did an MRI to make sure they got it all. Turns out they didn't. They then did a full mastectomy that day. She went under the care of Dr. Ma. (She came highly regarded in the field) As they started getting test results back they found that the cancer had already spread in slightly over a year from her breast, all the way down into her pelvis. They were hoping that so long as it hadn't gotten into her bones they could treat it. Then they found it in her ribs, pelvis bone and vertebra. They were going to try some experimental stuff, but she was given a 5% chance of surviving the next two years.

Well, dad wouldn't have any of that. He refused to give up. That's when he remembered about me talking to him about herbalism and how you could cure stuff with nutrition. He started looking into it. It was about this time they got a hold of me. We managed to put together a system that was able to push the cancer out of her bones so the doctors could treat it. Thanks to our combined arms approach she's had 0 circulating tumor cells for the past 10 months.

Moral: Hell if I know. It's your health, don't take “no” for an answer, maybe? I really should go to sleep. I'm not even sure if any of it made sense.
There is no such word as “alot”. “A lot” is two words.
Voltaire
Never seek for happiness, it will merely allude the seeker. Never strive for knowledge, it is beyond man's scope. Never think, for in though lies all the ills of mankind. The wise man, like the rat, the crocodile, the fly, merely fulfills his natural function.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
DAJB at 12:42AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
Michael Moore is his own worst enemy. His films usually have a very valid point to make but the way he insists on being so totally one-sided and the arrogant way he thrusts his own views down the viewer's throat alienates people. He's the cinema equivalent of a door-step evangelist.

With regard to Sicko, for example, I'm sure there's a lot of truth in the problems he highlights with the US health insurance system. But, as a Brit, he loses all credibility with me when he tries to make his point by claiming that our NHS is wonderful. It isn't.

The system is underfunded and under-resourced by government, exploits the goodwill and dedication of medical staff, is manipulated by drug companies, riddled with bureaucratic inefficiency and hampered by the need to meet politically desirable targets.

The idea of providing all health care free to all people is commendable but economically unsustainable. The UK system has been collapsing under its own weight for decades. Those who can afford to receive treatment privately are increasingly doing so. Unless you have the right connections to be bumped up the waiting list, you can can spend years in great pain while waiting for an operation. It's quite common to hear of people developing serious complications or even dying, having been on the waiting list for years.

Michael Moore deserves credit for drawing attention to important issues. Unfortunately, the methods he uses undermine his own arguments.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
spacehamster at 2:02AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 504
joined: 8-3-2007
I knew DAJB would have made most of my point for me already, but let me just add this - Moore's claim that the US is the only industrialized country with no “free universal healthcare” is, in a word, bullshit. It's simply not true. There are as many different forms of healthcare organization in the industrialized world as there are countries. For example, here in Switzerland, a government-defined minimum of health insurance is mandatory, but we can choose the company, and beyond the minimum that you're obliged to have, you can choose your own insurance coverage. The idea being that if there's competition between the insurance companies, the costs won't go through the roof, but it's still getting more expensive every year. And as DAJB said, the British aren't as in love with their healthcare system as Moore makes it look either.

Also, if something is paid for with taxes, it's not “free”. That's silly. I'm fairly left leaning politically myself, but calling something “free” that's tax-funded is… well, it's exactly what the right always accuses the left of doing. I'm all for government regulated healthcare to ensure sick people don't just end up in the street, but like most issues, it won't just solve itself if you throw enough money at it. The healthcare system is very complex, and there are no simple answers.

Of course that means “yarryarr stupid commies, everything works better when it's private, yarryarr capitalism uber alles” isn't the answer either.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:50PM
bobhhh at 2:21AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
DAJB
Michael Moore is his own worst enemy. His films usually have a very valid point to make but the way he insists on being so totally one-sided and the arrogant way he thrusts his own views down the viewer's throat alienates people. He's the cinema equivalent of a door-step evangelist.

With regard to Sicko, for example, I'm sure there's a lot of truth in the problems he highlights with the US health insurance system. But, as a Brit, he loses all credibility with me when he tries to make his point by claiming that our NHS is wonderful. It isn't.

The system is underfunded and under-resourced by government, exploits the goodwill and dedication of medical staff, is manipulated by drug companies, riddled with bureaucratic inefficiency and hampered by the need to meet politically desirable targets.

The idea of providing all health care free to all people is commendable but economically unsustainable. The UK system has been collapsing under its own weight for decades. Those who can afford to receive treatment privately are increasingly doing so. Unless you have the right connections to be bumped up the waiting list, you can can spend years in great pain while waiting for an operation. It's quite common to hear of people developing serious complications or even dying, having been on the waiting list for years.

Michael Moore deserves credit for drawing attention to important issues. Unfortunately, the methods he uses undermine his own arguments.

So my question to you as a brit is would you say its better to fix your system or trade it for ours??

Cause let me just say as an American, this argument is fine as an intellectual excercize, but when its your turn to actually get sick and you get denied for your claim and or you lose everything youve saved, suddenly UHC seems like not such a bad idea.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
bobhhh at 2:25AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
horseboy
Thanks to our combined arms approach she's had 0 circulating tumor cells for the past 10 months.

Glad to hear she's doing well. Nice job pallie.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
bobhhh at 2:37AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
spacehamster
Also, if something is paid for with taxes, it's not “free”. That's silly. I'm fairly left leaning politically myself, but calling something “free” that's tax-funded is…

Hey if we have trillions of dollars for military aggression, we have the money somewhere. Ofcourse we have to pay taxes, but I would like mine to go to UHC instead of middle east preemptive aggression.

Saying it's not technically free is a bit myopic. Our government usually finds a way to come up with $$ when it suits them. This is more about the insurance industry lobbyists and their well funded campaign to stop UHC.

And in response to earilier statements that the government can't do anything better than the private sector:
***here's the quote from Obama thread:****
horseboy
bobhhh
Taxes and social programs are ok if they are managed well and produce results.
The government has ever done this when?


We mantain a federal highway system, oversee the worlds best water delivery system, which has eradicated water borne diseases like cholera, and maintain an efficient mail system.

Anyone of those businesses turned over to the private sector would almost surely double its cost to consumers, if not more so. The government only has to provide services, businesses have to turn profitsas well.

Every penny taken out of the system toward profits is less spent on services.

It's just math people.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
DAJB at 2:42AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
bobhhh
So my question to you as a brit is would you say its better to fix your system or trade it for ours??

Cause let me just say as an American, this argument is fine as an intellectual excercize, but when its your turn to actually get sick and you get denied for your claim and or you lose everything youve saved, suddenly UHC seems like not such a bad idea.
I certainly wouldn't trade our system for the US model. As I said, Moore does have a valid point. The US system is not working. My comment was simply that the UK system isn't working either and it's dishonest for Moore to present it as the solution. Whether you die/get worse because you don't have the right insurance or because you're on a waiting list for five years or longer is fairly academic.

Sure, I'd like the UK system more if it was fixed. But then, you'd probably like yours if it was fixed, too!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
bobhhh at 2:45AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
DAJB
bobhhh
So my question to you as a brit is would you say its better to fix your system or trade it for ours??

Cause let me just say as an American, this argument is fine as an intellectual excercize, but when its your turn to actually get sick and you get denied for your claim and or you lose everything youve saved, suddenly UHC seems like not such a bad idea.
I certainly wouldn't trade our system for the US model. As I said, Moore does have a valid point. The US system is not working. My comment was simply that the UK system isn't working either and it's dishonest for Moore to present it as the solution. Whether you die/get worse because you don't have the right insurance or because you're on a waiting list for five years or longer is fairly academic.

Sure, I'd like the UK system more if it was fixed. But then, you'd probably like yours if it was fixed, too!

That sounds confusing, but I'm thinking its a no, you wouldn't trade. So as it stands now your system is still better than ours right??
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
DAJB at 3:46AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
bobhhh
DAJB
bobhhh
So my question to you as a brit is would you say its better to fix your system or trade it for ours??

Cause let me just say as an American, this argument is fine as an intellectual excercize, but when its your turn to actually get sick and you get denied for your claim and or you lose everything youve saved, suddenly UHC seems like not such a bad idea.
I certainly wouldn't trade our system for the US model. As I said, Moore does have a valid point. The US system is not working. My comment was simply that the UK system isn't working either and it's dishonest for Moore to present it as the solution. Whether you die/get worse because you don't have the right insurance or because you're on a waiting list for five years or longer is fairly academic.

Sure, I'd like the UK system more if it was fixed. But then, you'd probably like yours if it was fixed, too!
That sounds confusing, but I'm thinking its a no, you wouldn't trade. So as it stands now your system is still better than ours right??
As it stands now, no, I wouldn't trade.

We Brits are very much a “better the Devil you know” kind of a bunch!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
spacehamster at 4:19AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 504
joined: 8-3-2007
bobhhh
Hey if we have trillions of dollars for military aggression, we have the money somewhere. Ofcourse we have to pay taxes, but I would like mine to go to UHC instead of middle east preemptive aggression.

Saying it's not technically free is a bit myopic. Our government usually finds a way to come up with $$ when it suits them. This is more about the insurance industry lobbyists and their well funded campaign to stop UHC.

Sure, sure. Like I said, I'm certainly not a fan of the “privatize everything” ideology. But as someone in a very wealthy country with a sort of semi-government controlled health care system, it's been my experience that it's a very complex animal indeed, and again, just throwing tax money at it WON'T solve the problem but can create new ones, which leads to costs growing exponentially. And that's my problem Moore's representation of the issue, he makes it look as if everywhere else, the government runs healthcare and everything's fine, and if the US government would just install “free universal healthcare”, which is a perfectly simple step that only consists of taking funding away from the army and spending it on healthcare instead, all would be right in the world. Half of that is patently false, and the other half is an oversimplification.

And it's a shame, because from what I know, there is indeed a huge problem with healthcare in the US, and it's a good thing that someone's pointing his finger at it and making noise about it, but if he's going to do so with half-truths and oversimplifications, he's going to get shot down based on that and he won't accomplish anything.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:50PM
DAJB at 4:41AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
spacehamster
it's a good thing that someone's pointing his finger at it and making noise about it, but if he's going to do so with half-truths and oversimplifications, he's going to get shot down based on that
Exactly.

Have you seen Thank You For Smoking? There's a quote in that which sums up Moore's problem perfectly. A guy whose job is to defend the tobacco industry explains (and I almost certainly haven't got this word perfect) that to win an argument “I don't have to prove that I'm right; I just have to prove that you're wrong.”

last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
ozoneocean at 6:16AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,056
joined: 1-2-2004
bobhhh
ozoneocean
imshard
I've only met one person named Cletus in my life, and he was a member of the mensa group.
With a name like Cletus I'm not surprised…What kind of weirdos join groups like Mensa anyway? lol! It's one step down from Scientology -_-

Heh, everyone complains about their healthcare systems, All the people in all the countries like mine with government funded systems complain just as much. The only difference is that we don't have to go into debt for life because we get ill. ;)
So I'm takin that as a no, you wouldn't trade. :)
EXACTLY! :)

And I think my point has been some very nicely proved by DAJB and Spacehamster! lol! They said exactly what I described. lol!

Hahaha.

People with government systems still complain, and we usually have private systems as well, but even so it's quite cheap compared to the US. It's better to pay $3000 for a complicated operation than $30,000 or $300,000!!!

People with government systems who complain normally complain over things like waiting times, but in communities where you need money to survive, you're more likely to survive after waiting a year for a minor operation than being hit at one go with a bill for $15 thousand dollars and NO wait, especially if you're poor.

For some reason people don't often realise that…
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:29PM
spacehamster at 8:17AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 504
joined: 8-3-2007
DAJB
Have you seen Thank You For Smoking? There's a quote in that which sums up Moore's problem perfectly. A guy whose job is to defend the tobacco industry explains (and I almost certainly haven't got this word perfect) that to win an argument “I don't have to prove that I'm right; I just have to prove that you're wrong.”

Yeah, that was an excellent movie… I think it went even farther than that when he demonstrates it to his son and basically shows how he doesn't even have to prove anything as long as he makes his opponent look bad enough. Which I thought was both hilarious and very, very true.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:50PM
bobhhh at 9:36AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
spacehamster
it's been my experience that it's a very complex animal indeed, and again, just throwing tax money at it WON'T solve the problem but can create new ones, which leads to costs growing exponentially. And that's my problem Moore's representation of the issue, he makes it look as if everywhere else, the government runs healthcare and everything's fine, and if the US government would just install “free universal healthcare”, which is a perfectly simple step that only consists of taking funding away from the army and spending it on healthcare instead, all would be right in the world. Half of that is patently false, and the other half is an oversimplification.

I respectfully disagree. You seem to be certain that the goverment is incapable of managingsomething, that tax dollars are not capable of anything but being misspent. The fact the the goverment is corrupt now doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to change it. And as for corrupt, I'll take politicians, who you can at least vote out of office for profiteering over insurance companies who can deny your claims for sketchy reasons, or deny you coverage period. As our brit freinds illustrate, bad is worse than terrible, I think I'd like to try the bad english system for a change, its not like the insurance companies won't be waiting to take us back if UHC fails.

And blowing trillions of $$ on the military is in my opinion not a foregone conclusion anymore. What Viet Nam began Iraq is finishing. I don't think shifting money away from preemptive agression to domestic concerns is an oversimplification. I believe that the American public is slowly waking up to the fact that our nation is being bankrupted by multinational conglomerates and their stooges in washington. It may be slow coming, but if the media were to start doing their job, we may actually begin to chase more and more of those charlatans out of power. Ask Tom Delay.

After all the Dems didn't really win the last congressional election, the GOP lost it. People are beginning to get fed up. Once gas becomes too expensive, water becomes more scarce and medical care and drugs begins to get harder and harder for people to access, heads will start to roll in Washington.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
bobhhh at 9:43AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
spacehamster
DAJB
Have you seen Thank You For Smoking? There's a quote in that which sums up Moore's problem perfectly. A guy whose job is to defend the tobacco industry explains (and I almost certainly haven't got this word perfect) that to win an argument “I don't have to prove that I'm right; I just have to prove that you're wrong.”

Yeah, that was an excellent movie… I think it went even farther than that when he demonstrates it to his son and basically shows how he doesn't even have to prove anything as long as he makes his opponent look bad enough. Which I thought was both hilarious and very, very true.

Yes it was excellent, and the con is even more elegant than that.

You don't have to disprove your opponent. You don't even have to make your opponent look bad, that's just fun. All you have to do is cast doubt. That's it.

If people think of your opponents position, “well there is some doubt as to the validity of that argument” then he has to waste his time defending himself instead of refuting your position.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
spacehamster at 10:10AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 504
joined: 8-3-2007
bobhhh
I respectfully disagree. You seem to be certain that the goverment is incapable of managingsomething, that tax dollars are not capable of anything but being misspent.

Um, no, that's not at all what I'm saying. The points I'm making here have more to do with my perception of Sicko and its merits as a documentary, really. Believe me, I'm far from being a fan of the ideology that everything except warfare needs to be privatized, and I do agree that the state of affairs in the US is proof that there needs to be some government regulation in healthcare. All I wanted to say is that Moore oversimplifies and misrepresents the situation outside of the US to make a point that I generally agree with, and it's unfortunate, because I think he's right, but his argument is weak and therefore he won't be heard.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:50PM
bobhhh at 10:44AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
spacehamster
bobhhh
I respectfully disagree. You seem to be certain that the goverment is incapable of managingsomething, that tax dollars are not capable of anything but being misspent.

Um, no, that's not at all what I'm saying. The points I'm making here have more to do with my perception of Sicko and its merits as a documentary, really. Believe me, I'm far from being a fan of the ideology that everything except warfare needs to be privatized, and I do agree that the state of affairs in the US is proof that there needs to be some government regulation in healthcare. All I wanted to say is that Moore oversimplifies and misrepresents the situation outside of the US to make a point that I generally agree with, and it's unfortunate, because I think he's right, but his argument is weak and therefore he won't be heard.

Ok! My bad. :)
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
albone at 9:34AM, Dec. 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 413
joined: 10-27-2006
I really think the point of Moore's movie was to encourage discussion, like the one being had here. The more people that are hip to the broken US healthcare system the better. We don't have to have a solution right now, but we do need to talk about one right now.
You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor!
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:48AM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 10:02AM, Dec. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
albone
I really think the point of Moore's movie was to encourage discussion

The point was to put more money in Moore's pocket so he could live the high in the hog lifestyle he's become accustomed to. He picked a hot button issue that he knew would draw in the crowds. People despise the medical industry and love to see someone make them look bad.

Moore is a hypocrit who plays the class envy card in his movies while living a comfortable high class lifestyle. He could care less if people talk about the issue, he just wants to make craploads of money.
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved