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... )

[AaronJ]

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.

[AaronJ]

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.

[AaronJ]

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.

[AaronJ]

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.

It wasn't supposed to be logic. It was supposed to be dismissal.

I'm tired of people deciding that it is more important to debate the debate than debate the actual issue.

Look, you WON! Nothing is going to change. You can be like Alex Ross and say "WE WIN!" The people who don't want socialized medicine in the US have ALREADY WON!

So, as long as you are satisfied with the system, then great for you.

[EdContradictory]

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

Your health care would be free, too.:rolleyes:

[Francis]

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.
And you get statements where free healthcare is a shorthand for "healthcare that is free at point of delivery." And you get people attacking the idea of free healthcare. Your search demonstrates absolutely nothing other than that the two words appear in the same post sometimes (as in your own posts).

Once again, I ask you to produce examples of these posts and posters who think that healthcare would be absolutely free. Please.

[Dazzler]

It wasn't supposed to be logic. It was supposed to be dismissal.

I'm tired of people deciding that it is more important to debate the debate than debate the actual issue.

Look, you WON! Nothing is going to change. You can be like Alex Ross and say "WE WIN!" The people who don't want socialized medicine in the US have ALREADY WON!

So, as long as you are satisfied with the system, then great for you.

You are so unbelieveably bad-ass! :)

--Dazz

[Sabrinaset]

I'm tired of people deciding that it is more important to debate the debate than debate the actual issue.


Well, the actual issue is Michael Moore bitchslapping CNN ...

[EdContradictory]

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.
Bullshit.

Before the Era of Bush, the government was quite good at accomplishing many things. But when you don't believe government should be doing anything, you create one that CAN'T do anything.

Government is pretty damn good at: military, police, fire, schools (in general), public roads, national parks, social security, Medicare, public assistance, and yes, health care (look at the delivery of services to Native Americans).

[Reverend Smooth]

Sabrina made the point that hospitals do go bankrupt providing service to those who can't afford it.
Because there's no efficient national system to make sure that those hospitals can operate that way?

A few free clinics do not nationalized healthcare make.

Nope, instead, it's HOMG IMMIGRANTS. You'd think that neocons could come up with a counter argument that didn't consist of omg terrorism or omg illegalz.

[AaronJ]

You are so unbelieveably bad-ass! :)

--Dazz

HAHAHAHA :)

[Reverend Smooth]

Just people on CBR who want socialized (free) healthcare.Why yes, it's so deluded to want a system that costs less and is far more effective than the one the US has now. The shame. XD

[TCJohnson]

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.

The problem is that people still get billed for those services and if you don't pay it goes on your credit report. If you get really sick and need multiple tests or treatment the debt piles up and soon your credit is ruined. It is very hard to live on bad credit.

I have a friend who has some pretty major medical problems, and she refuses to go in because she knows she would never be able to pay for the treatments.

I hate the fact that people are refusing treatment because they know they will go in debt if they do.

[macul]

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)

C'mon, francis. Do you want me to believe you are that naive? There are some truly dumb and deluded people out there. Or they just don't make the connection between government ran system and taxes. Below are three quotes I found quite quickly on CBR.

"But I would be willing to pay even more tax money if there was free healthcare (within reason), free tuition, free daycare (or at least a year-round school year), and free room and board for retirees."

Here's one who still insists on using the term "free" while acknowleding they'd have to pay more taxes.

"Health Care: We have free health care here in Canada..."

Free healthcare for everyone!

"And if you catch cold, they do have free healthcare."

Referring to Canada.

[macul]

So, as long as you are satisfied with the system, then great for you.

I just said I wasn't satisfied with the system, though in all honesty it works great for me. Part of that is because I'm with a company fortunate enough to pay for my healthcare. I pay nothing out of my paycheck. I also keep myself in good shape. I'm also fortunate enough to just be a healthy person.

On the other hand I know there are many out there, through no fault of their own, who truly do need assistance. We should have something in place for those people and if paying more in taxes will accomplish that then so be it. The reality is, though, that there are some very real and legitimate concerns people have over socialized healthcare. If you'd (general you) rather not address those concerns then we'll never arrive at an answer.

[Dazzler]

Government is pretty damn good at: military, police, fire, schools (in general), public roads, national parks, social security, Medicare, public assistance, and yes, health care (look at the delivery of services to Native Americans).

OH MY GOD! If i don't laugh, i'll cry.

Yeah, government is good a military. God knows it's good at military. It's also pretty good at police and fire.

But SCHOOLS? HA! Trust me, the government would have us back to reading, writing, 'rithmatic circa 1850 if it could. OH, with a great big football budget, natch.

I also take issue with saying that public roads are well done, because in my general experience, they aren't at all. Long wait times for construction to be done, heavy man power which seem to be on perpetual breaks (perhaps one sad little guy digging somewhere), and the end results always seems like there are more potholes than when it began.

--Dazz

[macul]

Bullshit.

Before the Era of Bush, the government was quite good at accomplishing many things. But when you don't believe government should be doing anything, you create one that CAN'T do anything.

Don't do this, ed. Don't make this in to a "Bush is the Devil" thread. Exactly what federal program, that is now in the crapper, ran well before Bush became president?

Government is pretty damn good at: military, police, fire, schools (in general), public roads, national parks, social security, Medicare, public assistance, and yes, health care (look at the delivery of services to Native Americans).

A good number of those you put for as evidence aren't federal programs and some of them (social security) I wouldn't even use as evidence of an efficient government program.

[macul]

Why yes, it's so deluded to want a system that costs less and is far more effective than the one the US has now. The shame. XD

That's a strawman, rev. No one claimed it is deluded to want a better system. Heck, I want a better system. The problem comes when people insist that the federal government is automatically the answer to the problem.

[Francis]

Here's one who still insists on using the term "free" while acknowleding they'd have to pay more taxes.

I thought you might have that sort of misunderstanding.

In that context, "Free" means free at the point of delivery rather than free as in "Money grows on trees". In short, it doesn't suffer from the objection you have raised - the commenter knows perfectly well that it gets paid through via taxes (hence the comment about higher taxes) and that they would be paying taxes. It's simply free at the point of delivery (which it is).

In which case, any dumbness or delusion is not in the mind of the poster - but in your own mind because you have failed to understand the comment properly.

As for the other two, provide links please. As you have been shown on your first quote to have divorced them from their context and hence produced a strawman, I have absolutely no belief that your single out of context quotes are a fair and accurate reflection of the total views of the posters in specific.

[EdContradictory]

OH MY GOD! If i don't laugh, i'll cry.

...

But SCHOOLS? HA! Trust me, the government would have us back to reading, writing, 'rithmatic circa 1850 if it could. OH, with a great big football budget, natch.
Right now the government is not as good at schools due to NCLB. But, in general, the government can run schools just fine. Everyone in America can go to school. That's not impressive on some level to you? I think you're taking that for granted.

I also take issue with saying that public roads are well done, because in my general experience, they aren't at all. Long wait times for construction to be done, heavy man power which seem to be on perpetual breaks (perhaps one sad little guy digging somewhere), and the end results always seems like there are more potholes than when it began.
Can you drive where you need to drive in your car? Is there a road to your house? Is there a road between one city and the next? Again, taking it for granted.

I'm sick of people bad mouthing not just the current government's ability to govern, but just the idea of government being able to function at all. That's dangerous, right there. And it's bullshit. Government is functioning just fine all around you every day, people just don't notice. Government can accomplish so many great things if given the right tools. But when it's not, you get something like FEMA under Bush: a failure that used to be a success. Remember how great FEMA worked in the 90s?

[macul]

OH MY GOD! If i don't laugh, i'll cry.

Yeah, government is good a military. God knows it's good at military. It's also pretty good at police and fire.

But SCHOOLS? HA! Trust me, the government would have us back to reading, writing, 'rithmatic circa 1850 if it could. OH, with a great big football budget, natch.

I also take issue with saying that public roads are well done, because in my general experience, they aren't at all. Long wait times for construction to be done, heavy man power which seem to be on perpetual breaks (perhaps one sad little guy digging somewhere), and the end results always seems like there are more potholes than when it began.

--Dazz

Exactly. There are some things the government does well. I can't deny that. On the other hand, the systems that most of us have routine experience with are rather piss poor. There is a comfort level we must have. If I can't feel comfortable with the government ensuring my taxes are correct, why in the world would I feel comfortable going to them for healthcare?

[EdContradictory]

Don't do this, ed. Don't make this in to a "Bush is the Devil" thread. Exactly what federal program, that is now in the crapper, ran well before Bush became president?
FEMA.

And some would argue, the Army.

[Reverend Smooth]

The problem is that people still get billed for those services and if you don't pay it goes on your credit report. If you get really sick and need multiple tests or treatment the debt piles up and soon your credit is ruined. It is very hard to live on bad credit.

I have a friend who has some pretty major medical problems, and she refuses to go in because she knows she would never be able to pay for the treatments.

I hate the fact that people are refusing treatment because they know they will go in debt if they do.
Before my gf got health insurance (she's union now), I had to bully her into going to the hospital, though it meant serious hits to her credit, since her well-being is more important to me than the problems bad credit causes.

Then again, she's gotten a few concussions (she's a klutz) that I have not made her go to the hospital about, since they'll just make her wait 12 hours minimum in the waiting room to then give her tylenol 3 that make her sick (we know from experience).

[EdContradictory]

and some of them (social security) I wouldn't even use as evidence of an efficient government program.
Show me a senior citizen that didn't get their check last month.

[Sabrinaset]

The problem is that people still get billed for those services and if you don't pay it goes on your credit report. If you get really sick and need multiple tests or treatment the debt piles up and soon your credit is ruined. It is very hard to live on bad credit.

I have a friend who has some pretty major medical problems, and she refuses to go in because she knows she would never be able to pay for the treatments.

I hate the fact that people are refusing treatment because they know they will go in debt if they do.

This is true, TC, but again, at the same time, we're still losing money hand over fist performing services to people who have NO means of paying it back. And here in Southern Califonia, it's illegals that make up the bulk of it. I sort of doubt the same could be said of a hospital in North Dakota. So I dunno where the disconnect is, but I DO know that our ER is full of people who are getting free medical services, free ER, free whatever. And we have to provide it; it's the law ... and I have no problem with that. Our accountants sure do, though.

I've never had the time to really sit down and come up with my own solution for the problem ... "Nurse! Scalpel please ... oh and how would YOU solve the health-care crisis? It's for a post I'm about to make on CBR!" ... but if I had to put my finger on where a great deal of the problem is, it would be somewhere between the insurance companies and the lawyers. I say, let Howard Dean and Bill Frist work on a solution.

Although, right now, I'm more concerned about the fact that blood donations are down. So if you really wanna help out your local hospital, donate blood today. I know I've donated more than my share.

AND it looks like the thread is getting overheated, so I'm outta here for awhile. Off to help Daddy at school, then sleep.

[macul]

I thought you might have that sort of misunderstanding.

In that context, "Free" means free at the point of delivery rather than free as in "Money grows on trees". In short, it doesn't suffer from the objection you have raised - the commenter knows perfectly well that it gets paid through via taxes (hence the comment about higher taxes) and that they would be paying taxes. It's simply free at the point of delivery (which it is).

In which case, any dumbness or delusion is not in the mind of the poster - but in your own mind because you have failed to understand the comment properly.

As for the other two, provide links please. As you have been shown on your first quote to have divorced them from their context and hence produced a strawman, I have absolutely no belief that your single out of context quotes are a fair and accurate reflection of the total views of the posters in specific.

Normally I don't do this, francis. But in this case I believe you are deliberately being stubborn. There is a search function. I'm not going to do this for you. Answer me this: Do you truly believe there aren't people under the assumption that "free healthcare" means they pay nothing?

It is either free or not free. If you pay taxes, then the system isn't free. If you use the term "free" while acknowledging taxes are involved then you are either using bad terminology, which doesn't imply malice, or you are trying to trick others in to agreeing with your point of view.

I've not failed to understand the comment at all. If anything, using the terms "free" and "taxes" in the same sentence implies a grosser misunderstanding than I could ever have.

[macul]

FEMA.

And some would argue, the Army.

Or maybe FEMA has always been screwed up, but before Katrina we didn't understand the scope. Would you argue the Army? If so, I'm sure you can provide detailed specifics, right?

[macul]

Show me a senior citizen that didn't get their check last month.

Oh, geez. That's just lame, ed. Social Security is one of the largest controversies we have right now, but you want to believe it is running along just fine and dandy?

[EdContradictory]

Oh, geez. That's just lame, ed. Social Security is one of the largest controversies we have right now, but you want to believe it is running along just fine and dandy?
It is running "fine and dandy". The issue is with future funding.

But, right now, and for decades, it's been running just "fine and dandy."

[Dazzler]

Right now the government is not as good at schools due to NCLB. But, in general, the government can run schools just fine. Everyone in America can go to school. That's not impressive on some level to you? I think you're taking that for granted.

Everyone CAN go to school, yes. But everyone is NOT getting the basics that they need, much less the education needed for personal success in today's world. Hell, MOST kids are not getting the basics. JUST BEING THERE is not proof of a successful system. Having access to a sub-par system is not good enough.
It is no way an acceptable system for either the students OR the teachers who work for it.
I'm not taking it for granted, thank you. I work in the system everday and I see its failures first hand.

Can you drive where you need to drive in your car? Is there a road to your house? Is there a road between one city and the next? Again, taking it for granted.
Actually, i don't drive anymore. I take the subway. It's more enviromentally conscious.
also, I'm also taking for granted that sub-quality roads make it harder for the cars who drive on them to be enviornmentally safer as well. Since when did expecting quality become a bad thing?

I'm sick of people bad mouthing not just the current government's ability to govern, but just the idea of government being able to function at all. That's dangerous, right there. And it's bullshit. Government is functioning just fine all around you every day, people just don't notice. Government can accomplish so many great things if given the right tools. But when it's not, you get something like FEMA under Bush: a failure that used to be a success. Remember how great FEMA worked in the 90s?
And I'M sick to death of people being apologists for a system that thinks that if it gives just a nominal nod to functioning, then people have no right to expect better. There's nothing wrong with expecting MORE than absolutely minimal functioning. Because just giving a half-assed effort on the behalf of your people is just as bad as not doing much at all.
Besides, I, and everyone else, pays shit loads of taxes. If I'm doing my part for the goverment as a United States citizen, then i want to know that the government is doing what it can for me. And I want it to be of a higher quality than JUST the basics.
AND i'm sick to death of attitude.

[Rik Levins]

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).


Can someone elaborate on this a little? What taxes are we paying now that go toward healthcare? Medicare, obviously, but is that the only thing? Is that one program, available only to a small segment of the population, actually costing us more than the complete coverage available in other countries? I'm curious to know more about this situation.

[Francis]

Normally I don't do this, francis. But in this case I believe you are deliberately being stubborn. There is a search function. I'm not going to do this for you. Answer me this: Do you truly believe there aren't people under the assumption that "free healthcare" means they pay nothing?

It is either free or not free. If you pay taxes, then the system isn't free. If you use the term "free" while acknowledging taxes are involved then you are either using bad terminology, which doesn't imply malice, or you are trying to trick others in to agreeing with your point of view.

I've not failed to understand the comment at all. If anything, using the terms "free" and "taxes" in the same sentence implies a grosser misunderstanding than I could ever have.
I belive that the term "Free at the point of delivery" is a fair and accurate assessment of most peoples understanding of a sensible system of nationalised healthcare. I belive that there may be 1000 people in the United States (all of whom have been living under rocks) who do not understand that nationalised healthcare means tax-funded healthcare - i.e. something that you do have to pay for.

On the other hand, the healthcare we get in the UK is free at the point of delivery - you do not need to pay a doctor or insurance company when you go to see a doctor. You do not need to pay fees for using A&E/E.R. You do not need to pay additional fees if you need a major operation. In that sense, it is free. (And no co-pays either).

I do not believe that this is complicated. And I do not believe that this is a contradiction. It is simply that you have misunderstood that the two concepts are not contradictory as long as you remember them both.

It would only be trying to trick people if you did not acknowledge that taxes were involved. This is not the case (although the opponents of any form of nationalised healthcare appear to be trying this deception).

[EdContradictory]

Or maybe FEMA has always been screwed up, but before Katrina we didn't understand the scope.
That's simply not true. FEMA worked so well in the 90s that Bush singled it out for praise in the 2000 election debates.

Would you argue the Army? If so, I'm sure you can provide detailed specifics, right?
Were I to think you were interested in an honest debate and not just trying to send me on an errand, I might.

There have been plenty of articles about the army reaching a breaking point and many soldiers being burnt out. Lowered standards and inadequate training time. Go Google them yourself.

[Dazzler]

Show me a senior citizen that didn't get their check last month.

Yeah, my grandma totally rocked out with her 225 bucks.

She bought a sports car! :rolleyes:

--Dazz

[EdContradictory]

I take the subway.
Guess who runs that?:rolleyes:

[EdContradictory]

Yeah, my grandma totally rocked out with her 225 bucks.

She bought a sports car! :rolleyes:

--Dazz
You're right, that your grandma got her monthly check totally prroves social security is broken.

:rolleyes: Right back atcha.

[macul]

It is running "fine and dandy". The issue is with future funding.

But, right now, and for decades, it's been running just "fine and dandy."

Perhaps I'm just overly concerned, but that certainly sounds like a reason to take another look at the situation with Social Security.

[Francis]

Can someone elaborate on this a little? What taxes are we paying now that go toward healthcare? Medicare, obviously, but is that the only thing? Is that one program, available only to a small segment of the population, actually costing us more than the complete coverage available in other countries? I'm curious to know more about this situation.
Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans, Indian Reservations, and quite a few others (would an actual American extend the list for me please? - IIRC, there's something insane about ER being paid for by the state if the users can't afford to pay). The raw numbers you spend are in the WHO world report.

[macul]

That's simply not true. FEMA worked so well in the 90s that Bush singled it out for praise in the 2000 election debates.

He also praised Brown's work during Katrina.

[macul]

Guess who runs that?:rolleyes:

Not the federal government.

[EdContradictory]

And I'M sick to death of people being apologists for a system that thinks that if it gives just a nominal nod to functioning, then people have no right to expect better.
I'm not apologizing for anything. I'm arguing with those that think government is inherently incapable off accomplishing something like delivering a national health care system.

There's nothing wrong with expecting MORE than absolutely minimal functioning. Because just giving a half-assed effort on the behalf of your people is just as bad as not doing much at all.
Besides, I, and everyone else, pays shit loads of taxes. If I'm doing my part for the goverment as a United States citizen, then i want to know that the government is doing what it can for me. And I want it to be of a higher quality than JUST the basics.
I agree with you. Citizens should expect much from their government. but until they honestly believe their government can accomplish "much", they'll never believe or see what the government does accomplish.

AND i'm sick to death of attitude.
You sure use rolleyes a lot for someone sick of attitude.

[Dazzler]

I belive that the term "Free at the point of delivery" is a fair and accurate assessment of most peoples understanding of a sensible system of nationalised healthcare. I belive that there may be 1000 people in the United States (all of whom have been living under rocks) who do not understand that nationalised healthcare means tax-funded healthcare - i.e. something that you do have to pay for.

On the other hand, the healthcare we get in the UK is free at the point of delivery - you do not need to pay a doctor or insurance company when you go to see a doctor. You do not need to pay fees for using A&E/E.R. You do not need to pay additional fees if you need a major operation. In that sense, it is free. (And no co-pays either).

I do not believe that this is complicated. And I do not believe that this is a contradiction. It is simply that you have misunderstood that the two concepts are not contradictory as long as you remember them both.

It would only be trying to trick people if you did not acknowledge that taxes were involved. This is not the case (although the opponents of any form of nationalised healthcare appear to be trying this deception).
It's a great system, in my opinion.

In america we spend beaucoup taxed every year on totally superfluous stuff (4000 on a white house toilet seat?!) and no one says a peep. I don't understand how something like Universal Health care meets with such steep resistance when it's such an obviously good thing for EVERYone!
I honestly do think that it's people scared of losing large paychecks in the health care system being totally ok with allowing people to be in need and dangerously ill for the sake of their personal comfort levels. I think that trickles down to some in the American public being bamboozled by their efforts and taking up the cause wrongly.

It's disgusting.

--Dazz

[EdContradictory]

Perhaps I'm just overly concerned, but that certainly sounds like a reason to take another look at the situation with Social Security.
You're being silly at this point and pretending I'm arguing things I'm not and not addressing the things I am.

[Dreadstar]

I read the first page of this thread and it looked like it might follow the usual pro-Moore anti-Moore tack.

Then, having too little attention span to go through the pages in-between (over an argument of which I've seen the very minutest of details since Bowling for Columbine) I read the last page and...


...huh?

[EdContradictory]

Not the federal government.
So you think state governments could run state-wide health care systems?

Great! Sign me up!

[macul]

So you think state governments could run state-wide health care systems?

Great! Sign me up!

Maybe. I'd be more inclined to trust them than the federal government. I'd still like to see my concerns addressed, though.

[Dazzler]

Guess who runs that?:rolleyes:
And...what exactly are you trying to prove here? I never claimed otherwise. I just said I took it for environmental reasons and that I didn't have a car.


You're right, that your grandma got her monthly check totally prroves social security is broken.
I would say any system that thinks a lifetime of paying into it is worth 225 dollars isn't quite right.

:rolleyes: Right back atcha.
You don't look as good as me when you do that, so don't even try. ;)

I'm not apologizing for anything. I'm arguing with those that think government is inherently incapable off accomplishing something like delivering a national health care system.

Sadly, our government, as it stands, is not capable of adequately handling a universal healthcare system. The emphasis is completely on money hoarding and that doesn't lend itsself to a "do-gooder" program like healtcare.

I agree with you. Citizens should expect much from their government. but until they honestly believe their government can accomplish "much", they'll never believe or see what the government does accomplish.
Which is not a lot unless it benefits them and usually with poor quality results.

You sure use rolleyes a lot for someone sick of attitude.
Once is "a lot"? Wow, who knew? Well, shoot me in the face.
Besides, this whole affair deserves more than just one eye-roll. It derserves an army on the march consisting of a platoon devoted to just eye-rolling.

--Dazz

[Loren]

Bullshit...

Government is pretty damn good at: military, police, fire, schools (in general), public roads, national parks, social security, Medicare, public assistance, and yes, health care (look at the delivery of services to Native Americans).

macul said "I can't think of a single thing the U.S. government accomplishes in an efficient manner."

Police, fire, most roads, and the overwhelming majority of school operation are done by local government, not by the U.S. government. When the feds get involved in, for instance, schools, we get NCLB.

The U.S. government is typically good when it comes to the military (for two main reasons; one, national security from foreign powers is the #1 obligation of any sovereign government, and two, a country whose military is bad often ceases to exist). But one thing the military most definitely is NOT is efficient.

Putting aside the open question of whether the government is actually good at them at all, Social Security and Medicare are about as far from being efficient as the military is. Here (http://www.federalbudget.com/) is a breakdown of the budget. The cost of writing substandard SS checks to old people makes up roughly 20% of the federal budget all by itself (so does HHS, resulting in ~40% of the entire federal budget being devoted to public assistance for the elderly). And to pay for that rather limited benefit, the feds take in the equivalent of 12% of every working American's paycheck. If SS was efficient, they wouldn't have had to raise the SS tax almost 20 times since its creation, and they wouldn't have had to triple the maximum taxable amount.

I'm not even sure it's possible to measure efficiency with regard to national parks. And what does being "pretty damn good" at national parks really boil down to? Owning unimproved land and keeping it that way. So the feds are good at something when it involves mostly leaving it alone.

[Dreadstar]

I would say any system that thinks a lifetime of paying into it is worth 225 dollars isn't quite right.

That's $225 dollars a month, every month for the rest of her life, adjusted for inflation on a regular basis, BTW.

[Dazzler]

That's $225 dollars a month, every month for the rest of her life, adjusted for inflation on a regular basis, BTW.

Right, ok.

So.
What if she didn't have her family to help her?
Just because she RECEIVES her ssi every month doesn't mean there's not something wrong when the government actually thinks someone could live on that.

--Dazz

[AaronJ]

Social Security is a great system.

In theory. The problem is that the practice is not quite up to snuff. When originally developed, it was the greatest social program in the history of humanity. But that was also a time when great things were not as uncommon.

Nowadays, we debate how we debate, we argue over minutiae, we bitch and moan about Paris Hilton, and what great things get done?

Not a hell of a lot. That is what.

The healthcare question, it has always seemed to me, is simple: Does an individual give a flying fuck about anyone other than himself, or not? It's really that simple. If the answer is "No" then let's keep the system we have. If the answer is "Yes" then something GREAT and memorable needs to be done, and soon.

This isn't rocket science. It really isn't.

[Dreadstar]

Right, ok.

So.
What if she didn't have her family to help her?
Just because she RECEIVES her ssi every month doesn't mean there's not something wrong when the government actually thinks someone could live on that.

--Dazz

After reading the history of SS legislation so many many years ago, I'm not convinced they EVER thought that someone could live oppulently on it. I think it was intended to be a supplement to provide basic sustenance only. Granted, the cost of basic sustence has far outstripped the cost of living increases adjusted for inflation figured into SS, but you can blame the politicos who have put their hands into that pie over the years, like to magicaly balance a budget, for example.

Look, I figure the way my finances and various investments are going for me, I'll be living on Alpo in 15 years when I retire.

C'est la vie.

[Dazzler]

Social Security is a great system.

In theory. The problem is that the practice is not quite up to snuff. When originally developed, it was the greatest social program in the history of humanity. But that was also a time when great things were not as uncommon.

Nowadays, we debate how we debate, we argue over minutiae, we bitch and moan about Paris Hilton, and what great things get done?

Not a hell of a lot. That is what.

The healthcare question, it has always seemed to me, is simple: Does an individual give a flying fuck about anyone other than himself, or not? It's really that simple. If the answer is "No" then let's keep the system we have. If the answer is "Yes" then something GREAT and memorable needs to be done, and soon.

This isn't rocket science. It really isn't.

I've said it once, I'll say it again. Seriously. You are bad-ass.

--Dazz

[MacQuarrie]

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.
Go back and watch the video again. Moore uses "free" several times, the doctor and Blitzer both talk about "free" medical care.

[Dazzler]

After reading the history of SS legislation so many many years ago, I'm not convinced they EVER thought that someone could live oppulently on it. I think it was intended to be a supplement to provide basic sustenance only. Granted, the cost of basic sustence has far outstripped the cost of living increases adjusted for inflation figured into SS, but you can blame the politicos who have put their hands into that pie over the years, like to magicaly balance a budget, for example.

Look, I figure the way my finances and various investments are going for me, I'll be living on Alpo in 15 years when I retire.

C'est la vie.

I think the amount they pay now would be enough for basic, no-frills living if, and only if,1960 never stopped being. ;)

In any event, I'm in the same boat, so you wanna share some alpo later?

--Dazz

[MacQuarrie]

And if the government covered those costs...?

The government has no money to cover costs. The government can only take money from citizens in order to pay for things.

I say again, TANSTAAFL.

[MacQuarrie]

Social Security is a great system.

In theory. The problem is that the practice is not quite up to snuff. When originally developed, it was the greatest social program in the history of humanity. But that was also a time when great things were not as uncommon.
At that time, it was voluntary, and it was expected to provide a safety net for people who hadn't been able to arrange for their own retirement, didn't have a pension through their employment, or had some financial hardship. It was never expected to be a retirement plan for people to live on.

Now that participation is mandatory (at least paying into it is; you don't have to use it later), it's not such a hot deal. Given that there are now fewer than 3 people paying in for each one getting a check (it used to be more than 6), and given that the alleged fund "lock-box" is stuffed full of IOUs, I expect it will be even worse in the next few years.

But that's Social Security, not healthcare. In this discussion it merely serves as an example of how things go when the feds run them.

[Crowley]

He also praised Brown's work during Katrina.

Pre 9/11 FEMA and Post 9/11 FEMA are very different animals...

Remember, FEMA was moved under the Dept of Homeland Security after 9/11.

[MacQuarrie]

Can someone elaborate on this a little? What taxes are we paying now that go toward healthcare? Medicare, obviously, but is that the only thing? Is that one program, available only to a small segment of the population, actually costing us more than the complete coverage available in other countries? I'm curious to know more about this situation.
Truth be told, we aren't spending any taxes on any of those programs. It's all imaginary, promissory money, part of the federal deficit.

The IRS brings in about enough money to pay for its own existence and service the interest on the national debt. Every thing else the fed spends money on is in red ink.

[Loren]

After reading the history of SS legislation so many many years ago, I'm not convinced they EVER thought that someone could live oppulently on it. I think it was intended to be a supplement to provide basic sustenance only.

It never was. But then, for a long time SS didn't cost nearly as much either, so the tax burden was a lot less and the balance was a little more equitable. Back then, it was a 2% tax on the first (inflation-adjusted) $30,000 or so. Today it's a 12% tax on the first $90,000, and that's still not enough to keep the program afloat.

So nowadays, SS taxes manage to total more than the traditional savings standard of 10% despite offering so much less in return, and a lot of Americans pay more to Social Security than they do in federal income taxes.

[Dreadstar]

...and a lot of Americans pay more to Social Security than they do in federal income taxes.

Really? You sure?


I can't check my paystub, because I don't pay SS Tax.

[Loren]

At that time, it was voluntary, and it was expected to provide a safety net for people who hadn't been able to arrange for their own retirement, didn't have a pension through their employment, or had some financial hardship.

I've never read anything about SS being voluntary in the beginning, but it did have an awful lot of exclusions for the first umpteen years, most significantly the self-employed. Local governments were also allowed to opt-out up through the 1980s. Over time nearly all of those exceptions were done away with, and everyone was forced into SS.

Today, about the only people not required to pay into SS are employees of the local governments who opted out prior to 1983, ministers, and members of a narrowly defined group of religious organizations that are probably limited to the Amish and Christian Science Church.

(And before you go running to join the rolls of the Amish or Christian Science Church to save several thousand dollars a year in taxes, as I pondered, there's two catches. First, your employer has to be a member of that sect too. Second, to claim the exemption you have to be morally opposed to private insurance too.)

[AaronJ]

Go back and watch the video again. Moore uses "free" several times, the doctor and Blitzer both talk about "free" medical care.

I never watched the video a first time, let alone "again."

The point is, when someone says "free" they mean as in not paying for it when it occurs.

Look, ok, "free." Whatever.

The point is this, and it is lead-brick simple:

Society, as a whole, pays for everyone's healthcare costs

OR

Individuals pay on a first come, can pay basis.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: It's not rocket science. This is NOT quantum mechanics. This is fucking grade school.

Does Joe Individual give a crap about the guy next door, or does he only care about himself? The answer, it seems to me, in this country, is pretty damned obvious. Now, I have my own theories as to why that is. But let's face it: The rest of the damned world has figured this out a LONG time ago.

If a country can't even care for its sick, what the fuck good is it?!

[macul]

Pre 9/11 FEMA and Post 9/11 FEMA are very different animals...

Remember, FEMA was moved under the Dept of Homeland Security after 9/11.

True. However, my point is that ed used Bush's praise, a man most here believe to be the stupidest man to ever walk the planet and a man who praised Brown's work with Katrina, when it is universally agreed he did a bad job, as evidence that FEMA before Bush took over was running smoothly.

[Loren]

Really? You sure?

My own brother does, and he sees it directly. He's self-employed, so he gets to personally pay out the "employer's contribution" (money that he would definitely otherwise keep for himself).

I'm not sure what his exact income will be this year, but I'll assume $30,000 (which is up from the last 2 years). Taking only the standard deduction and personal exemption, that puts his federal income tax bill at $2,796, or 9.32%. Meanwhile, he'll have to write a check for $3,720 to Social Security.

[Solaris]

Loren:


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.



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



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).



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.



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.

Thank you, Francis---you answered his points far better than I could. :)

And Loren, your point seems to be that, because Medicare is inefficient and costly, no state-run health care system can truly address the problems faced by those with no health insurance or abilty to pay for health care. I disagree. Again, you're taking a system designed for a small segment of the population, and designed for a specific purpose (and with a specific organizational layout), and trying to project that onto an overall system. What you ignore is that a full-care system would be organized differently than medicare. It would have to be, to meet the function it's supposed to.

Further, you can argue about Medicare all you want---but the focus of this discussion isn't a "partial-fix" program designed years ago, but the appalling numbers of people in this country who can't afford *any* healthcare, and thus receive none. Of course Medicare couldn't handle that---it wasn't designed to do so.

As to the "I pay x amount a month to the govt. for Medicare, and get absolutely zilch for it, and won't until I'm 65," again you're missing the point. If instead of your money being taxed and sent to Medicare, your money was taxed and put into a universal healthcare system that served *everyone*, then yes you *would* receive something from it, every time you needed medical attention.

Do socialized healthcare systems have problems? Of course they do. Does our current system? Definitely. But I think the defining point comes down to this:

"Which system insures that more people receive care?"

The goal is to design and implement a system where everyone can receive medical attention. And I don't see why you find that idea so hard to swallow---after all, in this country everyone is guaranteed a free education through grade 12. The state runs that. Yes, public education is better in some places and crappy in others---my point is, at least it's available, and we can go from there to try to fix the problem areas.

What if the state didn't offer free education? (Okay, so it's not "free," we're taxed for it---but the students don't *pay* for it.) IMO, we'd be in the same boat with education that we are now with healthcare: there would be a decently-substantial portion of the population that would receive *no* education, because they couldn't afford it; there would be some who would receive a marginal education, because that's all they can afford... and there would be some who would have the finest of teachers and facilities, because their families can afford to pay for such.

Problem is, those who could afford the best are, comparitively, a much smaller portion of the population than those who could afford marginal or none... and economies need a large number of workers decently qualified for the various jobs/industries that keep the economy healthy. In a completely privatized education system, IMO the mean number of sufficiently-educated individuals needed to keep the economy running would fall far short of that requirement.

Now, compare that situation to healthcare: when the entire population has access to decent healthcare, there are fewer individuals who develop costly healthcare problems... because the preventative "maintenance" is available to them. For instance, a tooth extraction is FAR more expensive than a simple filling. People who receive regular dental visits get cleanings, and get small cavities filled before they become a major issue. People who are either dealing with a badly-infected tooth, or who have to get a tooth pulled, are sicker, must take more days off from work, and are more vulnerable to catching other illnesses, because of the strain on their immune system.

In other words, sicker workers = more sick days, and less productivity.

Extend that a bit: babies who get proper neonatal care, and whose mothers got proper prenatal care, are healthier than those who don't. Their bones, immune systems, and physical structure are more sturdy in resisting disease. When an infant doesn't get that care, and its mother didn't get prenatal, the chances are much greater that the individual will be more at risk for health problems for their entire life---and economically-speaking, that's a much greater drain on the system, both in terms of healthcare costs, and in terms of missed days of work, or even the ability to maintain a job.

Why it's so easy for people to understand that an uneducated work force = lower economy, but so hard for them to understand that a healthy work force = healthier economy, just escapes me.

And that's taking the pragmatist's viewpoint on the issue---it's not even addressing the humanist's side of it.

In other words, yes socialized health care systems have some real problems... but having a system to fix is better than having no system at all.

[macul]

I never watched the video a first time, let alone "again."

The point is, when someone says "free" they mean as in not paying for it when it occurs.

But they are still paying for the service. Yes or no? Let's apply your usage of the word "free" in other situations:

-If a client pays me a retainer fee to do their IT work, say, $500 every six months, but I don't charge them extra when I do the actual work, then the service isn't free despite them not paying me when the problem occurred.

-I pay insurance premiums for my car. It still isn't free if I need them to cover a claim stemming from an accident despite me not paying anything when the accident occurred.

Point is at some point I'm paying money. By definition that means the service isn't free. Doesn't matter when the service takes place.

If a country can't even care for its sick, what the fuck good is it?!

Unfortunately it won't only be the sick, those who truly need assistance, that we'll be caring for. The Moore's of the world, those who can't put down their third helping of pasta, will also be included.

[Samurai]

FEMA was an example of glorious government efficiency?


FEMA - Disaster of an Agency

Lynn Woolley
Monday, Sept. 12, 2005

If you can imagine a governmental agency that could take any disaster – real or manufactured - and bungle it or turn it into a governmental giveaway replete with photo-ops, then you have imagined FEMA. And so it has been since Jimmy Carter created FEMA by executive order on March 30, 1979.

In the sixties and seventies, several earthquakes and hurricanes struck, along with the Three Mile Island accident. The National Governor's Association asked Carter to streamline the nation's disaster response mechanism. Like the George W. Bush effort to bring agencies under the umbrella of Homeland Security, Carter created FEMA to combine the efforts of dozens of agencies. But just as Homeland Security has done with Katrina, the new FEMA bungled its first tests with the Washington Post reporting, "The new anti-disaster agency is on the verge of becoming a disaster itself."

President Carter was certainly caring, if incompetent, and he may well have had the nation's best intention at heart. But consider this: prior to 1950, the federal government stayed out of local disasters for the most part, with only an occasional congressional appropriation when absolutely necessary. But in that year, congress gave the president the power to declare disasters and dispense monetary aid. Once Carter had created FEMA, the door was opened for both bungling on a large scale and political opportunism.

Much of the information in this column comes from a heavily researched article in the September 1999 issue of The American Spectator, written by James Bovard. Still more pertinent data come from an August 1997 newspaper column by Jack Anderson and Jan Moller - laying out the incredible waste associated with "relief" money.

Not surprisingly, with the advent of FEMA, the number of national disasters began to balloon. However, it was not until Hurricane Andrew in August of 1992 that FEMA began to morph into what it now is.

As the Anderson columns points out, a lot of money went to the victims of Andrew, but politicians were beginning to see the potential in natural disasters. A community college got a new parking lot. Miami Beach got new art deco lifeguard stands. The then-governor of Florida, Lawton Chiles, obtained $25 million for a new prison that had nothing to do with the hurricane.

And, shades of Katrina - get this: with another Bush sitting in the Oval Office, and Andrew just having battered Florida, Gov. Chiles refused to request federal aid. Transportation Secretary Andrew Card had to beg Chiles to ask for the aid, while 160,000 people were homeless and 82,000 businesses were ruined. Governor Chiles - meet Governor Blanco.

The request was finally made, but FEMA had trouble getting untracked. For several days, people in Florida were left without food and water. Some residents put up signs with anti-Bush sentiments such as "What do George Bush and Hurricane Andrew have in common? They're both natural disasters."

Oh, and Bush's FEMA director, Wallace Stickney, appeared to have gotten the job because he was a neighbor of John Sununu's. The more things change, huh?

But then came Bill Clinton, and unlike George H. W. Bush, he had no intention of continuing FEMA as a bungling operation. In a current column, the nation's blindest old bat, Molly Ivins, puts it this way: "FEMA was once considered one of our better federal agencies." And after informing her readers that conservatives had been trying to hack away at FEMA, "the Clinton administration did work hard at rebuilding the agency."

Oh, so?

Ivins' vision of a caring and benevolent Clinton working to protect disaster victims from the axe of the cruel republicans flies in the face of facts. Clinton saw disasters as opportunities to hand out money and build good will for future elections. His FEMA head, James Lee Witt, was quickly elevated to cabinet status for higher visibility. By the way, it was Witt who once stated that church burnings in the South "have struck at the very fabric of our nation" before those burnings turned out to be fiction.

In 1993, his first year in office, President Clinton set a new record by declaring fifty-eight disasters. By February of 1996, Clinton was bragging that FEMA could simply set up an 800 number and victims could see government checks arriving within days.

The idea of handing out checks picked up steam. Before FEMA, blizzards were not considered major disasters by the federal government, but with Clinton in office, snow became a reason to dole out cash. One winter Clinton named 16 states as major disasters due to snow. And after the Northridge earthquake in, FEMA swung into action, handing out some 400,000 checks averaging $2,800.

Investor's Business Daily reported in May 1994 that FEMA was cutting checks to homeowners who were fully covered by insurance. Of course, California is an important state to democrats; and under Clinton, FEMA rented office space in Pasadena and found ways to award grants to the state even when there had been no disaster. That included a $264 million giveaway to Los Angeles for the city's government buildings and hospitals.

"Disasters are very political events," said James Witt during congressional testimony on April 30, 1996. And so they are. FEMA, created by Carter, reigned in to some extent under Reagan, bungled by Bush, exploited by Clinton, and now managed by another Bush, is in dire need of reform.

Indeed, if nonpartisan hearings were possible, we might conclude that federal bureaucracies - no matter how good intentions are - cannot respond without bungling, political opportunism or both.

There are hundreds of good people working for FEMA right now whose only goal is to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. But this is an agency that began in shambles, mangled its first major test, and was turned into a virtual campaign office by Bill Clinton. Today, FEMA is at the center of efforts by Jesse Jackson and others to use the latest disaster for race baiting and by leftists such as Nancy Pelosi to destroy a presidency. The term "disaster" seems quite fitting.

[AaronJ]

But they are still paying for the service. Yes or no? Let's apply your usage of the word "free" in other situations:

-If a client pays me a retainer fee to do their IT work, say, $500 every six months, but I don't charge them extra when I do the actual work, then the service isn't free despite them not paying me when the problem occurred.

-I pay insurance premiums for my car. It still isn't free if I need them to cover a claim stemming from an accident despite me not paying anything when the accident occurred.

One might, or might not be contributing to the general fund. It depens on how much that person makes in a year.

You understand this, right?

Point is at some point I'm paying money. By definition that means the service isn't free. Doesn't matter when the service takes place.

You might be.

Unfortunately it won't only be the sick, those who truly need assistance, that we'll be caring for. The Moore's of the world, those who can't put down their third helping of pasta, will also be included.

Yeah, uh-huh.

And I'm sure you would say the same about Warren Sapp if he were walking down the street, too, right?

You realize that there are a number of problems people have. If you are stuck contributing to a service that helps some people you don't like, then tough.

Unless you just don't give a fuck about anyone else.

[EdContradictory]

True. However, my point is that ed used Bush's praise, a man most here believe to be the stupidest man to ever walk the planet and a man who praised Brown's work with Katrina, when it is universally agreed he did a bad job, as evidence that FEMA before Bush took over was running smoothly.
The fact that he singled it out as a candidate in order to praise the administration of the incumbent vice president he was running against does show the high regard that FEMA was held in in the past. That Bush may or may not be a moron is besides the point.

I can get not trusting the current government or being disappointed in the way a particular agency is functioning at any given time. But it's sad that people seem to think that means it CAN'T EVER work as opposed to just needing to be fixed. I have faith in the structures and institutions of this country, even if I don't trust those currently running them. Once those people are gone, the government can always be fixed.

We landed on the f-ing moon once. With the right resources, we can use our government to accomplish anything.

[Dreadstar]

I'm not sure what his exact income will be this year, but I'll assume $30,000 (which is up from the last 2 years). Taking only the standard deduction and personal exemption, that puts his federal income tax bill at $2,796, or 9.32%. Meanwhile, he'll have to write a check for $3,720 to Social Security.

Ah, yes. I hadn't accounted for scaling of tax to income minus the deduction. Dumb.

[macul]

And I'm sure you would say the same about Warren Sapp if he were walking down the street, too, right?

Warren Sapp also gets off his ass once in a while. He engages in physical exercise. Furthermore, his size is due to his career. How does Moore's size, who's job entails sitting behind a camera, assist him? Comparing Warren Sapp and Michael Moore is completely laughable. You can do better than that.

Edit: And if you want to use a big, overweight football player as an example, then have a look at Tony Boselli. When his career ended he realized that if he wanted to be alive for his kids then he needed to drop weight.

You realize that there are a number of problems people have. If you are stuck contributing to a service that helps some people you don't like, then tough.

Unless you just don't give a fuck about anyone else.

Diana, seriously. You might want to go back and read what I've written in this very thread. Several times I've espoused a need to help those who truly need it.

[AaronJ]

Warren Sapp also gets off his ass once in a while. He engages in physical exercise. Furthermore, his size is due to his career. How does Moore's size, who's job entails sitting behind a camera, assist him? Comparing Warren Sapp and Michael Moore is completely laughable. You can do better than that.

BUT YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THAT ABOUT WARREN SAPP (5'11", 360 lbs.) if you just saw him walking down the street!

You would say, "See? There's another fat fuck I'm paying for!"

Diana, seriously. You might want to go back and read what I've written in this very thread. Several times I've espoused a need to help those who truly need it.

Yes, but you don't believe that anything should really be done about it. That's the difference.

You want to help to horribly sick people, IN THEORY.

[Loren]

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.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If you mean prevention in terms of preventative medicine, then I think "health care" encompasses that, and the statement included it. If you mean it in terms of the state regulating private behavior so as to induce healthier people (e.g., regulate smoking, drinking, fatty foods, etc.), I think that's a likely end to federalized medicine, but it's not

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).

OK, the statement was "the government does a poor job of improving quality or efficiency." If that's rubbish, then what are some areas the U.S. federal government has taken over control from the private sector, and has managed, over the long term, to improve on the market's quality or efficiency?

As when you get to that level a "free country" is indistinguishable from anarchy, perhaps.

Really? Free to choose whether to have insurance is indistinguishable from anarchy? That's a really low bar for anarchy.

People are free to buy insurance in many areas of their lives. In how many of those areas are all people *forced* by federal law to buy insurance? I can't think of any. The closest I can think of, auto insurance, is required only if you own a vehicle, and even then only if you want to drive that vehicle on public roads. It's a trade-off: if you want to drive on public roads, you buy some minimal insurance. As I mentioned earlier, I've never heard anyone endorse the idea of nationalized auto insurance.

Actually, there is one other kind of quasi-insurance that people are forced to buy, and that's Social Security. The disability aspect is hard to attack, except for the minor fact that it's horribly inefficient and is going to run out of money long before the retirement part does. And as I've mentioned, SS retirement manages to offer a return so pitiful that nobody in their right mind would actually freely purchase such a policy on the free market (plus, at least with insurance you'd be contractually entitled to receive the end benefits, which isn't true of SS).

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.

But that's basically just a description of the insurance model. Expenses provided by one party to another are paid for by a third party. You just have taxes instead of premiums, and you call the system by a different name. If it's more efficient (which I still dispute), it's because payroll taxes are cheaper to collect than premium checks, and because the gov't doesn't have to resort to petty negotiation. It can simply force people to do what it tells them to do.

[macul]

I can get not trusting the current government or being disappointed in the way a particular agency is functioning at any given time. But it's sad that people seem to think that means it CAN'T EVER work as opposed to just needing to be fixed. I have faith in the structures and institutions of this country, even if I don't trust those currently running them. Once those people are gone, the government can always be fixed.

We landed on the f-ing moon once. With the right resources, we can use our government to accomplish anything.

You are much more optimistic then I am. I will say at least that much.

[macul]

BUT YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THAT ABOUT WARREN SAPP (5'11", 360 lbs.) if you just saw him walking down the street!

You would say, "See? There's another fat fuck I'm paying for!"

oookaaaaay. Let me understand this: you have no problem paying for someone who eats themself in to a coronary?

Yes, but you don't believe that anything should really be done about it. That's the difference.

You want to help to horribly sick people, IN THEORY.

No, diana. That's a lie. I said I'd be willing to pay more in taxes to help those people. That aside, you've no idea what I do in the meanwhile, so please do not go about making assumptions about situations you know nothing about.

[EdContradictory]

FEMA was an example of glorious government efficiency?

So, because FEMA cut a few checks to people who were entitled to the help, but didn't "need" it because of insurance, all the other good it did in helping those who did need help and getting that help to them in a timely manner doesn't count?

Man, you guys really hate Clinton.

[AaronJ]

oookaaaaay. Let me understand this: you have no problem paying for someone who eats themself in to a coronary?

It's an all or nothing proposition. What? You are the adjudicator? Why? Did "God" grant you special wisdom?

Tons of health problems are due to activitiy on the part of person suffering from the condition. So, should we rule out those who eat too much meat and not enough vegeatables? What about people who don't get enough vitamin A?

Who is going to make these judgements? Solomon?

It's an all-or-nothing propostition. We determine that, AS A SOCIETY, we want to take care of each other, or we don't. We say "Fuck you" to our neighbor, or we don't.

No, diana. That's a lie. I said I'd be willing to pay more in taxes to help those people. That aside, you've no idea what I do in the meanwhile, so please do not go about making assumptions about situations you know nothing about.

(The name's Aaron, btw, not that it's important.)

Your comments have made clear that you want to decide who is "worthy" of treatment and who isn't. As if it is some sort of freakin' Final Judgement.

[Samurai]

So, because FEMA cut a few checks to people who were entitled to the help, but didn't "need" it because of insurance, all the other good it did in helping those who did need help and getting that help to them in a timely manner doesn't count?

Man, you guys really hate Clinton.

That's an example of inefficiency, waste, and corruption. You said it was an example of govt efficiency. It wasn't.

[EdContradictory]

You are much more optimistic then I am. I will say at least that much.

It's not optimism. It's because I love my country. It's patriotism.

[EdContradictory]

That's an example of inefficiency, waste, and corruption. You said it was an example of govt efficiency. It wasn't.
You guys keep inserting the word "efficient". I've not mentioned "efficiency" as a standard at all.

If a few people got a check from FEMA that shouldn't so that everyone else who desperately needed one got one in a timely manner, I can live with that.

[Loren]

You guys keep inserting the word "efficient". I've not mentioned "efficiency" as a standard at all.

Sure you did. Macul wrote:

"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."

Your response:

"Bullshit."

That reads like a statement on efficiency to me.

[macul]

It's an all or nothing proposition. What? You are the adjudicator? Why? Did "God" grant you special wisdom?

Tons of health problems are due to activitiy on the part of person suffering from the condition. So, should we rule out those who eat too much meat and not enough vegeatables? What about people who don't get enough vitamin A?

Who is going to make these judgements? Solomon?

It's an all-or-nothing propostition. We determine that, AS A SOCIETY, we want to take care of each other, or we don't. We say "Fuck you" to our neighbor, or we don't.

Therein lies the problem with socialized healthcare. Maybe I'm just callous, but I don't care about helping those who won't help themselves. Show me you care enough to help yourself before asking for my aid. I'd rather put my money and energy towards someone like rev smooth who is suffering from legitimate health issues through no fault of her own.

That's reality. Not everyone should receive aid. People have to show they care enough for their own health before I'll give a damn. You give me someone who smokes several packs a day and won't think about taking a short walk daily and you expect me to willingly and gladly pay taxes for this person's healthcare? But guess what? My tax money won't help them a darned bit until they start to help themself.


(The name's Aaron, btw, not that it's important.)

Well, I can only go by your username. ;)

[AaronJ]

Therein lies the problem with socialized healthcare. Maybe I'm just callous, but I don't care about helping those who won't help themselves. Show me you care enough to help yourself before asking for my aid. I'd rather put my money and energy towards someone like rev smooth who is suffering from legitimate health issues through no fault of her own.

That's reality. Not everyone should receive aid. People have to show they care enough for their own health before I'll give a damn. You give me someone who smokes several packs a day and won't think about taking a short walk daily and you expect me to willingly and gladly pay taxes for this person's healthcare? But guess what? My tax money won't help them a darned bit until they start to help themself.


Sorry. That's a whiny, bloody excuse.

You don't want to part with your money, so you make up some scenarios where it wouldn't be "Right" for you to do so.

That's a strawman.

I put SOCIETY in caps for a reason. It means something. And either people freakin' start to understand that, or they don't. I don't give a damn. Honestly. I'll die soon, probably.

I'm one of your "people who don't care of themselves" because I drink and smoke. So my life is limited, I don't have kids, and thus I don't really have a stake in this whole damned thing.

But if people don't give a damn about the idea of society, then so be it. You really think that an "Every Man For Himself" construct can work? Has it been working? Is that why we have over 2 Million people in prison, and have over 16,000 murders every year?

It's time people the fuck got over this frontier mentality and started to see the whole nation as a unified entity.

But then again, what the hell difference does it make to me, right?

[Francis]

OK, the statement was "the government does a poor job of improving quality or efficiency." If that's rubbish, then what are some areas the U.S. federal government has taken over control from the private sector, and has managed, over the long term, to improve on the market's quality or efficiency?

Are you really saying that the US government is the most incompetant in the developed world? Every single other country with healthcare provided by the public sector has massively more efficient healthcare than the US does.

Really? Free to choose whether to have insurance is indistinguishable from anarchy? That's a really low bar for anarchy.

Entirely free to choose how they spend their money. Not that when you reach that level of anarchy money has much meaning.

But the problem here is that we have different definitions of what a free country is. Personally, I think that you need to deal with the basic negative freedoms (freedom from starvation, freedom from exposure, freedom from slavery, freedom from disease) before the concept of a free country has any meaning at all.

[MacQuarrie]

I never watched the video a first time, let alone "again."

The point is, when someone says "free" they mean as in not paying for it when it occurs.

Look, ok, "free." Whatever.

The point is this, and it is lead-brick simple:

Society, as a whole, pays for everyone's healthcare costs

OR

Individuals pay on a first come, can pay basis.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: It's not rocket science. This is NOT quantum mechanics. This is fucking grade school.

Does Joe Individual give a crap about the guy next door, or does he only care about himself? The answer, it seems to me, in this country, is pretty damned obvious. Now, I have my own theories as to why that is. But let's face it: The rest of the damned world has figured this out a LONG time ago.

If a country can't even care for its sick, what the fuck good is it?!
You will not address me in that arrogant and insulting tone or direct profanity toward me in future.

Welcome to Ignore.

[macul]

You don't want to part with your money, so you make up some scenarios where it wouldn't be "Right" for you to do so.

Not scenarios. Very real and legitimate situations you'd better be prepared to deal with if you ever want to see this come to fruition. Accusing me of not caring and calling my concerns "whiny excuses" won't cut it. Part of getting something like this done is dealing with the concerns. Insulting and being dismissive doesn't do that.

You really think that an "Every Man For Himself" construct can work?

Are you still ignoring the points I've conceeded in working towards a compromise? You know, where I acknowledge that people like rev smooth need and deserve our help? That we need to put some sort of system in place to accomodate people like her?

[Tommy]

Therein lies the problem with socialized healthcare. Maybe I'm just callous, but I don't care about helping those who won't help themselves. Show me you care enough to help yourself before asking for my aid. I'd rather put my money and energy towards someone like rev smooth who is suffering from legitimate health issues through no fault of her own.

That's reality. Not everyone should receive aid. People have to show they care enough for their own health before I'll give a damn. You give me someone who smokes several packs a day and won't think about taking a short walk daily and you expect me to willingly and gladly pay taxes for this person's healthcare? But guess what? My tax money won't help them a darned bit until they start to help themself.

Aren't there people called social workers whose entire job is decide who has legitimate need of aid and where government intervention is necessary in areas outside of healthcare?

[Reverend Smooth]

Are you still ignoring the points I've conceeded in working towards a compromise? You know, where I acknowledge that people like rev smooth need and deserve our help? That we need to put some sort of system in place to accomodate people like her?
Thank you, Macul. <3 Though I must state that I receive no assistance (I'm not an american citizen), though Larime does.

[AaronJ]

Are you still ignoring the points I've conceeded in working towards a compromise? You know, where I acknowledge that people like rev smooth need and deserve our help? That we need to put some sort of system in place to accomodate people like her?

But what compromise? That's what I don't understand.

And I'm not being dismissive. I'm trying to explain that this isn't a situation where one CAN compromise. It's either "We're all in it together" or it's "Every man for himself."

Otherwise, someone has to sit in judgement, saying "This thing over here is legitimate" and "This thing over there isn't legitimate."

We all jump into the deep end and take a breath, or we each individually determine what we can accomplish. I would rather take the route where we act as a society, together, for hte benefit of all (and yes, even if that means that some people are ripping off the system).

[macul]

Thank you, Macul. <3 Though I must state that I receive no assistance (I'm not an american citizen), though Larime does.

As aaron has stated, we do have certain responsibilities towards each other. He and I disagree on where the line is drawn and the exact answer, but I think we can all agree that what we have in place is broken. Being a citizen isn't a true concern of mine. You've made this place your home. That goes a long way.

[macul]

But what compromise? That's what I don't understand.

And I'm not being dismissive. I'm trying to explain that this isn't a situation where one CAN compromise. It's either "We're all in it together" or it's "Every man for himself."

Otherwise, someone has to sit in judgement, saying "This thing over here is legitimate" and "This thing over there isn't legitimate."

We all jump into the deep end and take a breath, or we each individually determine what we can accomplish. I would rather take the route where we act as a society, together, for hte benefit of all (and yes, even if that means that some people are ripping off the system).

As tommy pointed out a few posts back, we do just that with welfare. Do you extend your all or nothing approach to welfare?

[LtMarvel]

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




Not at all, especially in small towns.
1. You wrote the conclusion that is not in the film. You came up with it. Not Moore, not me, not anybody else.

2. I lived in small towns/rural areas most of my life. Always had the doors locked. So did everyone else I knew.

[AaronJ]

As tommy pointed out a few posts back, we do just that with welfare. Do you extend your all or nothing approach to welfare?

In the sense that everyone should be able to get welfare if they are down and out? Yes.

I jsut feel that medical care is TOO important to ignore as a society, as a group of people supposedly organized together for our general benefit.

But then again, I'm a small-c communist, essentially. :)

I believe that everything that can be done for people should be done for people, by the state. The state exists for one purpose, and one purpose only: to serve the citizenry.

So, that's where I'm coming from.

[Loren]

Are you really saying that the US government is the most incompetant in the developed world? Every single other country with healthcare provided by the public sector has massively more efficient healthcare than the US does.

No, that's what you're claiming I'm saying. What I'm actually saying is that there's no area the U.S. federal government has taken over control from the private sector, and has managed, over the long term, to improve on the market's quality or efficiency. If you care to rebut with an actual example or three, I'm happy to listen.

[JeffreyWKramer]

In the sense that everyone should be able to get welfare if they are down and out? Yes.

I jsut feel that medical care is TOO important to ignore as a society, as a group of people supposedly organized together for our general benefit.

But then again, I'm a small-c communist, essentially. :)

I believe that everything that can be done for people should be done for people, by the state. The state exists for one purpose, and one purpose only: to serve the citizenry.

So, that's where I'm coming from.


In the US, and as established by the Constitution, the role of government is not to do everything for people. Rather, it is to perform those functions private individuals can't very well perform on their own. Things like national defense, interstate commerce, international treaties, etc. Other things, people have the right and the responsibility to do for themselves.

As a society, we do have an obligation to care for those that can't care for themselves, but we don't have an obligation to provide a free ride to those that can do things for themselves.

The existence of people that want more than their fair share, or who don't want to put in a fair share of the effort, is, btw, why small-c communism never works in the long run.

[AaronJ]

In the US, and as established by the Constitution, the role of government is not to do everything for people. Rather, it is to perform those functions private individuals can't very well perform on their own. Things like national defense, interstate commerce, international treaties, etc. Other things, people have the right and the responsibility to do for themselves.

As a society, we do have an obligation to care for those that can't care for themselves, but we don't have an obligation to provide a free ride to those that can do things for themselves.

The existence of people that want more than their fair share, or who don't want to put in a fair share of the effort, is, btw, why small-c communism never works in the long run.

Oh I agree with you. Both communism and anarchism are the most *optimistic* political theories there are. Everyone has to be tolerant of and caring for his fellow man in order for it to work.

As to the Constitution, I think there is a lot up for debate. I am not saying that you are wrong, in any way. Just that we might not agree on what the US means, as an entity, as an idea, as an establishment.

[Hulkamaniac]

Oh
As to the Constitution, I think there is a lot up for debate. I am not saying that you are wrong, in any way. Just that we might not agree on what the US means, as an entity, as an idea, as an establishment.

The founding fathers also felt the same way, so don't feel to bad ;)

[EdContradictory]

Sure you did. Macul wrote:

"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."

Your response:

"Bullshit."

That reads like a statement on efficiency to me.
One, I set off to argue for effectiveness. And two, regardless of that, people's standards for efficiency will differ. And, again, no where did I mention efficiency.

And, if we (macul and I) were then after discussing two different things, that was my mistake.

But thanks for inserting yourself into someone else's conversation just to try to get a "gotcha".






P.S. People who insert themselves in order to argue on behalf other people who are quite capable of handling their own argument can be kind of annoying. It seems to happen a lot in polical discussions online. Let the guy talk for himself.

[singoalla]

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.


Yes, blame the illegal immigrants. What about the american citizens, the homeless, the outcasts, the too poor, orphans, abused mothers with children to feed who can't afford to pay for what should be a basic human right?
I've been in so-called third world countries where even the poorest of poor gets to see a doctor. America can't do the same?

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

Artists may have overblown egos, but they don't have a God complex.

Doctors study for up to 16 years to learn how to save lives. Our lives. If they want fame and fortune, go to Hollywood. Do a Paris Hilton. If you want fame and fortune playing with people's lives, you deserve to be sued.

[Reverend Smooth]

I work up to 20 hours a day, 7 days a week (heck, sometimes I work a day and a haf and then sleep for a couple hours). I make practically nothing. My sympathy about doctors making less when they work hard is somewhat muted. Plenty of people work many long, hard hours, and they get paid crap.

As for keeping up on education, most doctors seem to be years behind new research and info. When the patient is far more educated about endocrinology than most doctors -- as in, why is it not widely recognized in the US that adrenal fatigue is a primary cause of chronic fatigue and why do I have to argue with endocrinologists about whether Addison's Disease actually exists (and apparently, 'Revisit your medical textbooks, it's in there' is not actually proof, according to them) -- I have a hard time believing that. I didn't even go to college, and I know more than many doctors in that specific field? I may be a genius, but that's still pretty darn wrong. ^^;;;

I've personally saved the lives of at least six people by identifying low-grade addison's disease (as in, they were on the verge of getting hospitalised if they did not get treatment and obviously, one of the conditions that I have) when their own doctors couldn't or wouldn't, my girlfriend included (she was more severe, actually-- her hair had stopped growing, her asthma was dangerous, and she was having extreme swelling and hiving inside her orifices as well as her body). I worked with them on diet, supplements, lifestyle management, alternatives to chemicals, stress avoidance, and their conditions massively improved and some of them, with the info I gave them, were able to get medical treatment from specialists who did know how to treat them.

Did I get a dime from it? No. Not one. And that's fine by me. And it's ridiculous that I was the one who they had to turn to for help when the medical establishment just told them, like they told me, that they were just hypochondriacs. (Even though it is medically impossible to, say, psych yourself into losing your hair -- not, like, small stress induced stuff, but like massive clumps followed by a complete lack of regrowth, and then sores and lesions, etc etc -- or vomiting blood.)

Did I mention that most of these people were poor? I guess they were just a drain on the system, or something. (So much for caring about patients.)

Some study came out a while back that said that most doctors are about a decade behind in their knowledge, and I believe that.

A link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19719091/), also, that shows how access to medical care early on saves money in the long run, and how delaying care runs up medicare bills in the US.

[singoalla]

Therein lies the problem with socialized healthcare. Maybe I'm just callous, but I don't care about helping those who won't help themselves. Show me you care enough to help yourself before asking for my aid. I'd rather put my money and energy towards someone like rev smooth who is suffering from legitimate health issues through no fault of her own.

That's reality. Not everyone should receive aid. People have to show they care enough for their own health before I'll give a damn. You give me someone who smokes several packs a day and won't think about taking a short walk daily and you expect me to willingly and gladly pay taxes for this person's healthcare? But guess what? My tax money won't help them a darned bit until they start to help themself.

Well, I can only go by your username. ;)


There's no problem like you describe with socialized healthcare. I should know, I live in Sweden.

The point you miss is this: We pay, as a society, to help anyone in this society now when they need it. We pay, because one day I might get into a car-accident, lose the use of my limbs and not be able to pay for myself.
Or, I might get some kind of gland problem, swell up to 400 Ibs and again, not be able to help myself. Shit happens.

My dad worked his whole life to support a family, didn't have time to work out and got high blood pressure for it. He paid his taxes, grumbled about the amount he paid and got a stroke. Now he can't take care of himself, can't make money and the insurance company only pays for so much.

But guess what, we've got "free" healthcare. He gets rehab for as long as he needs it, gets a social welfare check until his retirement in three years, gets medicine, regular doctors appointments and even us, his family members get therapy and help should we need it.

So yah, my taxes pay for those who won't help themselves, but they've also paid for my dad's care, and not forced us to sell our house, so I don't really mind. Makes me feel kinda warm and fuzzy inside.

[Loren]

But thanks for inserting yourself into someone else's conversation just to try to get a "gotcha".

One, this is an open board. There are no one-on-one conversations, and there have never been any rules, unwritten or otherwise, about "inserting" yourself into conversations.

Two, I've previously responded to your "Bullshit" post (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=5108006&postcount=140), rebutting your argument about federal effectiveness, so I'm already part of your conversation.

[Brian M.]

In the sense that everyone should be able to get welfare if they are down and out? Yes.

I jsut feel that medical care is TOO important to ignore as a society, as a group of people supposedly organized together for our general benefit.

But then again, I'm a small-c communist, essentially. :)

I believe that everything that can be done for people should be done for people, by the state. The state exists for one purpose, and one purpose only: to serve the citizenry.

So, that's where I'm coming from.

I don't like "cradle to grave" entitlements. Why do I have obligation to make sure my neighbor has healthcare? I'm obligated to make sure I have healthcare, why is he not? Why do I have to pay for someone else's medical bills? Is this going to come off as insensitive? Probably, but it's not b/c I don't care about those who can't afford it, it's not that I don't care about my fellow man, I do. But you have the ability, the responsiblity to provide for yourself, the individual, on your own means. Not on my means, not on my neighbors means. Your means. Medicare is nice, Medicaid is nice, but to completely axe the private sector is one of the most horrendous things this country could do to itself. I'm 23 years old, I don't ahve health care. Wanna know why? I don't feel like right now, at my age, I need it. In these statistics that Moore spits out about all those who don't have healthcare, how many don't have it b/c it's a choice?

No, that's what you're claiming I'm saying. What I'm actually saying is that there's no area the U.S. federal government has taken over control from the private sector, and has managed, over the long term, to improve on the market's quality or efficiency. If you care to rebut with an actual example or three, I'm happy to listen.

I agree with everything you've said.

In the US, and as established by the Constitution, the role of government is not to do everything for people. Rather, it is to perform those functions private individuals can't very well perform on their own. Things like national defense, interstate commerce, international treaties, etc. Other things, people have the right and the responsibility to do for themselves.

As a society, we do have an obligation to care for those that can't care for themselves, but we don't have an obligation to provide a free ride to those that can do things for themselves.

The existence of people that want more than their fair share, or who don't want to put in a fair share of the effort, is, btw, why small-c communism never works in the long run.

I love what you just said.

[Tommy]

I don't like "cradle to grave" entitlements. Why do I have obligation to make sure my neighbor has healthcare? I'm obligated to make sure I have healthcare, why is he not?
You can look at it two ways. Either you will no longer be obligated to make sure you have health care. Or your neighbor is simply fulfilling his obligation to make sure he has heath care.

[AaronJ]

I don't like "cradle to grave" entitlements. Why do I have obligation to make sure my neighbor has healthcare? I'm obligated to make sure I have healthcare, why is he not? Why do I have to pay for someone else's medical bills? Is this going to come off as insensitive? Probably, but it's not b/c I don't care about those who can't afford it, it's not that I don't care about my fellow man, I do. But you have the ability, the responsiblity to provide for yourself, the individual, on your own means. Not on my means, not on my neighbors means. Your means. Medicare is nice, Medicaid is nice, but to completely axe the private sector is one of the most horrendous things this country could do to itself. I'm 23 years old, I don't ahve health care. Wanna know why? I don't feel like right now, at my age, I need it. In these statistics that Moore spits out about all those who don't have healthcare, how many don't have it b/c it's a choice?

I want to leave your quote in its entirety.

We simply disagree on what the United States of America means. It's that simple.

I don't believe in the same ideals you believe in. And vice versa. I think of society as a single entity, not a bunch of individuals. That's where we differ.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I don't believe in the same ideals you believe in. And vice versa. I think of society as a single entity, not a bunch of individuals. That's where we differ.

And this is where, again, your ideals really don't match those upon which this nation was founded, and which are manifest in the Constitution. Ours is a system based on individual liberty and individual responsibility. It's a nation of, by and for the people, with "people" meaning "lots of individuals."

That isn't up for debate, really. It's right there in the specific language of the Constitution. One can argue whether things *should* be that way, whether that is the rightful nature of government and society, but nonetheless, it is what it is.

[Solaris]

I don't like "cradle to grave" entitlements. Why do I have obligation to make sure my neighbor has healthcare? I'm obligated to make sure I have healthcare, why is he not? Why do I have to pay for someone else's medical bills? Is this going to come off as insensitive? Probably, but it's not b/c I don't care about those who can't afford it, it's not that I don't care about my fellow man, I do. But you have the ability, the responsiblity to provide for yourself, the individual, on your own means. Not on my means, not on my neighbors means. Your means. Medicare is nice, Medicaid is nice, but to completely axe the private sector is one of the most horrendous things this country could do to itself. I'm 23 years old, I don't ahve health care. Wanna know why? I don't feel like right now, at my age, I need it. In these statistics that Moore spits out about all those who don't have healthcare, how many don't have it b/c it's a choice?

First, I refer you to THIS post:

There's no problem like you describe with socialized healthcare. I should know, I live in Sweden.

The point you miss is this: We pay, as a society, to help anyone in this society now when they need it. We pay, because one day I might get into a car-accident, lose the use of my limbs and not be able to pay for myself.
Or, I might get some kind of gland problem, swell up to 400 Ibs and again, not be able to help myself. Shit happens.

My dad worked his whole life to support a family, didn't have time to work out and got high blood pressure for it. He paid his taxes, grumbled about the amount he paid and got a stroke. Now he can't take care of himself, can't make money and the insurance company only pays for so much.

But guess what, we've got "free" healthcare. He gets rehab for as long as he needs it, gets a social welfare check until his retirement in three years, gets medicine, regular doctors appointments and even us, his family members get therapy and help should we need it.

So yah, my taxes pay for those who won't help themselves, but they've also paid for my dad's care, and not forced us to sell our house, so I don't really mind. Makes me feel kinda warm and fuzzy inside.

Ever hear the phrase "The life you save, may be your own?"

Second... you choose *not* to have healthcare... you think you don't need it. I suppose you like playing Russian Roulette?

Tell me you don't need it, oh immortal 23 year old, when you've fallen down the stairs (or taken a tumble from your skateboard), and you've cracked your spine... and you hence rack up hundreds of thousands of medical bills---and at times, find that you can't get the treatment or pain meds or surgery you need, because you have no insurance.

Of course, I could've put that more simply and said "Look at Christopher Reeve: fit healthy young man. Has a terrible accident; relies on life support, loses all mobility. Care to guess how much *his* healthcare cost?"

Why do I have obligation to make sure my neighbor has healthcare? I'm obligated to make sure I have healthcare, why is he not? Why do I have to pay for someone else's medical bills? Is this going to come off as insensitive? Probably, but it's not b/c I don't care about those who can't afford it, it's not that I don't care about my fellow man, I do. But you have the ability, the responsiblity to provide for yourself, the individual, on your own means. Not on my means, not on my neighbors means.

Ohhh, but obviously you DON'T care. I see the NIMBY principle is alive and well, here. Your statement reveals a vast ignorance of the employment difficulties many people face---either that, or a callous indifference to it.

Let's put it this way: You're entitled to make such a statement---the MINUTE you have the ability to offer everyone who can't afford their own healthcare a job position that *will* allow them to obtain healthcare insurance and still cover their basic needs. Until then, pipe down, junior. Either that, or go try living in the projects for a while, and get your eyes opened up.

And before you ask, yes I *have* "lived in the projects", I *have* been on the government dole (housing and food stamps)---because at the time, we couldn't get the income we needed to care for ourselves and our baby. Once we *could* afford it, we went off the dole.

[AaronJ]

And this is where, again, your ideals really don't match those upon which this nation was founded, and which are manifest in the Constitution. Ours is a system based on individual liberty and individual responsibility. It's a nation of, by and for the people, with "people" meaning "lots of individuals."

That isn't up for debate, really. It's right there in the specific language of the Constitution. One can argue whether things *should* be that way, whether that is the rightful nature of government and society, but nonetheless, it is what it is.

Even if you're right about that, which I'm not ready to admit quite yet, but also don't deny, it's not really that relevant.

It's why I will never be in the mainstream in this country. It's why I'll never feel a part of this country. It's why I'll never understand those who do.

My personal morality is more important to me than what someone can verbalize concerning ideals and such. I know, in my gut, what is right and what is wrong.

So be it.

[Loren]

And this is where, again, your ideals really don't match those upon which this nation was founded, and which are manifest in the Constitution. Ours is a system based on individual liberty and individual responsibility. It's a nation of, by and for the people, with "people" meaning "lots of individuals."

That isn't up for debate, really. It's right there in the specific language of the Constitution. One can argue whether things *should* be that way, whether that is the rightful nature of government and society, but nonetheless, it is what it is.

Speaking of which, let's consider for a moment Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, entitled "Powers of Congress." Which, as the title suggests, enumerates the things Congress is empowered to do. Here's the text:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Now, under which of these categories does taking over health care, and thereby directly controlling a considerable portion of the U.S. economy, fall under? And assuming that it does fall into one of the above categories, is there anything that the U.S. government CAN'T control? In other words, although the Constitution explicitly limits the lawmaking power of Congress, what limits still exist if the power to nationalize health care can be squeezed in there?

[kingdom2000]

I'm 23 years old, I don't ahve health care. Wanna know why? I don't feel like right now, at my age, I need it.

Wow, you are soooo screwed if you have an accident. Something as simple as a broken leg could bankrupt you without insurance (cause it costs so damn much). That is part of the problem I think.

Healthcare is not for the sniffles and sneezes. Its for the $@#$ has hit the fan moments. Car accidents, broken bones because fell hanging something, the random moments of life that suddenly take a nasty turn. Those are the moments that literally break people financially if they are not prepared and cause the problems you hear about.

[Dazzler]

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


Exactly what I'm talking about. You go to school so you're entitled to these ridiculous salaries?
Whatever. I went to school for eight years, including taking pre-med classes and working on cadavers and the whole nine yards. I work eighty hour weeks. I have to continually keep up with my education. I get paid crap because I'm "just" a teacher. I don't get as tired as you do? I don't derserve more money for my hard work, time, and knowledge? Please.

Ego. Doctors=important because they love reminding us they are.

Artists have overblown egos, but really, unless you're Damien Hirst, you're not getting paid buckets of money.

--Dazz

[Spackling Compound]

Even if you're right about that, which I'm not ready to admit quite yet, but also don't deny, it's not really that relevant.

It's why I will never be in the mainstream in this country. It's why I'll never feel a part of this country. It's why I'll never understand those who do.

My personal morality is more important to me than what someone can verbalize concerning ideals and such. I know, in my gut, what is right and what is wrong.

So be it.

Come on, people.
Now smile on your brother.
Everybody get together, try to learn to live with one another.
Right now.

That sung, how does an internal personal morality fit in with a collective body called society?

[Solaris]

Yes, blame the illegal immigrants. What about the american citizens, the homeless, the outcasts, the too poor, orphans, abused mothers with children to feed who can't afford to pay for what should be a basic human right?
I've been in so-called third world countries where even the poorest of poor gets to see a doctor. America can't do the same?



Artists may have overblown egos, but they don't have a God complex.

Doctors study for up to 16 years to learn how to save lives. Our lives. If they want fame and fortune, go to Hollywood. Do a Paris Hilton. If you want fame and fortune playing with people's lives, you deserve to be sued.


Absolutely! I am sick and tired of the old whine "but we put in extra education time, and extra dough, to become licensed as doctors---therefore, we deserve the 'golf course' lifestyle."

Bullshit.

As you point out, there are MANY professions where people put in extra training, schooling, and money. Yes, people do that to make themselves more marketable and to make more money (well, *some* actually just want to learn more... wow, what a concept). But using this as a "well, hey, I'm a doctor---I deserve big fees" concept is B.S. The whole concept of the profession is supposed to be *healing* people, not "fleecing" people.

Granted, there are good doctors out there. There are doctors who work high-stress jobs (like ER) who take far less than the average doctor's pay for their work. There are also a boatload of people in the profession who simply want to make big bucks.

And in speaking of higher education... let's compare, shall we?

The AFT teacher salary survey for the 2004-05 school year found that the average teacher salary was $47,602, a 2.2 percent increase from the previous year. The report asserts that, to make teacher pay competitive with pay in other professions by the end of the decade, teachers need a 30 percent raise—an additional investment in our children’s future of almost $15 billion per year. The 2005 salary survey also examines the impact of rising housing costs and student loan debt on teachers in the 50 largest cities.


http://www.aft.org/salary/index.htm

Now, let's look at Family Practice Physicians Salaries:

Lowest Reported: $111,894

Average Reported: $142,516

Highest Reported: $197,025

http://www.studentdoc.com/family-practice-salary.html

Unlike doctors, in most states teachers are *required* to take additional classes every 2-3 years... or they lose their certification to teach, and their jobs. A fair amount of teachers go on to achieve a Master's Degree or Higher.


Here's info on the average salaries for Doctorates in Science and Engineering:

For the S&E doctoral workforce overall, median annual salaries in 2001 were highest among the full-time employed[5] in the industry sector ($92,000), followed by those in government ($78,000), and then those in education ($63,000).

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf04328/

Okay, so these folks *also* put in time and money to obtain their Doctoral Degrees... yet their average salaries are *still* lower than the average family practitioner's, by $50,000 at best, and almost $80,000 at worst (looking at the averages.

Let's bury that old myth about how Doctors deserve more because they do more costly and longer education, shall we?

(And remember, LAWYERS also put in extra time and education money to get *their* certifications... and while some really *do* try to help people with the law (we have some like this right here on our forums), there's enough who want to make all the money they can, that they give some decent weight to the idea of "bloodsucking attorneys.")

[Spackling Compound]

Exactly what I'm talking about. You go to school so you're entitled to these ridiculous salaries?
Whatever. I went to school for eight years, including taking pre-med classes and working on cadavers and the whole nine yards. I work eighty hour weeks. I have to continually keep up with my education. I get paid crap because I'm "just" a teacher. I don't get as tired as you do? I don't derserve more money for my hard work, time, and knowledge? Please.

Ego. Doctors=important because they love reminding us they are.

Artists have overblown egos, but really, unless you're Damien Hirst, you're not getting paid buckets of money.

--Dazz
Godliness is the ability to have anyone go naked for you by simply suggesting it.

[Solaris]

Speaking of which, let's consider for a moment Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, entitled "Powers of Congress." Which, as the title suggests, enumerates the things Congress is empowered to do. Here's the text:



Now, under which of these categories does taking over health care, and thereby directly controlling a considerable portion of the U.S. economy, fall under? And assuming that it does fall into one of the above categories, is there anything that the U.S. government CAN'T control? In other words, although the Constitution explicitly limits the lawmaking power of Congress, what limits still exist if the power to nationalize health care can be squeezed in there?


Loren, if you aren't a Libertarian... you should be.

[Solaris]

Godliness is the ability to have anyone go naked for you by simply suggesting it.

If Jeffrey doesn't put that into his sig, I'll eat my hat.

:D :D :D

[Loren]

Healthcare is not for the sniffles and sneezes. Its for the $@#$ has hit the fan moments. Car accidents, broken bones because fell hanging something, the random moments of life that suddenly take a nasty turn.

Which, incidentally, is what separates health care from pretty much every other public assistance program. Other public welfare programs are designed to provide not for the big expensive parts of life, but for the minimum standards. Welfare benefits are small because they're just supposed to get you out of poverty. Food stamps are small because they're just supposed to get you enough to live on. Social Security benefits are small because they're just supposed to supplement your other savings.

But health care isn't about providing the minimum. It's not about providing people with soap and toothpaste and Band-Aids. It's about paying for the BIG stuff in people's lives. Which, really, makes it the opposite of other public assistance programs, and closer to financial expenses where the government rarely sets foot (e.g., mortgages, home insurance, auto insurance, etc.). The one exception that comes to mind is college tuition, where the feds typically assists people not in the form of free money, but in the form of low-interest loans that are expected to be paid back.

This also touches on why Social Security is just a bad model, and not something you see being popular on the free market. It's set up more or less like retirement insurance: you pay your "premiums" for decades, and if you reach retirement age, they'll pay you monthly retirement checks to live on. The problem is that old age is not a "$@#$ has hit the fan moment." It's a good thing if you live that long, not a bad thing where life has "taken a nasty turn." And related to that, it's not random or unexpected; you literally have decades to prepare for it. It's actually the inverse of life insurance.

So what ends up happening is that the longer people live, and the BETTER people's lives are, the more trouble SS has. At least Medicare's success is tied to people being healthy; SS's financial stability is tied to the necessity that many Americans will die early. The more successful America is at making people healthier and longer-lived, the worse off SS is.

[Reverend Smooth]

It's why I will never be in the mainstream in this country.Actually, you're in the majority. Most americans want universal healthcare now.

[AaronJ]

That sung, how does an internal personal morality fit in with a collective body called society?

Maybe it fits in as far as my knowing that individualism and greed are wrong.

[Dazzler]

Godliness is the ability to have anyone go naked for you by simply suggesting it.

And that is one argument there is absolutely no arguing against. ;)

--Dazz

[AaronJ]

And that is one argument there is absolutely no arguing against. ;)

--Dazz

HA! :)

OK, that made me laugh. Which, today, is a *really* good thing.

[Dazzler]

HA! :)

OK, that made me laugh. Which, today, is a *really* good thing.
Consider it a gift from me to you on a shitty day.

--Dazz

[AaronJ]

Consider it a gift from me to you on a shitty day.

--Dazz

Well, then, Thanks Dazz. :)

[Dazzler]

Well, then, Thanks Dazz. :)

Absolutely not a problem, dude.
You make a lot of sense on here. Keep the chin up. :)

--Dazz

[Brian M.]

I want to leave your quote in its entirety.

We simply disagree on what the United States of America means. It's that simple.

I don't believe in the same ideals you believe in. And vice versa. I think of society as a single entity, not a bunch of individuals. That's where we differ.

See I think if you serve and better yourself as an individual you will improve society.

First, I refer you to THIS post:



Ever hear the phrase "The life you save, may be your own?"

Second... you choose *not* to have healthcare... you think you don't need it. I suppose you like playing Russian Roulette?

Tell me you don't need it, oh immortal 23 year old, when you've fallen down the stairs (or taken a tumble from your skateboard), and you've cracked your spine... and you hence rack up hundreds of thousands of medical bills---and at times, find that you can't get the treatment or pain meds or surgery you need, because you have no insurance.

Of course, I could've put that more simply and said "Look at Christopher Reeve: fit healthy young man. Has a terrible accident; relies on life support, loses all mobility. Care to guess how much *his* healthcare cost?"



Ohhh, but obviously you DON'T care. I see the NIMBY principle is alive and well, here. Your statement reveals a vast ignorance of the employment difficulties many people face---either that, or a callous indifference to it.

Let's put it this way: You're entitled to make such a statement---the MINUTE you have the ability to offer everyone who can't afford their own healthcare a job position that *will* allow them to obtain healthcare insurance and still cover their basic needs. Until then, pipe down, junior. Either that, or go try living in the projects for a while, and get your eyes opened up.

And before you ask, yes I *have* "lived in the projects", I *have* been on the government dole (housing and food stamps)---because at the time, we couldn't get the income we needed to care for ourselves and our baby. Once we *could* afford it, we went off the dole.

That's great, if you wanna quote the poor as some poor unfortunate people who just got "unlucky" then this isn't gonna work. Most people are in the situation they are in b/c of decisions they have made in their lives. That's the bitch about freedom, your free to make bad choices aswell. You wanna talk about those poor folks in the projects and slums, how about all those stories of folks who have risen out of that, who have worked hard and better themselves and can afford healthcare...I guess they don't really matter to you b/c they don't meet the "poor poor pitful me" stereotype you wanna lay on folks do they?

As for my entitlement to make "such a statement" I'll say damn well what I want, that's the bitch of the 1st amendment isn't it? As for my "ignorance" of the problem folks face getting a job, your wrong. I know how damn hard it is to get a job, I also know there are plenty of jobs out there that offer benefits and such but folks don't want to take them b/c it's "below" them. Pride is a bitch.

Why bring Christopher Reeves into this? Yea healthcare costs alot, they don't charge those prices for the fun of it. Our healthcare costs are market driven. The good thing about Christopher Reeves is that he could pay for them. He made the money that could pay for the insurance, he didn't look to you or I to provide for him.

Why should I trust a government who can't get the educational system correct to provide me with sufficant healthcare? The same people who can't get aid to hurricane victims, the same people can't secure a boarder, the same people who are in charge of social security...I want to put my life in their hands? HAHAHAHA no thanks. I'd rather take the risk w/ my insurance company. Is that saying our system isn't broken? Hell no, it's got plenty of problems, but those problems aren't gonna be fixed when you hand it over to the government.

Wow, you are soooo screwed if you have an accident. Something as simple as a broken leg could bankrupt you without insurance (cause it costs so damn much). That is part of the problem I think.

Healthcare is not for the sniffles and sneezes. Its for the $@#$ has hit the fan moments. Car accidents, broken bones because fell hanging something, the random moments of life that suddenly take a nasty turn. Those are the moments that literally break people financially if they are not prepared and cause the problems you hear about.

First of all don't talk down to me, this works a lot better when one of us isn't stuck up. Second, yea I know if I get hurt I'm screwed, it's a decision I made as an individual. So don't lecture me on the pro's and con's of my choice.

[Brian M.]

Maybe it fits in as far as my knowing that individualism and greed are wrong.

Why is individualism and greed wrong?

[Tommy]

Why is individualism and greed wrong?

Individualism has its pros and cons, Greed though is very very wrong.

[Brian M.]

Individualism has its pros and cons, Greed though is very very wrong.

We all want more, I don't think Greed is "very very wrong". I want more for my fiancee, I want more money, I want more food on my plate at night. I want more good times. Greed is only bad when you start to negatively effect others.

[Tommy]

That's great, if you wanna quote the poor as some poor unfortunate people who just got "unlucky" then this isn't gonna work. Most people are in the situation they are in b/c of decisions they have made in their lives.
BULLSHIT! People are in those situations for a verity of reasons, and very low down the list is normally choices. But please feel free to back everything you say up with statistics.

[EdContradictory]

That's great, if you wanna quote the poor as some poor unfortunate people who just got "unlucky" then this isn't gonna work. Most people are in the situation they are in b/c of decisions they have made in their lives. That's the bitch about freedom, your free to make bad choices aswell. You wanna talk about those poor folks in the projects and slums, how about all those stories of folks who have risen out of that, who have worked hard and better themselves and can afford healthcare...I guess they don't really matter to you b/c they don't meet the "poor poor pitful me" stereotype you wanna lay on folks do they?
That is so amazingly, painfully ignorant.

So people who can't afford to deal with a catastrophic illness are in that position due to their own free will and choices?

People who had health insurance but are denied or dropped or can't get new insurance due to pre-existing conditions chose to have those conditions?

Blame the victim.

[OnslaughtKILLS]

Michael Moore is a moron, I seriously pity those who listen to the garbage he spews out to the public.

[Tommy]

We all want more, I don't think Greed is "very very wrong". I want more for my fiancee, I want more money, I want more food on my plate at night. I want more good times. Greed is only bad when you start to negatively effect others.

There are only so many atoms that make up this little planet. In order to increase your share of those atoms you have to take them away from some one else's share. Tis the same thing with money or any other resource.

Desire is when you wish for something. Greed is when you have an insatiable desire. Greed is inherently bad since all concerns are brushed aside in pursuit of that desire. And in almost all cases there is no final goal with greed. Very rarely can "all" be achieved. It is unhealthy for both the person who is greedy and everyone around him.

[Sabrinaset]

Exactly what I'm talking about. You go to school so you're entitled to these ridiculous salaries?
Whatever. I went to school for eight years, including taking pre-med classes and working on cadavers and the whole nine yards. I work eighty hour weeks. I have to continually keep up with my education. I get paid crap because I'm "just" a teacher. I don't get as tired as you do? I don't derserve more money for my hard work, time, and knowledge? Please.

Yeppers. Cuz when you put in the time and the work and the training to go for the tough jobs and get the good grades, you get to make the big bucks. Which, BTW, I'm not making yet. But I absolutely love the fact that the "popular" kids at my high school who partied all day and night, and blew off school, are now still working at McDonalds while I've actually got a career because I said "Screw it, I'm working hard now so I can get ahead later". And also, both my father and step-uncle are teachers, so I'm quite aware of what they do and go through, thank you very much, and yes, they deserve more money (why you think I wouldn't think they do is a mystery, but oh well ...) and still I'd love to take a whole Summer off, something they LOVE to brag about to me. Even where I am now as a resident, I put in over twice as many hours as both of them do. And you know, when a teacher makes a mistake, their students don't, y'know, die on them, and then the lawyers don't sue. Higher risks, higher rewards. I'd also put high-level engineers and airline traffic controllers up at the top of the list as well.

But basically, salaries are determined by the market. I mean, I personally don't think people who play professional sports deserve their gajillion dollar salaries, but if the market supports it, then there you go. What, are you going to start regulating salaries for all careers out there?

BTW, Solaris, in California, per Daddy, they dropped the 150 hours of classes every five years requirement for teachers. All they have to do is pay the fee to California every five years now, at least if they have the Full Clear Credential. So basically, in California, you can get a BA in anything, take one more year of Ed courses, pass the CBEST and some other test, take three Clear Cred classes (Computer class is one of them, don't remember the other two) and bingo, there you go. This is a little different than majoring in bio or chem, THEN four more years of med school, then two to eight more years of residency, and this doesn't even factor in the fact that med school runs up costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars ... at least that's what Daddy tells me! ... whereas his own teacher training costs far less. Outside of military training for certain jobs, if there's a more expensive career to go to school to become, I dunno what it is.

But I will say this: I didn't become a doctor for the money, heck, my original plan was to become an OB-GYN because there are so few women OB's out there, and I really needed one after my attack. I went into medicine to help others the same way I had been helped by the doctors when I was 13, and the best times I have are when I get to draw for the kids in pediatrics. Nothing beats the smile I see on a kids face when I help them out, even if I'm not a pediatrician. But I'll also admit, gotta love the money I'll make when my residency is served. Not that I'll see any of it until my loans are paid off ... which will probably be about the same time the next issue of All-Star Batman and Robin comes out.

[Tommy]

Blame the victim.

Surely you realize if people wanted health insurance they would stop being poor in the first place.

[EdContradictory]

Surely you realize if people wanted health insurance they would stop being poor in the first place.
How rude of them to do otherwise!

[Brian M.]

That is so amazingly, painfully ignorant.

So people who can't afford to deal with a catastrophic illness are in that position due to their own free will and choices?

People who had health insurance but are denied or dropped or can't get new insurance due to pre-existing conditions chose to have those conditions?

Blame the victim.

Why b/c you don't agree w/ me? It's ignorant? Yes there is always a sob story about someone who gets royally screwed, but rich people aren't rich b/c they got lucky, they aren't rich b/c they are more fortunate either. They are there b/c they worked hard to better themselves. Are their exceptions to the rule, hell ya, some folks just get shit luck and it sucks. My parents weren't rich, they were middle class folks, hell my dad only had one parent at the age of 11. He had 4 more siblings too, out of all of them he's the only one who raised himself up to be something in this world. Now he has the insurance that will pay to help him fight cancer. So don't give me this poor poor pitful folks thing and how people are just unlucky in life. You make this life what you put in it.

[EdContradictory]

Michael Moore is a moron, I seriously pity those who listen to the garbage he spews out to the public.

You tell 'em, silly-made-up-Internet-name-guy!:rolleyes:

[Brian M.]

How rude of them to do otherwise!

I guess we should just take money from rich folks and give it to the poor, they've done such a wonderful job w/ the money they had in the first place uh?

[LtMarvel]

Speaking of which, let's consider for a moment Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, entitled "Powers of Congress." Which, as the title suggests, enumerates the things Congress is empowered to do. Here's the text:



Now, under which of these categories does taking over health care, and thereby directly controlling a considerable portion of the U.S. economy, fall under? And assuming that it does fall into one of the above categories, is there anything that the U.S. government CAN'T control? In other words, although the Constitution explicitly limits the lawmaking power of Congress, what limits still exist if the power to nationalize health care can be squeezed in there?
It falls under the elastic clause, Loren, you know that.
Otherwise, who would control air traffic? Communication (so we all have our cell phones and television and radio.)? Whether new drugs are safe or not? Patents? Copyrights? Food inspections? Soil conservation? Parks? And the many many many other items the government does for us...

[EdContradictory]

I guess we should just take money from rich folks and give it to the poor, they've done such a wonderful job w/ the money they had in the first place uh?
It's both funny and sad that you truly believe this stuff you're saying about poor people.

[Tommy]

Why b/c you don't agree w/ me? It's ignorant? Yes there is always a sob story about someone who gets royally screwed, but rich people aren't rich b/c they got lucky, they aren't rich b/c they are more fortunate either. They are there b/c they worked hard to better themselves.

I call more BULLSHIT. While whoever was responsible for making the money in the first place was probably smart and a hard worker, many people are rich due to simply being born. That was why there was so much lobbying against the "death tax."

[LtMarvel]

I don't like "cradle to grave" entitlements. Why do I have obligation to make sure my neighbor has healthcare? I'm obligated to make sure I have healthcare, why is he not? Why do I have to pay for someone else's medical bills? Is this going to come off as insensitive? Probably, but it's not b/c I don't care about those who can't afford it, it's not that I don't care about my fellow man, I do. But you have the ability, the responsiblity to provide for yourself, the individual, on your own means. Not on my means, not on my neighbors means. Your means. Medicare is nice, Medicaid is nice, but to completely axe the private sector is one of the most horrendous things this country could do to itself. I'm 23 years old, I don't ahve health care. Wanna know why? I don't feel like right now, at my age, I need it. In these statistics that Moore spits out about all those who don't have healthcare, how many don't have it b/c it's a choice?



I agree with everything you've said.



I love what you just said.
23 years old.

So, you probably don't know anyone who has gone through a health catstrophe. One that requires fundraising/home selling to pay for life saving treatment? This is where the insurance companies fails us. This is where our government fails us for allowing such things to happen.

[Brian M.]

I call more BULLSHIT. While whoever was responsible for making the money in the first place was probably smart and a hard worker, many people are rich due to simply being born. That was why there was so much lobbying against the "death tax."

Oh that is such crap it's not even funny. Typical arguement too. So your telling me over 50% of those people who are rich...by the way how much money do you have to have to be rich...are rich b/c mommy and daddy worked for it?

[Brian M.]

23 years old.

So, you probably don't know anyone who has gone through a health catstrophe. One that requires fundraising/home selling to pay for life saving treatment? This is where the insurance companies fails us. This is where our government fails us for allowing such things to happen.

Actually I do. I know several people who have to sell it all. Our government isn't your nanny. You are responsible for yourself and your family. Stop looking for the government to do everything for you.

[Brian M.]

It's both funny and sad that you truly believe this stuff you're saying about poor people.

Its funny and sad that you truely believe this stuff your saying about rich folks too. I guess in your world noone works for their money everyone is a victim of luck uh?

[Tommy]

Oh that is such crap it's not even funny. Typical arguement too. So your telling me over 50% of those people who are rich...by the way how much money do you have to have to be rich...are rich b/c mommy and daddy worked for it?

Well you are perfectly capable of proving me wrong. But I am still waiting on those poverty statistics.

(Also I should note I said "MANY" not most, nor majority. But I would be willing to bet a large majority of the rich happened to have at least one parent who also happened to be making a lot of money thus providing them with greater opportunities.)

[Tommy]

You are responsible for yourself and your family.

Then you shouldn't be against socialized health care. After all it is a bunch of people looking after themselves and their families pushing for it.

[Solaris]

Yeppers. Cuz when you put in the time and the work and the training to go for the tough jobs and get the good grades, you get to make the big bucks. Which, BTW, I'm not making yet. But I absolutely love the fact that the "popular" kids at my high school who partied all day and night, and blew off school, are now still working at McDonalds while I've actually got a career because I said "Screw it, I'm working hard now so I can get ahead later". And also, both my father and step-uncle are teachers, so I'm quite aware of what they do and go through, thank you very much, and yes, they deserve more money (why you think I wouldn't think they do is a mystery, but oh well ...) and still I'd love to take a whole Summer off, something they LOVE to brag about to me. Even where I am now as a resident, I put in over twice as many hours as both of them do. And you know, when a teacher makes a mistake, their students don't, y'know, die on them, and then the lawyers don't sue. Higher risks, higher rewards. I'd also put high-level engineers and airline traffic controllers up at the top of the list as well.

But basically, salaries are determined by the market. I mean, I personally don't think people who play professional sports deserve their gajillion dollar salaries, but if the market supports it, then there you go. What, are you going to start regulating salaries for all careers out there?

BTW, Solaris, in California, per Daddy, they dropped the 150 hours of classes every five years requirement for teachers. All they have to do is pay the fee to California every five years now, at least if they have the Full Clear Credential. So basically, in California, you can get a BA in anything, take one more year of Ed courses, pass the CBEST and some other test, take three Clear Cred classes (Computer class is one of them, don't remember the other two) and bingo, there you go. This is a little different than majoring in bio or chem, THEN four more years of med school, then two to eight more years of residency, and this doesn't even factor in the fact that med school runs up costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars ... at least that's what Daddy tells me! ... whereas his own teacher training costs far less. Outside of military training for certain jobs, if there's a more expensive career to go to school to become, I dunno what it is.

But I will say this: I didn't become a doctor for the money, heck, my original plan was to become an OB-GYN because there are so few women OB's out there, and I really needed one after my attack. I went into medicine to help others the same way I had been helped by the doctors when I was 13, and the best times I have are when I get to draw for the kids in pediatrics. Nothing beats the smile I see on a kids face when I help them out, even if I'm not a pediatrician. But I'll also admit, gotta love the money I'll make when my residency is served. Not that I'll see any of it until my loans are paid off ... which will probably be about the same time the next issue of All-Star Batman and Robin comes out.



Well Sab, as I said, I do love ya. :) You are an inspiration to me in many ways, because of how you keep fighting, and won't accept any kind of "a woman/victim won't/can't... do that." :) We disagree in tons of ways politically... but I never forget that you are an example, for me, of the strength a woman can have, and a person can have, in dealing with adversity.

As for the CA education stuff... well, most states require something more than a "fee." Heh.

My mom was in education, too... and she went as far as her 6-years degree (that one step lower than a Doctorate... weird, never heard of it till she went for it). And not all of them get the summer off---in her school system, they went to year-round school, K-12.

Anyway, yes, there are still good people out there in medicine... and of course, everyone wants to have a good life and good lifestyle. It just burns me, the doctors who put their money and "golf course" (I just can't let go of that) over their patients' health and welfare. I know you've met doctors like that... there's too many of 'em for you not to have done so.

Of course, it burns me too how many lawyers are after the big buck and will do so much compromising of principles and ethics to get it... usually at the expense of the spirit of the law they're sworn to serve. *crosses eyes*

Anyway, it seems to me like it's most often the "golf course" doctors who give the knee-jerk whine about "what they've sacrificed," rather than the *real* working doctors who get low pay, crappy hours, and all kinds of redtape shit, while trying to save lives and help people. That's why the response gets me so ticked: it's those who least deserve to use it, who use it the most, and try to evoke this mythical "I'm one step down from God, because I have the power of your life and death in my hands, and I 'sacrificed' to get it" garbage.

[Brian M.]

Well you are perfectly capable of proving me wrong. But I am still waiting on those poverty statistics.

(Also I should note I said "MANY" not most, nor majority. But I would be willing to bet a large majority of the rich happened to have at least one parent who also happened to be making a lot of money thus providing them with greater opportunities.)

I agree, my parents had the money to be able to provide me with 4 years of college. I'm providing my 3 years of grad school. Now if i get rich is it b/c mommy and daddy are rich? Or is it b/c I took advantage of the oppotunities I was given at the start and made the most of it.

I have a friend, he was I guess what you considered poor, busted ass in HS, got a scholarship and is not studing over in Oxford for the summer on a joint MBA/JD degree. His parents had nothing, both worked two jobs, never really helped him out. Maybe my prospective of the majority of poor folks is wrong, but it's what I've gone to see. Anyone can make something of themselves if they choose too. I know there are expectations, shit happens, life is a bitch, but I do believe the majority of folks who are considered poor are there b/c of life choices they've made and are now unable to work themselves out of it.

Then you shouldn't be against socialized health care. After all it is a bunch of people looking after themselves and their families pushing for it.

My dad provided healthcare for me up until March of this year. That's completely different then socialized medicine. Maybe I'd be more for socialized medicine if it wasn't run by the government. I want everyone to have insurance, who doesn't. What I don't want is a system run by the government. Maybe I should have said that first.

[Reverend Smooth]

Your perspective is wrong, but it does make it easier for you to keep your beliefs about poor people, so expecting you to shed that belief is pretty silly.

[Brian M.]

Your perspective is wrong, but it does make it easier for you to keep your beliefs about poor people, so expecting you to shed that belief is pretty silly.

I've seen folks who come from poor backgrounds excel in life, maybe I just don't understand why everyone can't do it.

[Spackling Compound]

Anyway, it seems to me like it's most often the "golf course" doctors who give the knee-jerk whine about "what they've sacrificed," rather than the *real* working doctors who get low pay, crappy hours, and all kinds of redtape shit, while trying to save lives and help people. That's why the response gets me so ticked: it's those who least deserve to use it, who use it the most, and try to evoke this mythical "I'm one step down from God, because I have the power of your life and death in my hands, and I 'sacrificed' to get it" garbage.

Here's the trade-off.
Whether or not a guy/gal who is an MD has a god complex or not, they do get treated as a god by us.
We expect them to know more than anyone else (sometimes on any subject), we expect them to be aware of the hidden illnesses that no one can detect, we expect them to know beyond our lies about what we do or don't do ("No sir, not a drinker. Just a beer with the boys at the game"). We expect them to give a bigger shit about us than we give about ourselves.
And if they fail us, we are ready to sue them and deride them for being human.

Lots of doctors suffer alcoholism, drug abuse, obesity, failed marriages, failed relationships and even suicide. And I think it's not because they failed themselves to be gods.
Rather they have to show somehow they're human...and flawed...deeply. And they hate being hated so they hate themselves more than anyone else can.

So, good on them for being bank presidents or golf club members. Good on them for owning 3 houses or a garage full of vintage cars. Good on them for having a wine cellar or a walk in humidor.
Because we put them there. And sadly, that's all they have.
And it's not enough, really.

[Reverend Smooth]

I've seen folks who come from poor backgrounds excel in life, maybe I just don't understand why everyone can't do it.They're exceptions to the rule. It's a very complicated problem, and I suggest studying it instead of basing your opinions on what you've seen a few friends of yours achieve.

[Brian M.]

Here's the trade-off.
Whether or not a guy/gal who is an MD has a god complex or not, they do get treated as a god by us.
We expect them to know more than anyone else (sometimes on any subject), we expect them to be aware of the hidden illnesses that no one can detect, we expect them to know beyond our lies about what we do or don't do ("No sir, not a drinker. Just a beer with the boys at the game"). We expect them to give a bigger shit about us than we give about ourselves.
And if they fail us, we are ready to sue them and deride them for being human.

Lots of doctors suffer alcoholism, drug abuse, obesity, failed marriages, failed relationships and even suicide. And I think it's not because they failed themselves to be gods.
Rather they have to show somehow they're human...and flawed...deeply. And they hate being hated so they hate themselves more than anyone else can.

So, good on them for being bank presidents or golf club members. Good on them for owning 3 houses or a garage full of vintage cars. Good on them for having a wine cellar or a walk in humidor.
Because we put them there. And sadly, that's all they have.
And it's not enough, really.


Very well said. The fact that a baseball player makes 10 times more then a doctor is horrendous. I understand why sports stars make the money they do, but to hold them on a higher ledge then a doctor or a lawyer, ridiculous. The stuff doctors give up to become what they are is nothing short of amazing.

[Reverend Smooth]

Here's the trade-off.
Whether or not a guy/gal who is an MD has a god complex or not, they do get treated as a god by us.
I treat them like I expect them to have put their education to good use. If you don't treat them like gods, though, a lot of them give you crap for it.

Don't blame the victims for the perp's inadequacies.

[Brian M.]

They're exceptions to the rule. It's a very complicated problem, and I suggest studying it instead of basing your opinions on what you've seen a few friends of yours achieve.

I'm not as heartless as you think or as ignorant to the situation either.

[Reverend Smooth]

I'm not as heartless as you think or as ignorant to the situation either.
When you stop talking like you're ignorant, I'll stop responding to you as if you are.