|
| |
Wrecker
Misanthrope   SSHOLE |
Posts: 452 Registered: 1/25/2006 Offline
|
7/10/2007 at 10:54 |
I watched this last night.
I will start by saying that I do not like Michael Moore and I do not trust that fat fuck to bring me all the facts.
That being said, this is probably the easiest of his movies to take in.
In 'Sicko', Moore doesn't attack Bush or the Republicans, at least not too much. Most of his angst is directed at health insurance companies. Not really a hard target, since everyone hates health insurance companies.
As is typical in Moore's movies, he pretty much only shows those scenes that support his point. I won't fault the guy for that since his intention is to drive his point home.
What is his point? Well, ultimately his point is that universal health care is as great as Jeebus, and the US is retarded for not embracing it. A side point is that is that health insurance companies are the debbil, but we already knew that.
One thing that leaped out at me, was during the portion of the film about the health industry lobby, Moore was quick to identify all of the Republicans who received money, but nearly no democrats. In fact, the only Democrat that Moore named specifically was Hillary Clinton. That could be because Hillary was number two on the list of beneficaries of the health industry lobby. Who knows?
Moore compares the American health care system to those of England (Lefen, we need commentary), France, Canada (LK, Steel, sound off), and of course Cuba.
In each case, with the exception of Cuba, Moore speaks with citizens of the country and with Americans living in that country. In each case, all involved spout off almost endlessly about how roXorz their Universal Health Care system is and how retarded America is for not having Universal Health Care.
I'm not sure how they pay for their system in France (maybe they divert money from defense to health care, which isn't an awful idea) but it looked awesome. At least on the outside.
The whole Cuba bit was blown way out of proportion. It really was a non-event.
I will conceed the fact that our health care system is broken, but I have also seen what kind of job our government has done on other programs and personally, I don't want Uncle Sam anywhere near my health care.
Now that I think of it, I have seen universal health care in action. The US Military has universal health care, and I have been the victim of that more than once. Not to say that it was all bad, I had an outstanding oral surgeon that took out all of my wisdom teeth at once and was able to do it in a manner that I did not experience the horrorpain that most have.
However, it is also because of the military medical system, that I was treated for two weeks for 'sore muscles' in my shoulder with muscle relaxers when in fact I had a full AC separation in my shoulder. I still have problems with my shoulder to this day because of that.
I am out of time and need to go to work so I will toss this out for you to chew on.
____________________
< nuevoSock_> "me and the phone cable plugged to her labia were shaking hands
|
| |
Steel
If you want to keep your tongue, don't lick me in the Winter!  SSHOLEPosts: 508 Registered: 10/14/2004 Offline
|
7/10/2007 at 12:08 |
Our system is pretty good... In big cities sometimes the wait in emergency is a bit longer than he touted in the movie... not 45 min more like a few hours... but on slower nights people are in and out pretty quick... usually they get you into like a triage to see a nurse right away... just in case you plan to die right then, you are whisked away.
Of course all our medical shit is covered for free... we do pay higher income taxes then americans... this is what supposedly covers this stuff for us.
Our prescriptions aren't though... I think maybe the poor /people on social assistance/old age pension might get gov. help, but for the most of us, only people with jobs and benefits get a drug plan. Our companies usually pay... good companies pay your premiums... I think have to pay a tiny premium to have my wife and 2 boys covered under my plan... All my Dental paid at 90% and I pay $5 per prescription.
Fuck I honestly feel like moving to France after watching this flick... not Paris... Maybe Nice, France (pronounced neece)... these fuckers got it all over there it seems... |
| |
sikki_nixx
Don't be vague. Ask for cream.  SSHOLEPosts: 41 Registered: 4/5/2007 Offline
|
7/10/2007 at 13:20 |
Of course all our medical shit is covered for free... we do pay higher income taxes then americans... this is what supposedly covers this stuff for us.
Our prescriptions aren't though... I think maybe the poor /people on social assistance/old age pension might get gov. help, but for the most of us, only people with jobs and benefits get a drug plan. Our companies usually pay... good companies pay your premiums... I think have to pay a tiny premium to have my wife and 2 boys covered under my plan... All my Dental paid at 90% and I pay $5 per prescription.
err... sounds exactly like american healthcare only you're giving your money to the government instead of a corporation. cant imagine why washington would want to be on board.
i'm not aware of anyone with a practical bill yet, but it seems that with private healthcare, you at least have the option of firing a company who shows poor performance as well as the option to drop your coverage whenever you feel paying for it isn't practical.
i've personally gone without coverage for about 6 years now and have only spent around 150 dollars for medical treatment in that time. it's a huge gamble, but one that i'm comfortable with - and another option that would be taken off the tables for us poor, white kids. |
| |
middle_age_man
Mostly Harmless  SSHOLEPosts: 427 Registered: 1/11/2005 Offline
|
7/10/2007 at 13:29 |
Health care here in Canada isn’t all roses.
____________________
" Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy."
George Carlin |
| |
acheron
Cynical_Malcontent  SSHOLEPosts: 559 Registered: 4/29/2004 Offline
|
7/10/2007 at 16:29 |
For a successful healthcare system that blends public and private funds, Germany is a good example.
____________________
I'm an INTJ. This explains why I'm alternating between silence and judging you. |
| |
Steel
If you want to keep your tongue, don't lick me in the Winter! SSHOLEPosts: 508 Registered: 10/14/2004 Offline
|
7/10/2007 at 18:00 |
sikki_nixx - I guess the difference is we never get rejected coverage. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian  SSHOLEPosts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
7/10/2007 at 18:29 |
I thought it would suck, but am glad I watched it.
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit  SSHOLEPosts: 427 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
7/11/2007 at 04:14 |
British friend:
On topic, 'free' healthcare is good for the poor...and that's it. The waiting times here in Britain are crazy, most people just pay a lot of money to go private. But obviously for those that don't have any cash in an emergency, it's a great system.
Canada:
That part I do agree with...our wait times are way too long.
I think there's a potential of one of our hospitals shutting down actually because of the low number of emergency doctors...sad I know.
For what it is worth. |
| |
Uart
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 1228 Registered: 3/5/2005 Offline
|
7/11/2007 at 14:11 |
Yeah, national healthcare only makes sense in a high-tax socialist state. Even with the iron-fist of pseudo-communism, it is very hard for the government to keep costs under control without screwing over doctors. |
| |
LOki
Refusenik  SSHOLEPosts: 484 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
7/11/2007 at 16:59 |
Quality health care, like any thing else that's valuable, is subject to the laws of economics--if you keep the prices for goods artificially low, you will create a scarcity of those goods. This is true regardless of the means by which you keep the prices artificially low.
____________________
|
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
7/11/2007 at 18:17 |
LOki: Quality health care, like any thing else that's valuable, is subject to the laws of economics--if you keep the prices for goods artificially low, you will create a scarcity of those goods. This is true regardless of the means by which you keep the prices artificially low.
So, how would that compare with keeping the prices artificially high? Kickbacks to the pharmo's in the guise of political favoritism is no better.
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 484 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
7/11/2007 at 18:31 |
jwalker: LOki: Quality health care, like any thing else that's valuable, is subject to the laws of economics--if you keep the prices for goods artificially low, you will create a scarcity of those goods. This is true regardless of the means by which you keep the prices artificially low.
So, how would that compare with keeping the prices artificially high? Kickbacks to the pharmo's in the guise of political favoritism is no better.
____________________
|
| |
cockroach
Tender vittles  Posts: 2 Registered: 12/10/2004 Offline
|
7/15/2007 at 00:01 |
Uart: Yeah, national healthcare only makes sense in a high-tax socialist state. Even with the iron-fist of pseudo-communism, it is very hard for the government to keep costs under control without screwing over doctors.
Yeah, government run police/firefighters only makes sense in a high-tax socialist state too. Even with the iron-fist of pseudo-communisim, it is very hard for the government to keep costs under control without screwing over cops/firefighters.
not. |
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
7/15/2007 at 00:49 |
I think on the health care issue, it's a little weird to think in larger terms of capitalism vs socialism. I think a socialist approach could provide quality universal health care, and I also think an efficient private health care system could provide universal health care. The current proposals by most politicians in America are looking neither in one direction or the other, but are focused more on short term fixes to what is fundamentally, a policy without vision. The current system has the US govt, through FDA regulation and subsidies, effectively allowing an oligarchy of a few HMO and pharmaceutical companies to determine policy (for profit). This is the problem, not capitalism or socialism.
____________________
I disagree. |
| |
Uart
DARTH MENSES Posts: 1228 Registered: 3/5/2005 Offline
|
7/15/2007 at 15:29 |
cockroach: Uart: Yeah, national healthcare only makes sense in a high-tax socialist state. Even with the iron-fist of pseudo-communism, it is very hard for the government to keep costs under control without screwing over doctors.
Yeah, government run police/firefighters only makes sense in a high-tax socialist state too. Even with the iron-fist of pseudo-communisim, it is very hard for the government to keep costs under control without screwing over cops/firefighters.
not.
A cop is required to complete exactly 12 years of education -- all of which can very easily be publicly funded through the school system. A cop makes an average or above-average salary, depending upon where they live, and their investment to attain that salary is absolutely minimum.
A doctor, however, invests 4 years of undergraduate education, followed by another 4 years of Medical School. The average medical student graduates with six-figures of student loan debt, and is then faced with another huge bill to cover their malpractice insurance. If you socialize medicine, you will make medical services more scarce, because there will be little benefit of getting into the field, if you go through 8 years of higher education and still struggle to make rent... |
| |
Uart
DARTH MENSES Posts: 1228 Registered: 3/5/2005 Offline
|
7/15/2007 at 15:34 |
dinozoa: I think on the health care issue, it's a little weird to think in larger terms of capitalism vs socialism. I think a socialist approach could provide quality universal health care, and I also think an efficient private health care system could provide universal health care. The current proposals by most politicians in America are looking neither in one direction or the other, but are focused more on short term fixes to what is fundamentally, a policy without vision. The current system has the US govt, through FDA regulation and subsidies, effectively allowing an oligarchy of a few HMO and pharmaceutical companies to determine policy (for profit). This is the problem, not capitalism or socialism.
Right, but the way in which we attack the problem will either be socialist or free-market-based in nature. |
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
7/15/2007 at 17:02 |
LOki: jwalker: LOki: Quality health care, like any thing else that's valuable, is subject to the laws of economics--if you keep the prices for goods artificially low, you will create a scarcity of those goods. This is true regardless of the means by which you keep the prices artificially low.
So, how would that compare with keeping the prices artificially high? Kickbacks to the pharmo's in the guise of political favoritism is no better. Keeping the prices artificially high causes the exact opposite of scarity, i.e. plenty. You''l note that there's no end to the availability of 72 versions of practically every medication--particularly those for which there is little need. That's what is expected from keeping prices artificially high.
You're making excuses for an inefficient and inherently corrupt system. The 72 medications is not the issue (although it is another important related issue) - I challenge you to point out 72 different HMO's/PPO's you can choose from for your health care insurance.
The problem is not that there is not enough competition though (from what I understood of the movie) - it is our cultural norm of allowing a profit-driven system to make determinations that are essentially ethical in nature.
I am not against insurance companies making money, but when it is done by trying to cheat people out of the product they paid for, and when that system then either refuses treatment or can take a person's entire savings from denied coverage for something that is an essential need - that's simply unacceptable to me ethically.
You can quote economic principles out of a text book all day long, but where's your soul, brother?
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 484 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
7/15/2007 at 20:06 |
jwalker: LOki: jwalker: LOki: Quality health care, like any thing else that's valuable, is subject to the laws of economics--if you keep the prices for goods artificially low, you will create a scarcity of those goods. This is true regardless of the means by which you keep the prices artificially low.
So, how would that compare with keeping the prices artificially high? Kickbacks to the pharmo's in the guise of political favoritism is no better. Keeping the prices artificially high causes the exact opposite of scarity, i.e. plenty. You''l note that there's no end to the availability of 72 versions of practically every medication--particularly those for which there is little need. That's what is expected from keeping prices artificially high.
You're making excuses for an inefficient and inherently corrupt system. The 72 medications is not the issue (although it is another important related issue) - I challenge you to point out 72 different HMO's/PPO's you can choose from for your health care insurance.
The problem is not that there is not enough competition though (from what I understood of the movie) - it is our cultural norm of allowing a profit-driven system to make determinations that are essentially ethical in nature.
I am not against insurance companies making money, but when it is done by trying to cheat people out of the product they paid for, and when that system then either refuses treatment or can take a person's entire savings from denied coverage for something that is an essential need - that's simply unacceptable to me ethically.
You can quote economic principles out of a text book all day long, but where's your soul, brother?
Here's the crux of the biscuit jwalker, quality healthcare is a value. There is but one ethical manner in which to distribute that value, and it's through the voluntary, and mutally agreed upon exchange of value--i.e. free market economics. Where you might endorse a system where some measure of coercive force is applied to appease some notion of fairness where "need" equates to "deserve"--that is where I stop taking your talk of ethics seriously. Where you'll consider one man's entitlement, by virtue of force, to the life of another man ethical--that is where your lack of soul resides.
____________________
|
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
7/15/2007 at 20:55 |
LOki: Oh, fuking making-money-is-unethical LOLz. Please re-read my post starting with, " am not against insurance companies making money, but ..."
Do you really trust insurance companies so much that you're willing to put your life in their profit-driven hands? If so, I name you foolish.
I point out that a "mutally agreed upon exchange of value" implies negotiation - which does not exist in our current system. If you do not want to buy a microwave oven because they are too expensive, you have reasonable alternatives. This situation does not exist in health care - you *have* to gamble.
some notion of fairness where "need" equates to "deserve" This is transparent bullshit. How do you draw a line between "need" and "deserve" when you're talking about a person's health? To that person it is quite simply a need - you can't deny that, or you deny yourself. If you have an urgent medical situation, you do what is necessary and worry about paying for it later - that's how it works, so don't mince words.
Once more, I say: it is an ethical argument, not an economic one. If you believe otherise, say so directly, instead of questioning my ethics.
So there - bleh.
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
cockroach
Tender vittles Posts: 2 Registered: 12/10/2004 Offline
|
7/16/2007 at 01:34 |
Uart: cockroach: Uart: Yeah, national healthcare only makes sense in a high-tax socialist state. Even with the iron-fist of pseudo-communism, it is very hard for the government to keep costs under control without screwing over doctors.
Yeah, government run police/firefighters only makes sense in a high-tax socialist state too. Even with the iron-fist of pseudo-communisim, it is very hard for the government to keep costs under control without screwing over cops/firefighters.
not.
A cop is required to complete exactly 12 years of education -- all of which can very easily be publicly funded through the school system. A cop makes an average or above-average salary, depending upon where they live, and their investment to attain that salary is absolutely minimum.
A doctor, however, invests 4 years of undergraduate education, followed by another 4 years of Medical School. The average medical student graduates with six-figures of student loan debt, and is then faced with another huge bill to cover their malpractice insurance. If you socialize medicine, you will make medical services more scarce, because there will be little benefit of getting into the field, if you go through 8 years of higher education and still struggle to make rent...
So.... what yer saying then is that med school should be subsidized?
____________________
Cockroach |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 484 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
7/16/2007 at 09:51 |
jwalker: LOki: Oh, fuking making-money-is-unethical LOLz. Please re-read my post starting with, " am not against insurance companies making money, but ..."
Do you really trust insurance companies so much that you're willing to put your life in their profit-driven hands? If so, I name you foolish.
My 2nd greatest criticism of the healthcare system is this notion that insurance should be made neccessary to get healthcare at all. It's second only to this notion that everyone is unconditionally entitled to healthcare just because they need it.
jwalker: I point out that a "mutally agreed upon exchange of value" implies negotiation - which does not exist in our current system. If you do not want to buy a microwave oven because they are too expensive, you have reasonable alternatives. This situation does not exist in health care - you *have* to gamble. Thanks entirely to the notion of healthcare entitlement--when you make it free, you make it scarce--microwaves or anything else.
jwalker: some notion of fairness where "need" equates to "deserve" This is transparent bullshit. How do you draw a line between "need" and "deserve" when you're talking about a person's health? To that person it is quite simply a need - you can't deny that, or you deny yourself. If you have an urgent medical situation, you do what is necessary and worry about paying for it later - that's how it works, so don't mince words.
jwalker: Once more, I say: it is an ethical argument, not an economic one. If you believe otherise, say so directly, instead of questioning my ethics.
So there - bleh. If you mean to ethically distribute the value that is heathcare, then ethics cannot be divorced from the practical application of economics--your ethical problem is solved by economics. I say the ethical problems with our heathcare system are derived from the unethical direction we are taking in providing it. Healthcare was universal and affordable before we insisted we were (or anyone was) unconditionally entitled to it.
____________________
|
| |
Uart
DARTH MENSES Posts: 1228 Registered: 3/5/2005 Offline
|
7/16/2007 at 15:11 |
cockroach: Uart: cockroach: Uart: Yeah, national healthcare only makes sense in a high-tax socialist state. Even with the iron-fist of pseudo-communism, it is very hard for the government to keep costs under control without screwing over doctors.
Yeah, government run police/firefighters only makes sense in a high-tax socialist state too. Even with the iron-fist of pseudo-communisim, it is very hard for the government to keep costs under control without screwing over cops/firefighters.
not.
A cop is required to complete exactly 12 years of education -- all of which can very easily be publicly funded through the school system. A cop makes an average or above-average salary, depending upon where they live, and their investment to attain that salary is absolutely minimum.
A doctor, however, invests 4 years of undergraduate education, followed by another 4 years of Medical School. The average medical student graduates with six-figures of student loan debt, and is then faced with another huge bill to cover their malpractice insurance. If you socialize medicine, you will make medical services more scarce, because there will be little benefit of getting into the field, if you go through 8 years of higher education and still struggle to make rent...
So.... what yer saying then is that med school should be subsidized?
No. What I'm saying is that your comparison was retarded. |
| |
Uart
DARTH MENSES Posts: 1228 Registered: 3/5/2005 Offline
|
7/18/2007 at 04:30 |
http://www.reason.com/news/show/120998.html
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3459466.html
On 2007-07-18 at 06:35:57, Uart craps monkey baby |
| |
middle_age_man
Mostly Harmless SSHOLEPosts: 427 Registered: 1/11/2005 Offline
|
7/18/2007 at 12:45 |
What are the American swarmers spending on health insurance? My total tax bill for both provincial and federal taxes works out to approximately 14.5%. I understand that a third of that would go into funding health care. If you factor in the citizens that don’t pay income taxes, you end up with a reasonably priced system on a per user basis.
____________________
" Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy."
George Carlin |
| |
Uart
DARTH MENSES Posts: 1228 Registered: 3/5/2005 Offline
|
7/19/2007 at 03:44 |
middle_age_man: What are the American swarmers spending on health insurance? My total tax bill for both provincial and federal taxes works out to approximately 14.5%. I understand that a third of that would go into funding health care. If you factor in the citizens that don’t pay income taxes, you end up with a reasonably priced system on a per user basis.
We can clone Stalin and have him run it for us too, while we're at it. |
| |
middle_age_man
Mostly Harmless SSHOLEPosts: 427 Registered: 1/11/2005 Offline
|
7/19/2007 at 12:33 |
Uart: middle_age_man: What are the American swarmers spending on health insurance? My total tax bill for both provincial and federal taxes works out to approximately 14.5%. I understand that a third of that would go into funding health care. If you factor in the citizens that don’t pay income taxes, you end up with a reasonably priced system on a per user basis.
We can clone Stalin and have him run it for us too, while we're at it.
You missed my point. What are you spending on health insurance combined with your income tax bill?
____________________
" Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy."
George Carlin |
| |
|
I always think that old people at uni are wasting space that could be filled with young hot girls -- qwerty
|
