Michael Moore bitchslaps CNN

[Crowley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpKoN40K7mA

regardless of what you think of him... it's pretty great to see how if you go off script CNN folk get flustered.

here's the dispute of CNN's info:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article_10017.php

[LtMarvel]

It's about time Michael Moore got himself a crew. Ought to cut down on the posers who attack his films with half truths and lies (which are repeated by Moore attackers on the internet over and over).

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Wolf Blitzer gets BBBBBLLLLIIITZZZED !! I admit I laughed my ass off as he was just visually shaken by Moore. The entire thing rattled him. It reminds me of a sketch on SNL last year they ran where the guy played Blitzer and he was blindsided there.

[Sabrinaset]

The minute Moore started whining about CNNs coverage about Fareinheit 9/11 and the Iraqi war and WMD's when he started to speak, I thought "Maaan, this guy needs to call the WAHmbulance."

But geez, if yer gunna make a documentary about health care, start losing some weight yourself. I'd hate to measure his cholesterol level, it's probably about a million.

And if we got everyone in this country to stop overeating, smoking, drinking, and doing drugs, we wouldn't have ANY kind of health care problem!

[Michael P]

The minute Moore started whining about CNNs coverage about Fareinheit 9/11 and the Iraqi war and WMD's when he started to speak, I thought "Maaan, this guy needs to call the WAHmbulance."
[/SIZE]

Yeah, how dare he expect the news media to be objective?

[Spackling Compound]

And if we got everyone in this country to stop overeating, smoking, drinking, and doing drugs, we wouldn't have ANY kind of health care problem! *









*promiscuous and unprotected sex, too (or we got that figured out?)

[Crowley]

But geez, if yer gunna make a documentary about health care, start losing some weight yourself. I'd hate to measure his cholesterol level, it's probably about a million.

He agrees and said so in his first interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_QoffvYQpw

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Yeah, how dare he expect the news media to be objective?

Its a good thing he wasn't on Fox News. They would have cued away from him halfway thru or called Moore Un-American ! :p

[Sabrinaset]

Yeah, how dare he expect the news media to be objective?

...I dunno, I think Moore and the MSM are about on the same level of class, objectivity, and intelligence, actually. But the second he comes on and starts complaining about what happened three years ago ... I mean, yow. I think he actually talked about his movie at one point, didn't he? Yes, I'm sure he did.

Moore reminded me of one of Daddy's jokes about the teacher who has a kid and can't come up with a name for him because every name he thinks of reminds him of some rotten kid he had years ago :) Poor Michael has gotten so big, he can't move on. Or move at all.

On the other hand, it's nice watching Wolfie get flummoxed. Always a treat.

He agrees and said so in his first interview

He's got a ways to go. Give him some of that Trim-Spa. It worked for Anna Nicole Smith.

[lonewolf23k]

As a right-winger, I find it hilarious to see CNN and Michael Moore, two of the most Left-Wing anti-Bush media outlets ever at each other's throats..

[PatrickG]

And if we got everyone in this country to stop overeating, smoking, drinking, and doing drugs, we wouldn't have ANY kind of health care problem!

Add loud bass, unprotected sex, reckless driving and lotsa guns and you have a list of everything that makes America, well... America.

I mean, would it be worth living that extra thirty years without booze, fatty foods and generally dangerous activities?

I'd take sixty years off my life if I could get twice the enjoyment out of what unhealthy living I do have.

That's what medicine should turn its attention towards. I want you to kill me faster and make it fun! I wanna live fast and fun and explode in an aneurysm of joy.

It sounds selfish, I guess.

But c'mon... I'm not sure the epicureans have it wrong except they're too slow in self destructing, so they just create an extra hurdle for all the type A personalities.

I mean, death is an end to suffering in most dualist religions. And the righteous have all their suffering erased or taken away. Which doesn't really set right with me.

But if so, what difference does it make? Why not just embrace gluttony now?

So we might go impotent or spread disease or do something stupid and wipe out civilization.

I'm not really sure it'd be such a big loss anyway.

And honestly, I'm half-seriously entertaining all this...

[Crowley]

He's got a ways to go. Give him some of that Trim-Spa. It worked for Anna Nicole Smith.

yeah that worked out really well for her...

[kingdom2000]

...I dunno, I think Moore and the MSM are about on the same level of class, objectivity, and intelligence, actually. But the second he comes on and starts complaining about what happened three years ago ...

there is lies the problem. Your focused on it what he said as the "past" when its really the present. He made many many valid points that no one seems to want to discuss especially the press who fell alseep for about 5 years after 9/11. If the hard questions had been asked then, we might still be at war but damn the plan would have been far more developed then "we will be greeted as liberators." I wish more people would call the press on their crap like that.

[Adam C]

As a right-winger, I find it hilarious to see CNN and Michael Moore, two of the most Left-Wing anti-Bush media outlets ever at each other's throats..

I find it hilarious that people think that CNN is at all left-wing.

And it's only as anti-Bush as the rest of the mainstream media after Bush's staggering incompetence became apparent. During the lead-up to the Iraq War and during the invasion it was every-bit as pliant as the rest.

[Adam C]

The minute Moore started whining about CNNs coverage about Fareinheit 9/11 and the Iraqi war and WMD's when he started to speak, I thought "Maaan, this guy needs to call the WAHmbulance."

Yes, because only whiners get angry over blatant smear jobs.

But geez, if yer gunna make a documentary about health care, start losing some weight yourself.

Ah, Michael Moore is fat. Discussion resolved!

[Sabrinaset]

yeah that worked out really well for her...

Now, now, Crowley! Trim-Spa had nothing to do with her death, lookit, I found the report here. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0326071anna1.html) Then again, if you're Cam63, HelloKittyKat, or myself, this (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0326074report1.html) is more interesting :)

She credited it to her losing weight, although I'm pretty sure she was involved in a major life-style change as well. Look, whatever gets Moore to lose maybe a dozen tons or so, whether Trim-Spa, Weight Watchers, or a chainsaw to the gut, whatever works. It's hard to speak out against the health care system when you look like you haven't visited a doctor in a while yourself.

there is lies the problem. Your focused on it what he said as the "past" when its really the present...

But the problem Moore has is that he was called in to talk about "Sicko" and instead immediately whining and whining and whining about everything else EXCEPT the movie. If he were a CBR poster, we'd start complaining about him hijacking the thread! And believe me, I know what I'm talking about here! :p

Ah, Michael Moore is fat. Discussion resolved!

Just wait until the next Ann Coulter thread. I give it two posts until someone makes a comment about her looks, hands, whatever. It's a CBR tradition!

[Michael P]

I find it hilarious that people think that CNN is at all left-wing.

And it's only as anti-Bush as the rest of the mainstream media after Bush's staggering incompetence became apparent. During the lead-up to the Iraq War and during the invasion it was every-bit as pliant as the rest.

Wolf Blitzer might as well wear a skirt and pom-poms.

[Red Jack]

I find it hilarious that anyone thinks ANYTHING you see on TV is "left wing."

You do know how TV works, right?

[Crowley]

Now, now, Crowley! Trim-Spa had nothing to do with her death, lookit, I found the report here. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0326071anna1.html) Then again, if you're Cam63, HelloKittyKat, or myself, this (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0326074report1.html) is more interesting :)

She credited it to her losing weight, although I'm pretty sure she was involved in a major life-style change as well. Look, whatever gets Moore to lose maybe a dozen tons or so, whether Trim-Spa, Weight Watchers, or a chainsaw to the gut, whatever works. It's hard to speak out against the health care system when you look like you haven't visited a doctor in a while yourself.

Which AGAIN... he said the same thing in the first YouTube link I posted to you...

And I'm an overweight guy... most of america is... and I need to make life changes to lose weight...

[Christopher Cross Is God]

It's about time Michael Moore got himself a crew. Ought to cut down on the posers who attack his films with half truths and lies (which are repeated by Moore attackers on the internet over and over).

If there are any posers who attack Moore's films with half-truths and lies, it's deserved, as Moore's films are filled with half-truths and lies, anyway.

Or do you really think Canadians don't lock their doors? :D

[LtMarvel]

So you don't think the door was unlocked?

[Reverend Smooth]

It's hard to speak out against the health care system when you look like you haven't visited a doctor in a while yourself.
That's a good indictment of america's shoddy health care system, actually.

[Solaris]

Now, now, Crowley! Trim-Spa had nothing to do with her death, lookit, I found the report here. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0326071anna1.html) Then again, if you're Cam63, HelloKittyKat, or myself, this (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0326074report1.html) is more interesting :)




Actually, I watched the coronor's press conference live... and while his conclusion was "accidental overdose, caused by drugs in combination," he did also cite the severe infection with flu-like symptoms she'd had as being a factor... because it led to some of the drugs prescribed, and was one reason she was prescribed the sleeping medication.

They found various lesions in her buttocks, presumably from improper sterilyzation of the skin when she self-injected her diet aid... and one of those lesions formed an abscess. It's apparent that the severe "flu" she had was the result of that abscess being irritated by her most recent shot.

I was very impressed with the coronor. He and his team brought in several specialists to examine the body and take samples, including toxicology and infectious disease specialists. They took great care in searching for the cause of her death. Further and especially, before he gave their results, he first apologized to the family and friends of Ms. Smith, that the necessity of an autopsy required revealing private and personal information about the individual that would otherwise not be released to the public, and for any pain this might cause them---but that it is a necessity in determining the cause of death, which is also a duty to the deceased. Further, he thanked everyone on his team and the outside personnel... even his secretary, who had handled tons of phone calls, etc.

Finally, after he finished his summation of the report and took questions, he was quite adamant in not allowing the media to infer false assumptions from the data, or infer murder when it was clearly an accidental death. (That's not easy to do with the news hounds.) AND, when questioned about how different doctors could prescribe these medicines without knowledge of other scripts she was taking, while he said that would be for the police to look into, he also took the opportunity to plug a proposed law in Florida that would require knowledge of all medicines being taken be given to doctors and to pharmacists (basically, the kind of law we have here in Georgia)---because such a law helps prevent lethal drug interactions caused by one doctor not knowing another one has prescribed something that would make the second drug contraindicated.

The guy had a really strong accent (and was hard to understand at times), he was a bit dumpy-looking and bald... and I totally didn't care: he showed compassion to the deceased, and to the family; dedication to finding the truth; and a refusal to let anyone twist the conclusions into something else.

You just don't see much of that nowadays, especially from a public official.

[TCJohnson]

It's hard to speak out against the health care system when you look like you haven't visited a doctor in a while yourself.


I really need to go to the doctor too. I got a bunch of problems I need looked at. Unfortunately I can't afford it.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

So you don't think the door was unlocked?

So you think Canadians don't lock their doors?

[Lester C.]

Politically I agree with Micheal Moore, but the man is an asshole.

[LtMarvel]

So you think Canadians don't lock their doors?
I have film evidence that one Canadian, completely chosen at random, didn't one time. :)

[Jack Zodiac]

I really need to go to the doctor too. I got a bunch of problems I need looked at. Unfortunately I can't afford it.

ZAM!

I happen to have real medical insurance through my job, and I can still barely afford it. Especially the shit that matters, like my heart. The healthcare system in America is just one more way to fuck you in the ass.

And I'm with Lester. The guy brings up good, valid points that need to be brought up, especially with all the bluster he brings them up with, but he's an asshole and a half.

[Jack Zodiac]

Fuck.Fuck.

[Jack Zodiac]

Double fuck.

[Alan Lynch]

Double fuck.
Double fucking is a great way to stay in shape. It's fun, too!

[KevinTBrown]

The minute Moore started whining about CNNs coverage about Fareinheit 9/11 and the Iraqi war and WMD's when he started to speak, I thought "Maaan, this guy needs to call the WAHmbulance."

But geez, if yer gunna make a documentary about health care, start losing some weight yourself. I'd hate to measure his cholesterol level, it's probably about a million.

And if we got everyone in this country to stop overeating, smoking, drinking, and doing drugs, we wouldn't have ANY kind of health care problem!

I'm very disappointed in you... You, if anyone, should know that being over weight does not automatically make your cholesterol high. My best friend is well over 300 pounds and his cholesterol and triglycerides are normal. Granted, odds are in his "favor" that it's high, but it's not a given....

However, the thing is and no matter how "whiney" he's sounding, Moore's dead on accurate.

[Reverend Smooth]

Basically-- in canada (and france, the uk is also better, amazingly enough), you have about the same or better wait times in the ER than in the US (in my observation, better-- I never had to wait more than six to eight hours at worst in canada, while my gf regularly waits over 12 in socal, for example).

Wait times for surgery are longer. However, many more people end up getting those surgeries than do americans, and also tay in the hospital longer to recover properly. They also have access to physiotherapy.

They have access to preventative medicine, which results in better overall health and, more significantly, a lower infant mortality rate and higher longevity.

I noticed that records were more easily kept in my home province because of hospitals all being linked together under the government. Swipe the card, all the info came right up. Tests came faster, but the hospital I frequented had its own lab.

I'm not a doctor (sabrinaset questioned my ability to criticise the medical profession in the US since I'm not one-- which is silly, because you don't, say, need to be a restauranteur to know that you're being served bad food or receiving poor service), but I'm terminally ill and have been chronically ill my whole life, and thus have spent a lot of time in american (many american, since I traveled cross-country for years) and canadian hospitals. But my experiences are backed up by studies.

From the point of view of a very well-educated layman (I have never fond science and medicine complicated, money was why I couldn't attend college) and from the studies out on the subject, the US medical system sucks. If you have money and you want something cut out of you, great. Otherwise, you're better served going to another country.

There are good doctors in the US (but they are not better than those of other industrialised nations), but the system is so broken -- and there are so many lousy doctors here, endocrinology is a joke -- that their impact is unfortunately extremely blunted.

And instead of being defensive about it, US doctors really need to admit that the US system benefits doctors and not patients.

'Well, socialised medicine has all these problems!' Yes, there are some. But even with those problems, many people in those other countries live longer, healthier lives. The richest americans do worse than the lowest-income folks in those other countries.

And those citizens are not taxed into poverty. In Canada, for example, social mobility is better. People can move up in income brackets more easily, they have more comfortable financial lives, and become poorer much less easily.

So the canard about socialised medicine being bad and the citizen being taxed to death are false. There is no valid reason, except the medical industry's payrates becoming less astronomical, to favor the US system over, say, Canada's. For every very rare case that someone in canada cannot get surgery fast enough due to waiting lists, many, many more people in america cannot get that surgery fast enough because they can't pay for it. You can't even say that rich american citizens do better under the US system, because their health is worse and they die sooner than poor canadians.

So say what you want about Michael Moore (and I have based none of my post on what he says, to head that off), but he is correct in saying that the US could do better, and that the propaganda about it being better than other countries' systems is categorically false.

[DungeonmasterJim]

Thread derailment:

Hey Sabrina, I'm blowing sticky gooey globs of yellow mucus from my nose about every five or six hours in a spoonful quantity. It was suggested that it could be a sinus infection. I feel fine. Should I see a doc or ride it out?

And,...um,... whats a good remedy for whip wounds. No reason, I was just,...curious.

Did anyone see 60 minutes this past Sunday? I forgot who the guy was in the first segment but he said in 20 years America will not be able to afford Medicre and Medicad (spelling?). With health cost doubling faster than twice the rate of inflation and fewer people putting into the system while more are becoming dependent on it America is in trouble. He also said that when Bush signed in prescriptions to Medicare I think it was, it will add 8 trillion, yes trillion, dollars to the cost of health care because the elderly are living much longer now than they use to.

DM Jim

[Solaris]

Basically-- in canada (and france, the uk is also better, amazingly enough), you have about the same or better wait times in the ER than in the US (in my observation, better-- I never had to wait more than six to eight hours at worst in canada, while my gf regularly waits over 12 in socal, for example).

Wait times for surgery are longer. However, many more people end up getting those surgeries than do americans, and also tay in the hospital longer to recover properly. They also have access to physiotherapy.

They have access to preventative medicine, which results in better overall health and, more significantly, a lower infant mortality rate and higher longevity.

I noticed that records were more easily kept in my home province because of hospitals all being linked together under the government. Swipe the card, all the info came right up. Tests came faster, but the hospital I frequented had its own lab.

I'm not a doctor (sabrinaset questioned my ability to criticise the medical profession in the US since I'm not one-- which is silly, because you don't, say, need to be a restauranteur to know that you're being served bad food or receiving poor service), but I'm terminally ill and have been chronically ill my whole life, and thus have spent a lot of time in american (many american, since I traveled cross-country for years) and canadian hospitals. But my experiences are backed up by studies.

From the point of view of a very well-educated layman (I have never fond science and medicine complicated, money was why I couldn't attend college) and from the studies out on the subject, the US medical system sucks. If you have money and you want something cut out of you, great. Otherwise, you're better served going to another country.

There are good doctors in the US (but they are not better than those of other industrialised nations), but the system is so broken -- and there are so many lousy doctors here, endocrinology is a joke -- that their impact is unfortunately extremely blunted.

And instead of being defensive about it, US doctors really need to admit that the US system benefits doctors and not patients.

'Well, socialised medicine has all these problems!' Yes, there are some. But even with those problems, many people in those other countries live longer, healthier lives. The richest americans do worse than the lowest-income folks in those other countries.

And those citizens are not taxed into poverty. In Canada, for example, social mobility is better. People can move up in income brackets more easily, they have more comfortable financial lives, and become poorer much less easily.

So the canard about socialised medicine being bad and the citizen being taxed to death are false. There is no valid reason, except the medical industry's payrates becoming less astronomical, to favor the US system over, say, Canada's. For every very rare case that someone in canada cannot get surgery fast enough due to waiting lists, many, many more people in america cannot get that surgery fast enough because they can't pay for it. You can't even say that rich american citizens do better under the US system, because their health is worse and they die sooner than poor canadians.

So say what you want about Michael Moore (and I have based none of my post on what he says, to head that off), but he is correct in saying that the US could do better, and that the propaganda about it being better than other countries' systems is categorically false.

Thanks for sharing, Rev... that was quite an eye-opener.

And you're right: waiting on a list is a helluva lot better than never getting your surgery because you can't afford it at all... and preventative medicine here mainly consists of your doctor telling you "don't smoke, cut back the salt, avoid fatty foods, and get some exercise." In and of themselves, those are good things... but there's so much more to preventative medicine than that, that it's practically a joke here... especially when, more often than not, insurance companies still won't pay to *prevent* a problem (if you have insurance)---instead, they want to wait till you develop it, incur huge bills taking care of it, etc.

And we won't even go there on the "pre-existing condition/we won't cover that" bullshit.:mad:

[Sabrinaset]

I'm very disappointed in you... You, if anyone, should know that being over weight does not automatically make your cholesterol high. My best friend is well over 300 pounds and his cholesterol and triglycerides are normal. Granted, odds are in his "favor" that it's high, but it's not a given....

However, the thing is and no matter how "whiney" he's sounding, Moore's dead on accurate.

You're always going to have exc eptions out there. Yeah, there are morbidly overweight people walking about with low cholesterol levels, but the odds of you being one are so low ... No, if I were a betting girl, my money would be on him having a number in the mid to high 200's, and probably a fair amount of his arteries clogged.

The fact remains that the guy was asked to talk about Sicko and instead went off on a tangent about how CNN treated him poorly (Then geez! Why'd you even bother to show up there in the first place unless you WANTED to bitch, Moore?) and complained about everything under the sun. When he was talking about WMD, I just thought "Okay, this guy came into the studio planning to whine and complain as loudly as he can, and with as many people hearing him as he can." And, this would be perfectly natural behavior ... from a teenager.

Dungeonmaster Jim: See an Ear, Nose, and Throat guy!

[Reverend Smooth]

Thanks for sharing, Rev... that was quite an eye-opener.

And you're right: waiting on a list is a helluva lot better than never getting your surgery because you can't afford it at all... and preventative medicine here mainly consists of your doctor telling you "don't smoke, cut back the salt, avoid fatty foods, and get some exercise." In and of themselves, those are good things... but there's so much more to preventative medicine than that, that it's practically a joke here... especially when, more often than not, insurance companies still won't pay to *prevent* a problem (if you have insurance)---instead, they want to wait till you develop it, incur huge bills taking care of it, etc.

And we won't even go there on the "pre-existing condition/we won't cover that" bullshit.:mad:Yeah, really. XD

Sabrinaset: No, he correctly called them out on doing a hatchet job immediately prior to his coming onto the show, just like they did last time. He is under no obligation to act like a pussy and take that.

It take more guts to call people out when they talk smack about you than it does to say nothing. And that's not whining. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he isn't justified in confronting people who lied about him minutes before he went on the air. At that point, he may simply have decided that, since they were slagging him -- and the healthcare of other countries -- anyway, he was going to eat their faces first.

Edit: Teenage behavior is what the network did. 'American healthcare is better,' is false. They lied. There are hard numbers out there about the subject, and they flat-out lied. If you want to talk about juvenile behavior, lying about a system that both directly and indirectly results in the deaths and suffering of americans, including all those babies neocons are ostensibly worried about, is pretty fucking juvenile.

[Adam C]

Just wait until the next Ann Coulter thread. I give it two posts until someone makes a comment about her looks, hands, whatever. It's a CBR tradition!

Yes, because someone else doing it makes it okay. Seriously, in a sane political discussion the validity of Moore's points would be at debate, not his weight. Anyways he's talking political policy rather than people's lifestyle choices and their health.


The fact remains that the guy was asked to talk about Sicko and instead went off on a tangent about how CNN treated him poorly...

Because they just did a hatchet job on his work that was loaded with inaccuracies. What about that is so hard to understand?

[Alex Scott]

Not just a hatchet job, but one they knew was inaccurate (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/07/10/email-shows-cnn-gupta-g_n_55697.html) when they re-aired it before Moore's appearance.

And really, he's got a point. Something is seriously wrong with one of the biggest news sources in the country would rather fact-check a documentary filmmaker than the president making a case to go to war. It's just like when Jon Stewart smacked the Crossfire people around--something is also wrong when a comedian does their job better than they do.

[Francis]

Basically-- in canada (and france, the uk is also better, amazingly enough), you have about the same or better wait times in the ER than in the US (in my observation, better-- I never had to wait more than six to eight hours at worst in canada, while my gf regularly waits over 12 in socal, for example).

For the record, the waiting time target in Britain is 98% of patients seen within 4 hours (up from 90% because that proved too easy) and there'd be an inquiry if A&E took 12 hours to see anyone. Admittedly, the statistics here are gamed a bit - but compared to the UK even 6 to 8 hours is dire.

Also for the record, anyone who uses taxes as an excuse for the murderous medical system* the US has is talking complete crap. We spend less per head from taxes on healthcare than you do. So do the Canadians.

* A lot of US doctors are superb and this is not meant to be a slur on them. It's simply that the system is so FUBAR'd that good doctors simply aren't enough.

[Solaris]

For the record, the waiting time target in Britain is 98% of patients seen within 4 hours (up from 90% because that proved too easy) and there'd be an inquiry if A&E took 12 hours to see anyone. Admittedly, the statistics here are gamed a bit - but compared to the UK even 6 to 8 hours is dire.

Also for the record, anyone who uses taxes as an excuse for the murderous medical system* the US has is talking complete crap. We spend less per head from taxes on healthcare than you do. So do the Canadians.

* A lot of US doctors are superb and this is not meant to be a slur on them. It's simply that the system is so FUBAR'd that good doctors simply aren't enough.


Medicine is Big Business in the U.S.... from doctors charging outrageous fees, to labs and hospitals and pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment companies doing the same, to insurance companies putting in the fix to make as much as they can, while delivering as little as they can to their clients.

Granted, some doctors wouldn't charge so high a fee, if they in turn weren't being charged out the wazoo for malpractice insurance (I'm thinking of OB/GYN's in particular---many have actually left their field and moved on to other parts of medicine, simply because they couldn't handle the malpractice insurance). Also, many med students now avoid OB/GYN as a profession, for the same reason.

Granted, there still *are* doctors out there who actually practice MEDICINE; who actually believe in and follow their Hippocratic Oath, who genuinely care for their patients' welfare, and do the very best job they can... but it seems like, more and more, too many doctors are in it for the money, or have gotten burned out by the bureaucracy of medicine, etc.

I wish we *did* have a socialized heath care system... because far too many people fall through the cracks, especially children. As it is, a fair chunk of a lot of people's paychecks goes toward their "part" of their health insurance (with the employer paying the other part)---so if that money went into taxes instead, would it matter? Especially if, when your company downsizes, and you get laid off, and you can't afford the "COBRA" insurance, or you go to work for a place that *has* no insurance, and you can't afford the high rates for an individual policy... gee, you'd still have health care, instead of avoiding the doctor until you're either injured, or sick as a dog, and then when you go, you rack up thousands of dollars of bills.

*pant pant for that run-on sentence*

There are pregnant women out there who get no pre-natal care (a big contributor to ill-health, disease, and infant mortality). There are children out there who never see any more of a doctor than getting their immunizations at the health clinic. There are people out there who've lost their homes because of illness or injury that sent their medical bills into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are people who suffer on with a longterm condition, often one that's medically-correctable... because they can't afford to pay, their insurance doesn't cover it (or enough of it), or they don't have insurance at all.

Yeah, we've got the best healthcare system in the world... we also have a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale.

[KevinTBrown]

Solaris, you could have stopped after you said: Medicine is Big Business in the U.S....

That is why I firmly believe they'll never find and/or reveal a cure for AIDS or cancer.

[Loren]

I wish we *did* have a socialized heath care system... because far too many people fall through the cracks, especially children. As it is, a fair chunk of a lot of people's paychecks goes toward their "part" of their health insurance (with the employer paying the other part)---so if that money went into taxes instead, would it matter? Especially if, when your company downsizes, and you get laid off, and you can't afford the "COBRA" insurance, or you go to work for a place that *has* no insurance, and you can't afford the high rates for an individual policy... gee, you'd still have health care, instead of avoiding the doctor until you're either injured, or sick as a dog, and then when you go, you rack up thousands of dollars of bills.

*pant pant for that run-on sentence*

There are pregnant women out there who get no pre-natal care (a big contributor to ill-health, disease, and infant mortality). There are children out there who never see any more of a doctor than getting their immunizations at the health clinic. There are people out there who've lost their homes because of illness or injury that sent their medical bills into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are people who suffer on with a longterm condition, often one that's medically-correctable... because they can't afford to pay, their insurance doesn't cover it (or enough of it), or they don't have insurance at all.

Yeah, we've got the best healthcare system in the world... we also have a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale.

I haven't seen SiCKO yet (I pay to see very few films in theaters these days), but when the AJC ran four reviews of the film together, one comment stuck with me. That even if you accept all of the problems that Moore presents, that's still just a presentation of symptoms of a greater problem. Just because the health care system in the US is messed up doesn't mean that socialized medicine is the way to fix it, or even the best available option.

Socialized medicine, after all, basically turns the federal government into one big insurance company. And most problems we currently have with insurance companies (such as treatments being denied) would be present under a gov't system. Some problems would be alleviated (the high cost of insurance for at-risk individuals), others would be increased or newly created (when private conduct carries a cost to the public, expect the public to want to regulate it more heavily). The government will still have to work within a budget, just like an insurance company.

Last week's Creative Loafing had an editorial column endorsing socialized health care. One of the examples supporting the need for more government involvement in health care was, hilariously, Peachcare. (For those of you outside of Georgia, that's Georgia's public health care assistance program for low-income children, which ran into horrible money problems and had to start cutting expenses and treatments.) If a government-run health insurance program is just as much of a boondoggle as private ones, why should we universalize the government one?

One argument we see is that the government supposedly has lower overhead costs. It certainly has less of a profit motivation (which can cut both ways). Medicare supposedly has 3% or so. But then, Medicare collects revenues from every working American, but only a fraction of Americans are even permitted to make a claim to Medicare. Collecting money is cheap; it's evaluating and paying claims that's the expensive part. So naturally Medicare looks efficient.

This year, Medicare will get over $1800 on just my behalf. Which, as it happens, is roughly equal to my recently jacked-up health insurance annual premium. So while the cost of private health insurance is seriously aggravating me (I'm in the market for something that should cut it by 30-40%), the cost of the government-run health insurance aggravates me even more, because it gives me NOTHING in return. Nothing, at least, for the next 35 years. Of those two, at least the private insurance is there to help me in the here and now. So when I consider universalizing something akin to Medicare, I foresee an insurance scheme that's still inordinately expensive and inefficient.

It's also been pointed out that government has plenty of weapons in its arsenal to combat health care costs. Tax breaks, tax benefits, incentives, disincentives, public clinics, etc. Even if we decide that health care is, and should be, the purvue of the feds, why automatically assume that they should simply operate as a giant insurer, paying for individuals' expenses? Given the complaints about how insurance systems work, shouldn't we give greater consideration to a federalized system that doesn't simply mirror the way insurance companies operate?

[Reverend Smooth]

It's also been pointed out that government has plenty of weapons in its arsenal to combat health care costs. Tax breaks, tax benefits, incentives, disincentives,

Lower to lower middle class doesn't make enough to qualify for that (my household, for example, doesn't make enough to be taxed on our income, so ta breaks and benefits mean nothing), so no, that would not assist the people who go without healthcare.

Tax breaks and benefits only benefit people in a lucrative income bracket; why would that benefit the social classes who are the bulk of those who can't afford healthcare? (Though the middle class is starting to feel the pinch, which is why, ZOMG, it's a problem now.)

[Solaris]

I haven't seen SiCKO yet (I pay to see very few films in theaters these days), but when the AJC ran four reviews of the film together, one comment stuck with me. That even if you accept all of the problems that Moore presents, that's still just a presentation of symptoms of a greater problem. Just because the health care system in the US is messed up doesn't mean that socialized medicine is the way to fix it, or even the best available option.

Socialized medicine, after all, basically turns the federal government into one big insurance company. And most problems we currently have with insurance companies (such as treatments being denied) would be present under a gov't system. Some problems would be alleviated (the high cost of insurance for at-risk individuals), others would be increased or newly created (when private conduct carries a cost to the public, expect the public to want to regulate it more heavily). The government will still have to work within a budget, just like an insurance company.

The government *also* gets to set the rates that can be *charged* for a procedure, medicine, treatment, etc... and it has no profit in setting an outrageously high rate; so budgeting isn't as much of an issue as you imply.

Last week's Creative Loafing had an editorial column endorsing socialized health care. One of the examples supporting the need for more government involvement in health care was, hilariously, Peachcare. (For those of you outside of Georgia, that's Georgia's public health care assistance program for low-income children, which ran into horrible money problems and had to start cutting expenses and treatments.) If a government-run health insurance program is just as much of a boondoggle as private ones, why should we universalize the government one?

Perhaps because it's only being applied within the state? Perhaps they weren't allowed to set rates? How is it that, with all the millions the state garners for the Lottery that are supposed to go toward education and Hope Scholarships, that the program started running out of money? Perhaps because the moneys from the Lottery went into a general kitty, rather than being solely dedicated to the purpose for which they were given---and state officials *naturally* spent the money all over the map?

One argument we see is that the government supposedly has lower overhead costs. It certainly has less of a profit motivation (which can cut both ways). Medicare supposedly has 3% or so. But then, Medicare collects revenues from every working American, but only a fraction of Americans are even permitted to make a claim to Medicare. Collecting money is cheap; it's evaluating and paying claims that's the expensive part. So naturally Medicare looks efficient.

This year, Medicare will get over $1800 on just my behalf. Which, as it happens, is roughly equal to my recently jacked-up health insurance annual premium. So while the cost of private health insurance is seriously aggravating me (I'm in the market for something that should cut it by 30-40%), the cost of the government-run health insurance aggravates me even more, because it gives me NOTHING in return. Nothing, at least, for the next 35 years. Of those two, at least the private insurance is there to help me in the here and now. So when I consider universalizing something akin to Medicare, I foresee an insurance scheme that's still inordinately expensive and inefficient.

How short-sighted of you. You are making several assumptions in that statement that are based on your situation never changing, Loren:

What guarantee do you have that you'll always have a job that gives you enough income to maintain private insurance? Does everyone else have that guarantee? Oh, I know you're in legal and not McDonalds... but what happens when you develop a brain tumor that impairs your function to work at your job? What happens then when your longterm disability (which I assume you're paying for) doesn't cover your ongoing medical bills, and/or runs out? What happens when your income is based solely on whatever disability payments you can get? Will it be enough to cover your rent/mortgage, food, clothing, utilities, transportation, AND some kind of private insurance? Will you attempt to declare bankruptcy, as so many in that situation have to *try* to do? What if you have children at that point---and you can't afford to cover *them* with health insurance, either?

You're taking an awful lot for granted. Perhaps you have an investment portfolio you're building, for just such an emergency. Perhaps your parents or siblings have enough money to care for you (and your children), should the worst happen... does everyone? Should we all assume that, because *you'll* be fine in such a situation, that everyone will be?

Loren, I've seen it happen. I've seen a two-person family with a $70K per year income go down the tubes: husband got laid off, wife already had ongoing health issues, he first developed heart and bloodpressure issues that left him disabled... and then he contracted a lethal form of cancer. Their families had no money to help them. It took 4 months for his federal disability payments to kick in... and of course, his former "longterm disability" no longer applied, because he got laid off with a downsize *before* he became disabled. His wife was unable to keep a job (though Gods know she tried) because she had to take him in for his cancer treatments---appointments that were always supposed to only take a couple of hours, but ended up running from 6:30am to 6:30pm, because of inefficiencies between the doctors, hospital, cancer center, labs, etc. (and yes, this happened at the vaunted Emory). Employers kept letting her go, because of all the time she was having to take away from work to stay with him during his treatments.

The ONLY reason they managed to get any kind of insurance at all was that it made money for Emory: it cost the hospital around $10K per month, paying his health insurance... and they were making around $130K per month, for his various treatments, etc. Of course, they wouldn't extend the coverage to his WIFE... and she went without insurance completely for over 2 years... and for all of that time, she was doing all this and *trying* to hold down a job with bone spurs from an improperly-set broken foot sawing away at her achilles tendon. The only reason she got any medical treatment at all was that their wonderful GP, whenever the husband would come in to be seen, would also ask how she was doing, and if she was sick, would give her samples from his office---and he never charged them a dime for unofficially "seeing" her. One of the reasons they managed to keep one nostril above water, month to month, was because as much as we could, those of us who were their friends kicked in whatever we could to help---and often, we too were dealing with financial difficulties. Lord knows, no matter how much or little we (the group of us) were able to give them was more than their families ever did for them.

And the only reason this woman didn't lose her house, etc., is because her husband finally *died*, and his life insurance paid off enough of their debt for her to get by on the job she was finally able to get and keep, after she no longer had to carry her husband in for day-long treatments, 2-3 days per week.

It's also been pointed out that government has plenty of weapons in its arsenal to combat health care costs. Tax breaks, tax benefits, incentives, disincentives, public clinics, etc. Even if we decide that health care is, and should be, the purvue of the feds, why automatically assume that they should simply operate as a giant insurer, paying for individuals' expenses? Given the complaints about how insurance systems work, shouldn't we give greater consideration to a federalized system that doesn't simply mirror the way insurance companies operate?

If they can set the rates for procedures, etc., they can cut back on the gouging that's currently going on, so that's one way they're better than private insurance companies.

Second, if your $1800 per month was going into federal health taxes (and ONLY that; NOT into a general kitty) ALL of your money would be going into the program... versus the cuts being taken out of it now by insurance company shareholders, CEO's, etc. Let's face it: everyone knows that govt. employees make less than the private business sector; so while certainly *some* of your collected health tax money would go to the administrative side, a whole lot more would go toward maintaining the national health program---which you would benefit from NOW, whether or not you're employed at a rate to "afford" health insurance.

AND, if your income DID suddenly fall off, or you became seriously ill or disabled, you'd STILL have heath coverage: you'd still be able to go to hospitals, see a doctor, etc. Under your private coverage, if for some reason your policy is terminated (such as, you get laid off) and then you develop such an illness or disability, you're up shit creek (unless, of course, your family can foot the bill).

Loren, Life is never Static. Things change. Sometimes, they change for the very worst, and in very unexpected ways. Stop assuming that you'll always be able to afford to pay for insurance, or that you'll never have a crisis in your life that requires financially-debilitating bills that even your upper-middle-class family can't meet or help with. Stop assuming that "it always happens to the 'other' guy." And stop assuming that, because you think *you'll* always be all right, that everyone else will be, too.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

I have film evidence that one Canadian, completely chosen at random, didn't one time. :)

So because Michael Moore found one Canadian, chosen at random, who didn't have his/her door locked, it means Canada is so safe no one locks their doors there?

Seriously, that's just one example of Moore's many fallacies presented in his films.

Sadly enough, the majority of his beliefs conveyed onto film are correct, but he uses misdirection to get his point across......Yes, Canada, overall, is a much safer country than America. But, surprisingly enough, people do lock their doors there.....And comparing the crime-rate of a small border town like Windsor, Ontario, to that of Detroit, Michigan, is absolutely laughable. How about if we compare the crime-rate of Davenport, Iowa, to Montreal or Toronto?

I could go on all day about Moore's bs (And there's quite a bit), but frankly, that film version of a snake oil salesman isn't worth the time.

[Solaris]

So because Michael Moore found one Canadian, chosen at random, who didn't have his/her door locked, it means Canada is so safe no one locks their doors there?

Seriously, that's just one example of Moore's many fallacies presented in his films.

Sadly enough, the majority of his beliefs conveyed onto film are correct, but he uses misdirection to get his point across......Yes, Canada, overall, is a much safer country than America. But, surprisingly enough, people do lock their doors there.....And comparing the crime-rate of a small border town like Windsor, Ontario, to that of Detroit, Michigan, is absolutely laughable. How about if we compare the crime-rate of Davenport, Iowa, to Montreal or Toronto?

I could go on all day about Moore's bs (And there's quite a bit), but frankly, that film version of a snake oil salesman isn't worth the time.

I can't stand Michael Moore... but the subject matter of SICKO! really did need to be addressed. (And yep, I'm what they call a "Liberal" 'roun' these here parts... and I still don't like Moore.) From what I've seen about his past "documentaries" (they don't deserve the name, IMO), it's exactly that "bait and switch/slant the conclusion" tactic he's so fond of using that shoots his work in the foot. If he wasn't so lazy, he could ferret out *completely FACTUAL* information to present, and address the same subjects in a far more helpful fashion.

It's kind of like having your "trailer park cousin" come over to "help" you clean house when you're sick: they may clean, all right---after staying all day, eating half the contents of your fridge and taking the other half home with them, and running the tv at full volume while you writhe in bed with a monumental migrane. You might have needed the cleaning help... but what you had to give up to get it makes you wonder if it was worth it at all, and in many ways leaves you worse off than you were before.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Basically-- in canada (and france, the uk is also better, amazingly enough), you have about the same or better wait times in the ER than in the US (in my observation, better-- I never had to wait more than six to eight hours at worst in canada, while my gf regularly waits over 12 in socal, for example).

The Canada/America comparisons probably depend on which part of each country you were in.......It may also depend on when you were in Canada. When did you move to America?

I was in Ontario (Toronto, Missisauga, and Hamilton) when I lived in Canada, between 2001 to 2004, and the wait-times were atrocious.

One of my favorite examples is when my son was a few months old and was sick, we went to a hospital in Hamilton, and were in a waiting room for 8 hours overnight. This waiting room was a narrow hallway, and during this entire time we sat there with all sorts of different people with different afflictions. There was a guy with an open head-wound sitting next to me, covering his wound with a blood-soaked cloth. Imagine that, 8 hours of sitting there with an open head-wound.

I've never had that sort of wait in America, although all of my American hospital/doctor visits have been in the Dallas area. Usually, it takes an hour or two to get served here. I do remember occasions with other people where they may have to wait up to 4 hours, but I think those rare situations were in downtown hospitals. I try to stay away from those.



Wait times for surgery are longer. However, many more people end up getting those surgeries than do americans, and also tay in the hospital longer to recover properly. They also have access to physiotherapy.

Don't know about staying in the hospital longer for recovery......They sent my wife out from the hospital, after she had an emergency c-section, due to the hospital having too many patients. They didn't give us that exact reason for making her leave, but it was safe to assume such.

Due to governmental cut-backs, the hospitals we went to were woefully understaffed......Due to this, and also the larger amount of people going in for healthcare than in America (Hey, it's free), you sometimes get turned away from the emergency room because there are too many people waiting. I've never heard of a situation in America, under normal circumstances, where someone was told to go to a different hospital because the one they went to has too many people waiting for treatment.

That whole emergency c-section situation I referred to was an interesting story, actually......The medical worker delivering the baby induced labor too early, and as a result my son's head got stuck, and they had to cut my wife open without anesthesia due to possibility of hurting the baby. So, my wife had to endure getting her stomach cut open, layer by layer, without reacting to the pain (ie, no movement), until they got the baby out.

I don't fault the Canadian health system for that, as such a situation could occur in any country.

What I do fault the Canadian health system for is the fact that they would always be 2-4 hours late with my wife's antibiotics, no matter how many times she would call for a nurse, which resulted in my wife's stomach getting infected.......The tardiness was due to the hospital being understaffed. When I would be there with my wife, I would see these stressed out nurses rushing back & forth, from room to room. It was absolutely ridiculous.

Also, in terms of wait-times for surgery, I talked to a guy who had a hernia. He was confined to his couch for 6 months because that's how long it took for him to receive surgery, and as a result he gained 60 pounds during that time period because he said he would just lay there, immobilized & depressed, eating and watching TV.

Then there's the case of my mother-in-law, who needs knee surgery, but they won't give it to her until she reaches a certain age (I believe it was 65?). She's not immobilized, just has major pain in her knees which require surgery, so she has to wait a few more years as it's not an emergency situation.

Another thing about the Canadian health care system is, because it's free and far more people in Canada go for treatment compared to Americans, you kind of get brushed off by the doctors if it's not an emergency situation. My wife grew up in Canada, and she would rarely go to the doctor unless her situation was extreme......She said it's not worth it to wait for hours, finally see the doctor, and they just tell her to go buy some over-the-counter cough medicine. My wife has totally seen the difference in treatment in America, where they'll actually give you a prescription if you need it, rather than brush you off.

Hell, she would constantly have to lie to the doctors when it came to our kids, claiming their fevers had lasted longer than they really had, just to make sure they give our kids actual prescription medicine that works, rather than tell us to buy cough syrup at Shoppers Drug Mart (Which would often result in us having to see the doctor again a few days later, because the cough syrup didn't solve anything).

There's also the fact that it's an absolute pain in the ass to get a family doctor in Canada, because most of them are fully booked. And you don't really have much of a selection......It was actually pretty funny, because my in-laws, who are very religious muslims, had a Jewish doctor who was apparently prejudiced against muslims, as he treated them like shit. He wouldn't say openly anti-Islamic things, but from the various stories I heard, it was safe to say he didn't care for them or their religious beliefs......This doesn't relate to how he felt about muslims, but one of the most hilarious things this doctor did was misdiagnose my sister-in-law as being HIV-positive. There she was, thinking she was going to die, and had her family thinking she was either promiscuous or a heroin-user.......Then a while later she was told by the doctor's office that they had mixed up her blood test with someone else's, and that she wasn't HIV-positive.



And those citizens are not taxed into poverty. In Canada, for example, social mobility is better. People can move up in income brackets more easily, they have more comfortable financial lives, and become poorer much less easily.


Absolutely not......When I lived in Canada, we had to live a meager existence where extra spending money did not exist. Everything's so fucking expensive there. You can see this just by comparing book or magazine prices ($5 American, but $9 Canadian????). Comics aren't as variantly priced between the countries, probably because no one would be buying comics in Canada if that were the case.......And to pay for gasoline by the pint???

The only things I found to be moderately priced were groceries........And you say people aren't taxed into poverty, but you have 15% sales tax, and a much higher income tax than in America. It definitely makes a difference, especially when Canadian income, on average, isn't greater than American income.

You can go up the ladder a lot easier in America.

In Canada, I found they seem to have low-income jobs pay more, yet high-income jobs pay less, when compared to America. Perhaps it's the socialist system at work, where they try to make everyone more equal, whereas in America you have a bigger gap between low-income & high-income families.

And one of your problems is you're in California, one of the most expensive & highly populated states to live in (New York would be another).

But don't get me wrong, I don't feel the American health care system is great. It has MAJOR faults, and needs to fixed, big-time......But the Canadian system isn't this beacon of light America needs to strive for.

I do think socialized health care would be great for America, this country needs it, yet I fear the many different ways the government could totally fuck things up and make it just as bad, if not worse, than the way the health care system is currently.......But, I'd be willing to take the risk and go for whatever change can be made.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

I can't stand Michael Moore... but the subject matter of SICKO! really did need to be addressed. (And yep, I'm what they call a "Liberal" 'roun' these here parts... and I still don't like Moore.) From what I've seen about his past "documentaries" (they don't deserve the name, IMO), it's exactly that "bait and switch/slant the conclusion" tactic he's so fond of using that shoots his work in the foot. If he wasn't so lazy, he could ferret out *completely FACTUAL* information to present, and address the same subjects in a far more helpful fashion.


Agreed......And I've wondered, at times, if his whacked presentations are due to laziness, or if he's baiting for controversy so his films gain more attention (And bring in more revenue).

[Sabrinaset]

Yes, because someone else doing it makes it okay. Seriously, in a sane political discussion the validity of Moore's points would be at debate, not his weight. Anyways he's talking political policy rather than people's lifestyle choices and their health.

Because they just did a hatchet job on his work that was loaded with inaccuracies. What about that is so hard to understand?

1) No, because it's more than just one person, but many CBR posters doing it that apparently makes it okay. Or is it that we're allowed to make jokes at the expense of one particular group and not another? What, conservative public figures are fair game but liberal ones are not? Puh-leeze. So far as I know, individual CBR posters are off-limits, but for public figures, the sky's the limit. And Moore should certainly understand that people's lifestyle choices are what's leading to people having to make political policy here. Put another way, if people would make the lifestyle choice to exercise more and eat less, many ... not all, but many of the problems the health industry has would disappear. But then, you'd have to have people taking responsibility for their own actions, I guess. And it's hard for me to believe Moore when he asks the health care system to shape up when he himself won't. Lead by example, big guy.

We have a health-care person at work who came into the break room steaming the other day because some overweight lady waddled in and blamed fast-food for her being fat, and then said to my friend "And what are YOU gonna do about this???" Like it's OUR fault! SHE chose to overeat, and now WE have to take care of it. Sometimes, I think the best thing we could do for planet Earth is to have a nuclear war and let the cockroaches take over. They might do a better job than humanity has. I think they have a better sense of self-responsibility.

2) Considering Moore himself plays fast and loose with the facts, I suspect we have a case of "Methinks he doth protest too much" going on here. Now, I'm not saying that he doesn't have a right to go ballistic, but clearly he was waiting three years to do so, and then blew up on a venue in which he was supposed to be shillling his movie. I dunno, I'm not thinking he sold any extra tickets because of the way he carried himself there. But hey ...he's a big boy, let him do what he wants. It's his bottom line.

[Lester C.]

There is another side to this story and that's the doctors. People spend a fortune to go to school, work a hellish residency and save lives on a daily basis. If we get universal heath care, then the won't be able to have the quality of life that they worked so hard for.

[TCJohnson]

There is another side to this story and that's the doctors. People spend a fortune to go to school, work a hellish residency and save lives on a daily basis. If we get universal heath care, then the won't be able to have the quality of life that they worked so hard for.

Most of them don't have that quality of life anyway. It is the insurance companies that are getting most of the money. My uncle, who is a doctor, was making a lot more money before most his patients joined with HMOs.

[the4thpip]

There is another side to this story and that's the doctors. People spend a fortune to go to school, work a hellish residency and save lives on a daily basis. If we get universal heath care, then the won't be able to have the quality of life that they worked so hard for.

American (hospital) doctors make a lot more than German doctors. Like, several times as much.

[kingdom2000]

What bothered me about the Gupta report on Sicko is its like all journalism nowadays, high on speculation, low on information and often it meanders away from the point.

In that report, its thesis was how Sicko was wrong. That means its real simple to take Sicko facts and contrast them with the real facts. Instead the report was really about the information left out. Thats a different report, a report about what Sicko didn't mention. That is not a "reality check". The man is supposed to be a doctor but apparently that difference is lost on him.

Also, I really don't see how anyone can defend the US healthcare system. Its designed for profit. Its designed so that the less done to care for people the better. Its designed to create drugs no one really needs but think they do (drug for habitually kicking your knee for instance) and the like. Its designed so its really not in the doctor's best interest to heal you the first time but have you visit multiple times so they can charge mulitple times. How screwed up is that? The goal should be preventive medicine but that cuts into the profits which is a no-no.

[Magneto_X]

Sabrina:

That's a lie. Democratic and liberal posters do go after officials, celebs & pundits they agree with politically.

If anything it's the (neo)conservatives who rarely go after people on their side despite overwhelming evidence that they're hypocrital douchebags.

[TheLazy]

I find it hilarious that people think that CNN is at all left-wing.

And it's only as anti-Bush as the rest of the mainstream media after Bush's staggering incompetence became apparent. During the lead-up to the Iraq War and during the invasion it was every-bit as pliant as the rest.

Keep in mind that the Iraq Army would not work with CNN reporters after their unbais right wing reporting during the 1st gulf war.

[TheLazy]

I find it hilarious that anyone thinks ANYTHING you see on TV is "left wing."

You do know how TV works, right?

Channel 4 in the UK is the only liberal channel I know of

[Crowley]

Not just a hatchet job, but one they knew was inaccurate (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/07/10/email-shows-cnn-gupta-g_n_55697.html) when they re-aired it before Moore's appearance.

And really, he's got a point. Something is seriously wrong with one of the biggest news sources in the country would rather fact-check a documentary filmmaker than the president making a case to go to war. It's just like when Jon Stewart smacked the Crossfire people around--something is also wrong when a comedian does their job better than they do.

great catch...

Dr. Gupta's response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH3YQidk5As

[Crowley]

Agreed......And I've wondered, at times, if his whacked presentations are due to laziness, or if he's baiting for controversy so his films gain more attention (And bring in more revenue).

Editorialized documentaries are very common. His documentaries can't be considered nil due to the fact they express an opinion.

The sole difference between "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Why We Fight" is Moore and Moore's humor.

Why We Fight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xYeuzG24mo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV6cSUyeNQA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi6mMFifMQY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afBMu6gGdK8

[Sabrinaset]

Sabrina:

That's a lie. Democratic and liberal posters do go after officials, celebs & pundits they agree with politically.

Except that's NOT what we were discussing. We were talking about mocking public celebrities for their physical appearance. And if it's okay to mock Coulter, which it is, then it's okay to mock Moore. Hey, I was the one who made Coulter out as a member of the Sinestro Corps. I just find it funny that there wasn't a whole lot of "Let's discuss Ann's words, not her looks" on some threads, but the minute someone notes Moore's physical appearance, here comes a complaint over it. I find it odd. We either are able to mock every public official on their looks, or none at all. Let's at least be consistent here. And if we're NOT being consistent, it's fair to ask why, or guess why.

Frankly, I find Moore whining like a little girl over the way the press treated the poor thing pretty funny. But it's still amusing noting that Michael Moore makes Jabba the Hut look like Nicole Ritchie anyways.

[DungeonmasterJim]

I've never been a big fan of either Moore or Limbaugh but on occassion they do bring stories to the forefront that should be looked into further. It's unfortunate that many in the general viewing public prefer things like Paris Hilton or the death of Anna Nicole over hard hitting real world news like healthcare and reasons for going to war.

On a related note, I guess I'm pretty lucky with hospital visits that include myself and my family. I cannot recall having to wait hours on end for treatment. The worst I can recall is when I fractured the tip of my first ring finger joint. It took about 3 or so hours for x-rays and a splint. My sister got right in for emergency brain surgery for her brain aneurism. My father was admitted hours after a routine visit indicated he had congestive heart failure. My mom received immediate treatment in the ER after being rushed to the hospital via ambulance. I'll have to ask my brother about when he shattered his ankle. My brother-in-law has been in and out for spinal issues but I cannot recall if those required a trip to the ER or were discovered after a visit.

DM Jim

[LtMarvel]

So because Michael Moore found one Canadian, chosen at random, who didn't have his/her door locked, it means Canada is so safe no one locks their doors there?

Seriously, that's just one example of Moore's many fallacies presented in his films.

Sadly enough, the majority of his beliefs conveyed onto film are correct, but he uses misdirection to get his point across......Yes, Canada, overall, is a much safer country than America. But, surprisingly enough, people do lock their doors there.....And comparing the crime-rate of a small border town like Windsor, Ontario, to that of Detroit, Michigan, is absolutely laughable. How about if we compare the crime-rate of Davenport, Iowa, to Montreal or Toronto?

I could go on all day about Moore's bs (And there's quite a bit), but frankly, that film version of a snake oil salesman isn't worth the time.
I think the fallacy is in your conclusion (that no one locks doors in Canada). That isn't Moore's conclusion, that's something you, the viewer, decided. My conclusion was the odds of Moore finding such a house unlocked in the US is much lower.

[LtMarvel]

Limbaugh? Hell, Limbaugh makes stuff up.

Limbaugh's worthless. He was wonder aloud about who the newspapers were referring to that accuses the Clintons of murders...something has done at least twice on his radio show.

[Crowley]

Except that's NOT what we were discussing. We were talking about mocking public celebrities for their physical appearance. And if it's okay to mock Coulter, which it is, then it's okay to mock Moore. Hey, I was the one who made Coulter out as a member of the Sinestro Corps. I just find it funny that there wasn't a whole lot of "Let's discuss Ann's words, not her looks" on some threads, but the minute someone notes Moore's physical appearance, here comes a complaint over it. I find it odd. We either are able to mock every public official on their looks, or none at all. Let's at least be consistent here. And if we're NOT being consistent, it's fair to ask why, or guess why.

Frankly, I find Moore whining like a little girl over the way the press treated the poor thing pretty funny. But it's still amusing noting that Michael Moore makes Jabba the Hut look like Nicole Ritchie anyways.
Yeah but here's the thing...
you're not tackling the argument behind the superficial attack... I attack Coulter's argument first and I personally try not to fall into the ad hominem attack on her, or Bush or Cheney or any of the others... because it weakens my argument.

[Drink]

I have film evidence that one Canadian, completely chosen at random, didn't one time. :)

Because he certainly couldn't have editted it, or knocked on the door and got the person to play along. And we don't see how many people had their doors locked. We're only showed the doors that were unlocked, in a city of millions. Law of averages states that plenty of them will be unlocked, enough to show clips of them.

I'm Canadian, and my door is locked right now.

Anyway, I think anything, Micheal Moore, CNN, whatever, should not be just taken for absolute truth by simply saying it. I'm sure he means well, but as a film maker, Moore can manipulate things very easily.

For example, in his first film "Roger and Me" he supposedly did in fact meet Roger Smith (Or whoever), according to a Documentary couple who are doing a film on Moore himself, but didn't include it in the final version of the film to make it look like he wouldn't meet Moore. And these are people who were MM supporters, who got into the business because of him.

What he claims should provoke thought, of course. But don't start soapboxing and all that just because Michael Moore says something. And for the record, I don't really define myself as Right or Left Wing.

That said, the clip in the OP was amusing and interesting.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

I think the fallacy is in your conclusion (that no one locks doors in Canada). That isn't Moore's conclusion, that's something you, the viewer, decided. My conclusion was the odds of Moore finding such a house unlocked in the US is much lower.


I've never concluded that no one locks doors in Canada.

How would the odds of a house being unlocked in the US be much lower?

[LtMarvel]

I've never concluded that no one locks doors in Canada.

How would the odds of a house being unlocked in the US be much lower?
First sentence: Um...you wrote it; I quoted you. I don't know what else to say.

Second sentence: You don't think finding a home unlocked is odd by American sensibilities?

Drink: do you have evidence that Moore tried several homes?

[Adem]

The only things I found to be moderately priced were groceries........And you say people aren't taxed into poverty, but you have 15% sales tax, and a much higher income tax than in America. It definitely makes a difference, especially when Canadian income, on average, isn't greater than American income.

Just wanted to point out that only Ontario has 15% sales tax. You make it sound like all Canada has the same sales tax.

[Adem]

As for the whole discussion going on I find it kind of funny. Instead of trying to come up with ways to fix our respective health care systems we bitch about other countries’ and try to defend our own.

Also which Michael Moore movie, never watched one of his the whole way through, had the Canadian who didn't lock his door? That sounds very strange and also stupid.

[Sabrinaset]

Yeah but here's the thing...
you're not tackling the argument behind the superficial attack... I attack Coulter's argument first and I personally try not to fall into the ad hominem attack on her, or Bush or Cheney or any of the others... because it weakens my argument.

No, I specifically said I was against Moore's bitching first. I think I've stated this in most of my posts in this thread. AND I said he needed to lose weight. Well, and I talked about Anna Nicole Smith. My main point boils down to hey, this guy is a whiner. And he's really really fat. So the guy is kind of like Rick Olney, except with more money.

Somehow, as I remember the Coulter threads, I'm not recalling this kind of defense for her looks/sexuality/hands/whatever either, which is making me wonder why it is people are concerned about defending Moore's weight, or at least being sensitive to not making fun of his looks while everyone else is fair game, especially Coulter. It's odd.

You're discussing the problems of ad homenim attacks on a board where we have a thread titled "Should Bush get his head out of his ass?" and there doesn't seem to be much of a backlash about it there. Now, I have no problem with the thread, although mmmmmmmaybe it should be on the political thread we have here, but eh. Actually, this thread should be there too, but whatcha gunna do ...? These guys are public figures. They can handle being made fun of. Unless Moore has some special dispensation so that we don't dare make fun of him. Well, heck, considering the poor guy was practically crying over the way the press treats him, maybe I should stop making fun of the poor guys looks. He might cry.

But honestly, the Michael Moore jokes are incidental snark to my main point ... that Moore is a crybaby who hurts his own cause.

[Loren]

The government *also* gets to set the rates that can be *charged* for a procedure, medicine, treatment, etc... and it has no profit in setting an outrageously high rate; so budgeting isn't as much of an issue as you imply.

Except that creates a new problem, of setting up a whole new bureaucracy of price-setting. And governments have such a good history when it comes to price-setting, after all. What happens, then, if medical providers decide that they don't want to provide their goods and/or services for the money the government is willing to pay them? Will the state force them to sell at the price the government sets?

How short-sighted of you. You are making several assumptions in that statement that are based on your situation never changing, Loren:

Assumptions? I'm not saying health insurance is a good deal; in fact, I'm pretty sure I implied the opposite when I said that I find mine too expensive. My point was that the existing government health care program, Medicare, is a BAD deal (and that federalized health insurance is basically Medicare on a larger, more expensive, and less efficient scale). And your subsequent questions don't challenge that.

What guarantee do you have that you'll always have a job that gives you enough income to maintain private insurance? Does everyone else have that guarantee?

My job situation doesn't affect my Medicare eligibility. I either wait until I'm 65, or I get disabled before then. The oodles of money I pay in Medicare "premiums" do jack-squat for me in terms of medical treatment if I simply lose my job, or find myself in a lower-income bracket.

Oh, I know you're in legal and not McDonalds... but what happens when you develop a brain tumor that impairs your function to work at your job? What happens then when your longterm disability (which I assume you're paying for) doesn't cover your ongoing medical bills, and/or runs out? What happens when your income is based solely on whatever disability payments you can get?

Here, these are potential candidates for Medicare, on the condition I get disabled. Which is pretty unlikely, for me or any other given individual. And the likelihood of a given event happening is the essential factor in determining the cost-effectiveness of an insurance scheme. $1800/year for health insurance if I get disabled? WAY too expensive. You're right that it's a useful benefit, but the cost-benefit analysis doesn't justify the amount it costs. If I want disability health insurance, I'll buy it myself, at a rate I'm cool with. Which will be a lot less than $1800/year.

Will it be enough to cover your rent/mortgage, food, clothing, utilities, transportation, AND some kind of private insurance? Will you attempt to declare bankruptcy, as so many in that situation have to *try* to do? What if you have children at that point---and you can't afford to cover *them* with health insurance, either?

And Medicare doesn't cover any of these at all, so I'm not sure why you brought them up in the context of my complaints over Medicare.

You're taking an awful lot for granted. Perhaps you have an investment portfolio you're building, for just such an emergency. Perhaps your parents or siblings have enough money to care for you (and your children), should the worst happen... does everyone? Should we all assume that, because *you'll* be fine in such a situation, that everyone will be?

Who said I'll be fine in such a situation? I didn't, because that wasn't what I was addressing. You've totally missed my point, which was that Medicare is 1) very limited in usefulness and 2) already expensive, and that to expand its essential function to EVERYBODY is going to multiply its cost several times over. My argument is that the Medicare/government insurer model is inefficient and flawed, and that it is far from the best solution to the health care problems that I admit exist.

If they can set the rates for procedures, etc., they can cut back on the gouging that's currently going on, so that's one way they're better than private insurance companies.

You seem to be suggesting that private insurance companies don't negotiate prices, which is just flat-out wrong.

Second, if your $1800 per month was going into federal health taxes (and ONLY that; NOT into a general kitty) ALL of your money would be going into the program... versus the cuts being taken out of it now by insurance company shareholders, CEO's, etc.

And why shouldn't this be an argument to federalize any profit business? Say, auto insurance. The state already requires everybody to have it; why not tax people to provide it directly, and cut out the middleman?

Under your private coverage, if for some reason your policy is terminated (such as, you get laid off)

For the record, I pay my health insurance out of pocket, because my employer doesn't provide it. I don't even get a doggone tax deduction for my premiums.

Loren, Life is never Static. Things change. Sometimes, they change for the very worst, and in very unexpected ways. Stop assuming that you'll always be able to afford to pay for insurance, or that you'll never have a crisis in your life that requires financially-debilitating bills that even your upper-middle-class family can't meet or help with. Stop assuming that "it always happens to the 'other' guy." And stop assuming that, because you think *you'll* always be all right, that everyone else will be, too.

Again, not my point. You think the health care system in the US is messed up. I agree. You think socialized health care is the solution. I most definitely do not. What IS the best solution? I don't know, but I've tried to show that expanding the Medicare model is not it. And THAT is my point.

Heck, if it helps, I'll just borrow somebody's else's phrasing (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/06/27/announcing-the-anti-universal-coverage-club/):

1. Health policy should focus on making health care of ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of people.

2. To achieve “universal coverage” would require either having the government provide health insurance to everyone or forcing everyone to buy it. Government provision is undesirable, because government does a poor job of improving quality or efficiency. Forcing people to get insurance would lead to a worse health-care system for everyone, because it would necessitate so much more government intervention.

3. In a free country, people should have the right to refuse health insurance.

4. If governments must subsidize those who cannot afford medical care, they should be free to experiment with different types of subsidies (cash, vouchers, insurance, public clinics & hospitals, uncompensated care payments, etc.) and tax exemptions, rather than be forced by a policy of “universal coverage” to subsidize people via “insurance.”

Do you disagree with any of those four points?

[Christopher Cross Is God]

First sentence: Um...you wrote it; I quoted you. I don't know what else to say.


Um...you read it, but apparently didn't comprehend it. I don't know what else to say.


Second sentence: You don't think finding a home unlocked is odd by American sensibilities?

Not at all, especially in small towns.

[Reverend Smooth]

I just find it funny that there wasn't a whole lot of "Let's discuss Ann's words, not her looks" on some threads, but the minute someone notes Moore's physical appearance, here comes a complaint over it.
Michael Moore doesn't frequently say that he's supersexy and that conservative women or men are dumpy and fat and ugly. Coulter does.

She'd probably get a lot less flak about her looks if she quit holding herself up as the epitome of feminine beauty.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Just wanted to point out that only Ontario has 15% sales tax. You make it sound like all Canada has the same sales tax.

I should have been more specific on Ontario having that specific amount of sales tax, but it doesn't make that much of a difference as pretty much all provinces, except for Alberta, have both PST (Provincial Sales Tax) & GST (Government Sales Tax) combined......So sales tax is pretty high in Canada, aside from Alberta.



As for the whole discussion going on I find it kind of funny. Instead of trying to come up with ways to fix our respective health care systems we bitch about other countries’ and try to defend our own.

Also which Michael Moore movie, never watched one of his the whole way through, had the Canadian who didn't lock his door? That sounds very strange and also stupid.

It was in Bowling For Columbine.

I can't speak for everyone else on this thread, but I'm definitely not defending the American health care system. Both America & Canada have positive & negative aspects to their systems, and Canada is definitely a better place to live if you have long-term health problems. From my experience, America is the better country to live in as far as economic opportunity goes, but it comes with a risk.....Whereas Canada is the better country to live in if you want to be "safe", so to speak.

Also, America is better for healthy individuals who lead a single lifestyle, whereas Canada is better for families due to baby checks, lower crime rates, and free health care (Let's face it, kids are a pain in the ass when considering health care).

But since I'm talking about the two countries, I will bitch about something that really fucking irritated me when I lived in Canada......The postal service. Number one, apparently postal centers are privately owned, so you have to search around and find drug stores which happen to have a postal/mail section........Number two, and this is my primary complaint, the postal service charges tariffs for receiving things from other countries. I had a friend send me a DVD, listed it at a certain value, and Canadian customs re-wrote the value as being higher and made me pay 10 bucks for it.

I have a friend in Japan who would send me home-recorded videotapes, and 1/3 of the time Canadian customs would make me pay for the stuff, even though he would mark the packages under "gift" and put a low value on them......Sometimes what I was paying for was simply a "handling fee", because they decided to open the package and search through it.

I won't even mention the tariffs Canadian customs would charge if I actually bought something from another country via the internet.....That was absolutely ridiculous, and while I was living there I no longer bought things online.

In America, you don't get charged customs fees via the mail unless it's commercial (Business-related)......You will get charged customs fees for products bought privately from overseas, but only if it's at an extraordinary value (I forget what it is, somewhere around $500-$3,000).

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Michael Moore doesn't frequently say that he's supersexy

Michael Moore reminds me of Christopher Cross's prime, overweight years in the 80's, and for that, I definitely find him supersexy.

[Reverend Smooth]

The Canada/America comparisons probably depend on which part of each country you were in.......It may also depend on when you were in Canada. When did you move to America?About a decade ago, but I keep tabs on things.

I was in Ontario (Toronto, Missisauga, and Hamilton) when I lived in Canada, between 2001 to 2004, and the wait-times were atrocious.
NB seems to be doing ok.
I've never had that sort of wait in America, although all of my American hospital/doctor visits have been in the Dallas area. Usually, it takes an hour or two to get served here. I do remember occasions with other people where they may have to wait up to 4 hours, but I think those rare situations were in downtown hospitals. I try to stay away from those.
I'm in california; the local hospital is a death trap. I've also had notably poor service in az from both private clinics and hospitals. Wait times are extremely long, endocrinologists are morons, clinics charge you for work you don't need done, they'll withold treatment arbitrarily.

I have NEVER gotten wait times of less than six hours out here unless I was being carted in by ambulance... but they did make me wait hours for treatment after the ambulance dropped me off.
Don't know about staying in the hospital longer for recovery......They sent my wife out from the hospital, after she had an emergency c-section, due to the hospital having too many patients. They didn't give us that exact reason for making her leave, but it was safe to assume such.
I stayed in the hospital over a week after knee surgery.
I've never heard of a situation in America, under normal circumstances, where someone was told to go to a different hospital because the one they went to has too many people waiting for treatment. They just let you die out here or make you wait.. and wait and wait. My GF's gone to the hospital at 5 pm and come back at 11 am the next day-- on multiple occasions.
That whole emergency c-section situation I referred to was an interesting story, actually......The medical worker delivering the baby induced labor too early, and as a result my son's head got stuck, and they had to cut my wife open without anesthesia due to possibility of hurting the baby. So, my wife had to endure getting her stomach cut open, layer by layer, without reacting to the pain (ie, no movement), until they got the baby out. I got misprescribed steroids in two states and my immune sstem nearly ate me. x.x
What I do fault the Canadian health system for is the fact that they would always be 2-4 hours late with my wife's antibiotics, no matter how many times she would call for a nurse, which resulted in my wife's stomach getting infected.......The tardiness was due to the hospital being understaffed. When I would be there with my wife, I would see these stressed out nurses rushing back & forth, from room to room. It was absolutely ridiculous. I never had that kind of problem, so one's mileage may vary.
Also, in terms of wait-times for surgery, I talked to a guy who had a hernia. He was confined to his couch for 6 months because that's how long it took for him to receive surgery, and as a result he gained 60 pounds during that time period because he said he would just lay there, immobilized & depressed, eating and watching TV. As opposed to most people in the US who'd never get it at all.
Then there's the case of my mother-in-law, who needs knee surgery, but they won't give it to her until she reaches a certain age (I believe it was 65?). She's not immobilized, just has major pain in her knees which require surgery, so she has to wait a few more years as it's not an emergency situation. Go elsewhere? I had to wait a few months, but I got mine as a teenager.
Another thing about the Canadian health care system is, because it's free and far more people in Canada go for treatment compared to Americans, you kind of get brushed off by the doctors if it's not an emergency situation. My wife grew up in Canada, and she would rarely go to the doctor unless her situation was extreme......She said it's not worth it to wait for hours, finally see the doctor, and they just tell her to go buy some over-the-counter cough medicine. My wife has totally seen the difference in treatment in America, where they'll actually give you a prescription if you need it, rather than brush you off. Unless you're poor, at which point they brush you off. I've been left alone in rooms when they forgot about me, with tourniquets and blood pressure cuffs still on, I've had them weigh whether they wanted to waste the money on steroid shots while I was choking on hives and my orifices were swelling shut, I've been told that my bleeding mouth, severe hair loss, and vomiting of blood was 'seasonal allergies' and would go away in a few months. I've been told to get out and not come back after they refused to treat me because they didn't believe that addison's existed but, at the same time, would not risk malpractice because they were stumped.

Hell, she would constantly have to lie to the doctors when it came to our kids, claiming their fevers had lasted longer than they really had, just to make sure they give our kids actual prescription medicine that works, rather than tell us to buy cough syrup at Shoppers Drug Mart (Which would often result in us having to see the doctor again a few days later, because the cough syrup didn't solve anything).I never had a problem getting prescriptions in canada, neither did anyone I knew.
There's also the fact that it's an absolute pain in the ass to get a family doctor in Canada, because most of them are fully booked. Never had that problem.
Absolutely not......When I lived in Canada, we had to live a meager existence where extra spending money did not exist. Everything's so fucking expensive there. You can see this just by comparing book or magazine prices ($5 American, but $9 Canadian????). That's not due to taxes or the exchange rate. Book publishers just charge you more. Clothes and food are generally cheaper.
You can go up the ladder a lot easier in America.No, you can't. If you are born low- to middle-income, you have less of a chance of getting out of that bracket, and it's harder to climb back up if you drop. That's supported by multiple studies.
But don't get me wrong, I don't feel the American health care system is great. It has MAJOR faults, and needs to fixed, big-time......But the Canadian system isn't this beacon of light America needs to strive for. It would be an improvement.
Like the education system, the canadian system varies by province. NB is a poor province, but the healthcare system is pretty good.

I know that out here, there is no point in calling emergency services if I get another deadly anaphylaxis attack. At least the phoenix people were willing to shove tubes down my throat, the people out here just tell me it's a panic attack because nobody's THAT allergic to cologne, right?

Not to mention having to fill out paperwork while my throat closed up but, since I had no insurance, they would not budge.

A woman died on a hospital floor a few weeks ago, bleah. They wouldn't transfer her.

[MacQuarrie]

Except that creates a new problem, of setting up a whole new bureaucracy of price-setting. And governments have such a good history when it comes to price-setting, after all. What happens, then, if medical providers decide that they don't want to provide their goods and/or services for the money the government is willing to pay them? Will the state force them to sell at the price the government sets?
Going a step further, are we going to compel people to become medical personnel when they can make more money and have less hassle doing something else?

The one thing that annoys me about this debate is the habitual use of the word "free", as in "Canada has free medical care." Nobody on Earth has free medical care. Nobody has free anything. Somebody has to pay for it. What we call "free medical care" is actually medical care that is paid for by other people or indirectly by taxes and insurance premiums. Until the proponents of government-run medical care can make their case honestly, without use of emotionally-manipulative and misleading words like "free", I will have to regard their proposals with deep suspicion.

TANSTAAFL.

[Francis]

Loren:
1. Health policy should focus on making health care of ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of people.

Agreed. But that statement is far too narrow. Once you reach the healthcare, you're already in the expensive area. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

2. To achieve “universal coverage” would require either having the government provide health insurance to everyone or forcing everyone to buy it.

Indeed. And without universal coverage the likelihood of epidemics is much greater, meaning that it's more expensive for everyone.

Government provision is undesirable, because government does a poor job of improving quality or efficiency. Forcing people to get insurance would lead to a worse health-care system for everyone, because it would necessitate so much more government intervention.

Utter and complete rubbish unless the US government is considerably more incompetent than any other first world government on the planet (as a look at healthcare would indicate that it is, but never mind). The provision of healthcare in much of the first world is considerably better than the US on average despite most western governments spending less per head on healthcare than the US government does (even before you throw in the costs of private healthcare).

3. In a free country, people should have the right to refuse health insurance.

As when you get to that level a "free country" is indistinguishable from anarchy, perhaps. Me, I think that the cause of freedom would be better served by ensuring that all the people were free from disease. And never mind that health insurance is a level of bureaucracy that no government anywhere matches.

4. If governments must subsidize those who cannot afford medical care, they should be free to experiment with different types of subsidies (cash, vouchers, insurance, public clinics & hospitals, uncompensated care payments, etc.) and tax exemptions, rather than be forced by a policy of “universal coverage” to subsidize people via “insurance.”

And that's a total non-sequiteur. Healthcare free at the point of delivery has been shown by most of the developed world to be far more efficient a means of universal coverage than any insurance model - and far less bureaucratic.

[macul]

Ah, Michael Moore is fat. Discussion resolved!

That's disengenious, adam. If a person wants to complain about healthcare in this nation then that person should put forth an effort to show the world they actually care about their own health. Otherwise some people, including myself, are going to walk away with the impression that Moore wants me to take responsibility for his own poor lifestyle choices. You have to admit it is a bit stupid for Moore to complain about healthcare when he is a walking example of heart disease and diabetes waiting to happen.

[TheLazy]

That's disengenious, adam. If a person wants to complain about healthcare in this nation then that person should put forth an effort to show the world they actually care about their own health. Otherwise some people, including myself, are going to walk away with the impression that Moore wants me to take responsibility for his own poor lifestyle choices. You have to admit it is a bit stupid for Moore to complain about healthcare when he is a walking example of heart disease and diabetes waiting to happen.

Give the tubby bitch a break, he's just pissed off off on CNN because he didn't think of the Supersize me pitch, then again, I don't think he liked the outcome either.

[singoalla]

Solaris, you could have stopped after you said: Medicine is Big Business in the U.S....

That is why I firmly believe they'll never find and/or reveal a cure for AIDS or cancer.

Don't worry. There are other nations to solve it for them. :D

(European, asian... )

[diana_fan]

Going a step further, are we going to compel people to become medical personnel when they can make more money and have less hassle doing something else?

The one thing that annoys me about this debate is the habitual use of the word "free", as in "Canada has free medical care." Nobody on Earth has free medical care. Nobody has free anything. Somebody has to pay for it. What we call "free medical care" is actually medical care that is paid for by other people or indirectly by taxes and insurance premiums. Until the proponents of government-run medical care can make their case honestly, without use of emotionally-manipulative and misleading words like "free", I will have to regard their proposals with deep suspicion.

TANSTAAFL.

Most people I've heard never use the word "free."

Look, you can debate this until next century. The basics will never change. The United States is one of the only industrialized/advanced nations in the world that does not provide medical care to its population.

Either you are fine with that, or you aren't. It's like any other social problem. And it IS a problem. Either you accept it, or you hate it. Or you don't care.

But the situation is the same now and will be the same in 100 years if nothing is done.

[macul]

Most people I've heard never use the word "free."

That's just about the only way I hear people use it. I genuinely believe people are under the impression socialized healthcare will truly be free!! The hospitals will be freely built, the equipment will be freely donated, and the physicians will donate their lives working for free. That's the only way for socialized healthcare to be free. No, instead I'll be paying increased tax money for people like Moore, who want to eat too much and not exercise, so they can have their "free" healthcare. That's money I could put towards better use, such as my retirement or my kid's education.

[diana_fan]

That's just about the only way I hear people use it. I genuinely believe people are under the impression socialized healthcare will truly be free!! The hospitals will be freely built, the equipment will be freely donated, and the physicians will donate their lives working for free. That's the only way for socialized healthcare to be free. No, instead I'll be paying increased tax money for people like Moore, who want to eat too much and not exercise, so they can have their "free" healthcare. That's money I could put towards better use, such as my retirement or my kid's education.

I'm sorry, and I don't mean this as an insult, but either you are not telling the truth, or you are hanging with some very deluded people.

[Dazzler]

The American Healthcare system is pure crap.
Doctors and surgeons are overpaid with overblown egos.
When I lived in Europe, the general feeling i got was that more people were healthy, getting services, medicines, and procedures they need without breaking themselves to do it. I really miss that about England. In America, doctors are against Universal healthcare since it would really cut into their Lexus money.
Or maybe I'm just bitter since a few years ago I had no insurance and a really bad case of pneumonia and ended up shelling out thousands upon thousands of dollars, missing work for a really long time and having a very hard time of it. I mean, 400 bucks for TYLENOL? Seriously, Sicko is the only term to describe. it.

Go Michael Moore.

--Dazz

[Sabrinaset]

Look, you can debate this until next century. The basics will never change. The United States is one of the only industrialized/advanced nations in the world that does not provide medical care to its population.

And yet we have several hospitals around here that went broke and out of business providing this non-existant free medical health care to illegal immigrants who had no insurance and no means to pay for it. Go figure.

Doctors and surgeons are overpaid with overblown egos.

Anyone who goes into this business for the money never lasts. The caring for people who need help ... it's completely at odds with people who do it for completely mercenary motives. I'm not even sure how they could get through med school. And considering that we have to go to college for eight years, and do residency for anywhere from two to eight years, and work eighty hour weeks, and have to keep up our education all the time, and so on and so on ... I'd say we deserve the money we are getting. Especially with the lawyers taking us for anything we've got.

But overblown egos? I'd say I see more of that from artists. :p

[Francis]

That's just about the only way I hear people use it. I genuinely believe people are under the impression socialized healthcare will truly be free!! The hospitals will be freely built, the equipment will be freely donated, and the physicians will donate their lives working for free. That's the only way for socialized healthcare to be free. No, instead I'll be paying increased tax money for people like Moore, who want to eat too much and not exercise, so they can have their "free" healthcare. That's money I could put towards better use, such as my retirement or my kid's education.
Except that if you look at almost any other first-world country, you will actually be paying less tax money for a comprehensive system of medical care that is free at the point of delivery than the current US system costs you in taxes. (State spending on healthcare per capita is definitely lower in Britain than the US and IIRC also lower in both France and Germany - it's only higher in Scandinavia).

Yes, the US model is that expensive and that inefficient.

Now I don't want to sound like a stuck record, so could we please not have any more ill-informed people claim that you would pay more taxes for a civilised healthcare system than you do for the American system when the reverse is the case. (Or do you wish to claim that the American government is significantly less efficient than the French one?)

[EdContradictory]

And yet we have several hospitals around here that went broke and out of business providing this non-existant free medical health care to illegal immigrants who had no insurance and no means to pay for it. Go figure.

And if the government covered those costs...?

[Reverend Smooth]

I was wondering when illegals were going to be trotted out as an excuse.

[macul]

I'm sorry, and I don't mean this as an insult, but either you are not telling the truth, or you are hanging with some very deluded people.

Just people on CBR who want socialized (free) healthcare.

[diana_fan]

Just people on CBR who want socialized (free) healthcare.

Uh-huh.

Whatever, man.

[macul]

Except that if you look at almost any other first-world country, you will actually be paying less tax money for a comprehensive system of medical care that is free at the point of delivery than the current US system costs you in taxes. (State spending on healthcare per capita is definitely lower in Britain than the US and IIRC also lower in both France and Germany - it's only higher in Scandinavia).

Yes, the US model is that expensive and that inefficient.

Now I don't want to sound like a stuck record, so could we please not have any more ill-informed people claim that you would pay more taxes for a civilised healthcare system than you do for the American system when the reverse is the case. (Or do you wish to claim that the American government is significantly less efficient than the French one?)

You assume that I believe the U.S. to the model of efficiency and effectiveness. Not true at all. But the answer isn't to place healthcare in the hands of the government. I can't think of a single thing the U.S. government accomplishes in an efficient manner. It's not that I'm 100% against the idea of socialized healthcare, and in fact I'm for having something in place to help children if nothing else, but let's get some things straight:

1. I'm not willing to provide for people who won't take care of themselves. If you eat too much, if you smoke, if you don't exercise and if you drink yourself in to oblivion, then you neither need nor deserve healthcare.

2. Some of us flat out don't trust the government to run this thing. It isn't as if they have a stellar record of performance. Look at how many people complain about the IRS, FEMA, the DMV, and so on. But you are willing to trust them with your healthcare?

3. Before we move to socialized healthcare, I'd like to have a look at the scam that is insurance and healthcare. Not that I'm an expert in the matter, but I believe that to be the root of the problem. Fix the scam that is insurance and then let's see where we are.

[macul]

Uh-huh.

Whatever, man.

Well, that's certainly logic one can't debate with. Anyway, just do a search for "free" and "healthcare." Believe me or not, doesn't change the facts.

[Francis]

Just people on CBR who want socialized (free) healthcare.
Name three of them who claim it would actually be free.

Or just link three posts please.

(IIRC, the most extreme is me when I point out that most government provided medical systems take less state spending than your current one - meaning that even in taxes you would save money in the long run. But Cheaper !=Free)

[macul]

I was wondering when illegals were going to be trotted out as an excuse.

What excuse? The claim was made that healthcare isn't provided to those who can't afford it. Apparently those people just die in the streets. Sabrina made the point that hospitals do go bankrupt providing service to those who can't afford it. And no, I'm not claiming that those people who need the healthcare shouldn't receive it.

[diana_fan]

Well, that's certainly logic one can't d