Monday, July 02, 2007
|
|
A Scathing Review of Sicko...From MTV?
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
7:23 AM
|
|
Yep:
Moore does a real service in bringing these stories to light — some of them are horrifying, and then infuriating. One giant health-maintenance organization, Kaiser Permanente, is so persuasively lambasted in the movie that, on the basis of what we're told, we want to burst into the company's executive suites and make a mass citizen'sarrest. This is the sort of thing good muckrakers are supposed to do.
Unfortunately, Moore is also a con man of a very brazen sort,and never more so than in this film. His cherry-picked facts,manipulative interviews (with lingering close-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18million people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools. The American health-care system is inurgent need of reform, no question. Some 47 million people are uninsured (although many are only temporarily so, being eitherin-between jobs or young enough not to feel a pressing need to buy health insurance). There are a number of proposals as to what might be done to correct this situation. Moore has no use for any of them, saveone.
That answer would be socialism, for Moore, but MTV news vet Kurt Loder attacks some of the problems with that:
In the case of Canada — which Moore, like many other political activists, holds up as a utopian ideal of benevolent health-care regulation — a very different picture is conveyed by a short 2005documentary called "Dead Meat,"by Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg. These two filmmakers talked to a number of Canadians of a kind that Moore's movie would have you believe don't exist:
A 52-year-old woman in Calgary recalls being in severe need of joint-replacement surgery after the cartilage in her knee wore out. She was put on a wait list and wound up waiting 16 months for the surgery.Her pain was so excruciating, she says, that she was prescribed large doses of Oxycontin, and soon became addicted. After finally getting her operation, she was put on another wait list — this time for drug rehab.
Fairness and insight from MTV? Spring break will never be the same again.
|
|
You still haven't named one program or service, ONE, that the government does better than the private sector.
How is socialism and democracy the preferred way of govt? Just because that is what is being done in Europe. France's well fare state is already collapsing under it's own weight. That's why they elected a president (or PM) that wants to change things to make people less dependent on govt. They have 15% unemployment and businesses can't fire anyone that is terrible at their job. There is no incentive to succeed. Germany elected Merckl for many of the same reasons and they are starting to get it cranked up once again.
I'll say it again...the govt can't and shouldn't be able to live our lives for us. That is not what they are there for.
Just one thing the federal govt does better than the private sector. Just one! |
|
socialism will never work, no matter where it's tried. Simply, it removes all incentive to actually work.
As for healthcare, the first step is to get rid of all of the John Edwards' of the world. Tort reform, including 'loser pays' is necessary to get healthcare costs down. Get the lawyers in line, and the costs to the insurance companies will drop, so the rates they charge to doctors and hospitals will drop, so the overall costs will plummet. If docs and hospitals aren't scared to death about lawsuits, they'll return to practicing real medicine instead of covering their butts with 45 tests when 5 will do and might actually be more inclined to try life-saving surgeries that actually have some risk involved. While we're at it...get rid of the TV/radio ads for prescription meds that cause folks to keep running to the doc saying "I know what I need!" Let the docs tell the patients what meds are ACTUALLY right for them! (lower advertising costs for pharmaceutical companies...lower prices?) |
|
I think it’s great that you are willing to contribute more to help others and I encourage you and others who feel that way to willingly pool your resources and/or provide to charities that help give medical care to the poor. That is wonderful and that would be both compassionate, virtuous, and demonstration of charity.
But there is nothing compassionate about forcing a man who is not willing to do the same to pay for his neighbor’s needs. This is not charity, virtue, or love. It is brute force and extortion.
As for other service, public schools have a myriad of their own problems that deserve a thread of their own.
And considering that our courts have ruled that police have absolutely no obligation to protect you (the paying customer), I’m not so sure that replacing the government police with more liberal concealed carry laws and a myriad of competing security companies would be that bad of an idea. At least then, the private cops would have more of an incentive to treat you nicely and keep you as a paying customer alive and whole.
|
|
"The government can gladly take a few bucks more from my paycheck "
The problem is Will, it isn't only your paycheck that gets pinched. What you are proposing is a re-distribution of wealth which has proven to be a failure in other countries. The Soviet Union was not a utopia, Cuba is not paradise...Communism/Socialism are met with disdain here because they should be.
The problem that I think a lot of conservatives have with these social programs is that we keep trying to fix something thats premise is flawed. Conservatives called out the welfare system at the very beginning as something that would institutionalize poverty and create inner city ghettos. That is exactly what happened. There are many hard working poor people, and we should help them, but these programs by and large don't do that...they keep them "just getting by" without incentivizing them to get out from under. We get to feel good about ourselves without really helping anything.
Socialized health care is just another one of these programs. The net result will be that everyone gets healthcare, but no one wants it because it is so poorly run.
I am not saying do nothing, but I am also saying don't just do SOMETHING for the sake of change. Have Michael Moore do an honest assessment of the healthcare systems that he holds on a pedestal and we'll talk. |
|
I will conceed that health care has been one of the major topics of the last two elections. I would further point out that it was very talked about during the 90's, when Hillery was crafting a proposal as First Lady.
To me this proves only one thing - the issue is important to someone. While I see a broken system in what we have now, I cannot name any system we have in America that isn't broken in some way, whether government run/funded or otherwise.
Did you know that a long distance telephone (land line) call costs phone companies exactly the same as a call to your next door neighbor? Yet our broken system has companies charging us more to make long distance calls, than local.
The airline industry is perhaps the greatest example of a broken system that one could ever come up with. All airlines lose money every year (except Southwest and Jet Blue for two years). They are nearly always late, often overbooked, never comfortable or accomodating, and fairly rude and demanding.
I think it's fairly obvious that every single government run program will always be less efficient, and far more costly than in the private sector. While I do see a need to 'fix' health care in the USA, it cannot be done by government. To believe otherwise is to ignore the present, and to ignore history. I would challenge you to name one major program run by the USA that has ever been efficient, or well run. There is no such program.
As I said earlier in this post, someone feels this is a very important issue, I have never met that someone though. From where I sit, Democrat politicians, and those further left (Moore, Nader, etc.), make this a talking point, and some Republicans pay it lip service, so as not to be painted 'anti-health care'.
What I do not see, or hear is a large call for this from the public. In water cooler conversations, or during a round of golf, or even over a cup of cofee with some friends...the subject just never comes up. Some of my friends, and co-workers (I work, and grew up in Massachusetts) are extremely liberal, and I would bet if I asked them, they would call it an important issue. However, it can't be all that important to them, since it never comes to a conversation, unless solicited.
I don't see this system being fixed anytime soon, and if the eventual fix involves the government.....the later the better.
RD
|
|
for the gop apologists of the american health care system, i would like to make a couple salient points.
first, if the american health care system was doing so well, why has this issue been so important for the last couple election cycles. other then iraq, health care reform appears to be the major issue of the electorate. poll after poll demonstrates americans are not satisfied with our present one payer system. just one example to read http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm#Delivery
secondly, study after study ranks american health care delivery and over all performance much lower then most of our industrial counter parts. many single payer systems routinely out perform the american "for profit" model which would seem to indicate that competition really isnt the answer.
finally, although millions of americans have no health insurance this is only part of the problem. millions and millions of our fellow citizens with health coverage are not receiving adequate care as well ... this fact is often ignored by the apologists. medical decisions are being made by insurance clerks while necessary procedure are being labeled as "elective." preventive medicine, in america, is in the dark ages ... most carriers, at best, pay lip service to prevention while refusing to fund follow ups etc. i love how market enthusiats tell horror stories of waiting with the other systems while not acknowledging the above mentioned facts.
getting ready for it folks ... a serious discussion about health care in america is going to happen ... the electorate will accept no less ... the winds of change will be felt! |
|
this tired argument...again, the moonbats remind us conservatives of our selfish preoccupation; we are consumed with me, me, me...while the benevolent charitable liberal worries for us, us, us & them, them, them - oh woe is us, what are we to do, oh great gov't please help us for we know not what we do!
why is this point so difficult to convey to moonbats...i don't want the gov't to take care of me, me, me - i want me to take care of me
and i don't want the gov't to take care of you, you, you - i want you to take care of you, you, you - all of you & all of them.
If you want the gov't to care for you & all your hapless layabout moonbat buddies; let them dig deeper into your pockets to subsidize your failed ambition & desire for self-determination. I'll pick my own charities thank-you & it won't be the gimmee folks that spend their whiny lives on the dole. |
|
have right now, you can try tort reform and end frivolous lawsuits. When doctor's have to pay less in malpractice insurance, because swindlers like John Edwards can't strike it rich on jurors sympathies rather than medical science, then the doctors and hospitals will start charging less, then we will start seeing dramatic reductions in health care insurance costs.
|
|
|
Heard Moore doesn't go political on this one. Maybe it is because both insurance companies and lawyers back the Democratic party. Both are getting rich with things the way they are. |
|
You make some valid points, and I will most likely take a look at this movie as a result. My disdain for Michael Moore does not come from Farenheit 9/11 or the gun control movie although I can't say that I am a big fan of either. This guy has an over inflated sense of his own self worth, and is one of the most arrogant people I have ever heard tale of. Aside from that, I agree that healthcare is a people issue. Not a liberal-conservative issue. Where you lose me on this, is that government, more government, is the answer. You mentioned several government programs...most or all of which are train wrecks. The Post Office? You can't be serious. The bureaucratic school system. I have first hand knowledge of this little endeavor as my wife teaches in a government school system. Let me tell you there is nothing efficient about it. More money is wasted per taxpayer than in any other government program out there, but that's entirely different issue. The police and fire departments are a service of government and they are vital ones. They are by and large run well although those bureacracies can get cumbersome at times. People do give inefficient government agencies a "second thought." Socialization slowly chips away at the very freedoms that this country has stood for for 200+ years. Should we all endeavor to help our fellow man? Yes! But shouldn't that choice be left up to me? Isn't that why we have charity and non-profit organizations in this country. Look at what Montel Williams is doing for prescription drugs right now for people that can't afford them. The private sector is addressing that need and it's doing it better than gov't regulation and intervention.
We are all afforded the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (happieness)." I'm afraid it will at some point be an "ok life, with a few liberties left, and the pursuit of whatever the federal government let's me keep."
Don't worry Will, you'll get your chance to give the feds some more of your paycheck some day. |
|
As usual... every liberal comment is from "wealthy self-absorbed brats", living off daddy's money.
I'm a poor s-o-b, one paycheck away from poverty, and the reason is... I was raised a "poor self-absorbed brat". Yes, with liberal parents who said "only the rich get richer".
So I never tried... now I'm poor... but I'll give up everything to make sure my child does not think only the rich get richer.
I would like all the liberal brats to live in my shoes and really see decades of watching and waiting for the Liberal "fairness doctrine". The misery I've had, waking every morning... Mad at the world... because I didn't get the "free" hand-out... I didn't hit your Lottery... I didn't get the free education... I didn't get the disability... I didn't get the beautiful wife on MTV...I just didn't get it!
And to finally realize... The big houses were owned by Democrat politicians and overpaid government workers...the free stuff only goes to people that are already wealthy... and the MTV wife is mentally ill.
Yes, I can relate to the uninsured... they're just like I was... given rose colored glasses... and told the liberals would do it all for me... just sit back and wait for reparations from the rich...
And while your waiting... drink and smoke drugs... prostitute yourself... and just enjoy the rats in your yard.
Get a clue Liberals... your Killing your followers... you party like a rock star and we die young. Get off the blogs and move to the hood... You will change quick!
|
|
The biggest part of the healthcare problem is that few people can tell where it comes from.
As far as I can tell, the problem is that health insurance providers are not directly responsible to us consumers. We are the consumers, but not the customers. Our employers are the customers, and their wishes aren't always the same as ours. Some people want to pay more for better coverage... others would like to pay less or even none at all.
Even worse, not having health insurance brings harmful externalities like disease outbreaks. I propose, therefore, that we require health insurance, just like we require driver's insurance, but leave each person to seek his or her own insurance. Insurance companies will have to compete with each other to get OUR approval, rather than the approval of our employers.
Never solve any problem with brute force when you can employ a simple strategem to use existing or opposing force. |
|
Dear Marxists:
Please stop pretending to be so darn compassionate. It makes it really hard for me to refute your points when you talk about helping people like you do, because you appeal directly to feeling while bypassing all logic and reason. I feel like you're trying to guilt everyone into being on your side, when really the moral points of both sides are about equal.
I know, I know, it's really easy to be generous when you've stolen my money to do so, but I just don't feel that's real generosity. It feels... a little insincere. Please don't take offense. I don't want to upset you or anything, and I know it makes you so happy to give away my money to the poor, but I worked hard for that money, and I want to keep it, so please stop.
Caring is great, but don't take my freedom to do so.
Sincerely,
Me |
|
I will watch Sicko (it is not currently being shown in my area) when it comes here.
Thank you for being swl......sane while liberal. You have been polite, literate, and enjoyable. I do appreciate your attitude and your information. |
|
My daughter who is a little more liberal than I am gave me this article to read. I think many of you will find it interesting. Apparently the person who wrote it is a supporter of Obama.
http://www.slate.com/id/2169454/fr/flyout |
|
|
NO ONE can explain to you that universal healtcare is Marxist....because it absolutely is. No one can refute that. Not Hillary, not Barack, not even Haircut Boy. These guys just want government to have more control over our everyday lives because they think they know what's better for us than we do. And the people that support them don't want to take responsibility for their own lives. They want the government to take the thinking out of it and do it for them. And if someone else can pay for it (hard working Americans that have ambition) well then that's just gravy! |
|
I agree 100% on each of your posts!
What is so wrong with some of us wanting to be in control of our own lives instead of the government? What is so wrong with the fact that I contribute my fair share to this country, & in return, want to be in control of my own life?
What is so wrong with not wanting the government to tell me what doctor I can see & when I can see them?
|
|
Something needs to be done, and I don't think many of us are arguing that. But, you think putting the government in charge is a good idea? Our politicians on both sides of the aisle are bought and paid for by special interests. What makes you think they are going to get universal health care right? Can you guarantee it will not become a governmental behemoth that overtaxes those who will actually be paying for it? Can you guarantee excellent health care for all? Will we at least have the same level of patient satisfaction?
What about all those out there who say I expect everyone to pay for my existence, and if you don't like it, screw you? There are too many on welfare who take, take, take, and have no intention of ever giving anything back. What do you say to them?
I have been one of the uninsured, my kids have as well. Happily after a job change I was able to get affordable insurance. I am lucky, my children and I are healthy. I know there is a problem, but I am unsure the government is up to solving it.
|
|
Michael Moore has absolutely no credentials to be making a film about health care. The fact that the bafoon has made a film about health care that is EXCEPTIONALLY biased is almost beyond the point.
Michael Moore is an incredibly skilled self-promoter. I am one among many who feels that health care in the U.S. is suffering and that there IS a health care crisis. But social problems need experts and lots of them, along with tons of plain old consumers. Michael Moore is so far from expert on anything that he might as well live on the moon. In fact....
Michael Moore IS NOT a political activist. Michael Moore is a propagandist. He states "facts" that can't be substantiated and he presents one-side-only of an argument. That is almost okay. What is not okay is that he presents himself as someone who has expertise in uncovering the truth. He has no expertise that I can identify at all. This film included NO discovery. Every single thing in the film was planned out and mapped out well in advance by this fraud named Michael Moore. |
|
It is sad that Kimberly aka jessicalange has to come here to try to save us all; then all she does is make a fool of herself. Anytime anyone tries to lay all fault at the feet of whoever is in power, it shows either a lack of intelligence or downright ignorance.
Socialized medicine (universal health care) is Marxist--explain to me how it isn't. I cannot think of many entities that I trust less than the government. Throughout my years on earth, I have seen many reasons to distrust the government to get things right, and it did not matter who was in power. Kimberly's obsessive need to blame GWB is weird. I don't have much love for Bush, but believe he is better than Gore or Kerry.
Didn't Hillary champion universal health care when Bill was president? Don't we remember how that worked out for them?
Kimberly has shown her true colors on this thread. She is completely and totally unhinged. I hope she is taking advantage of her own health care program to obtain the psychotropic drugs that she so badly needs. I must say that I have never run into anyone quite as out of touch with reality as she is. |
|
Is that why Canadians continually come to this country to get healthcare that they can't get in a timely fashion. 10 months for an MRI? Great system. The only people that "extoll the values and virtues" of this system are the people that don't have to pay for it. Hard working people that have their money essentially stolen from them to provide for people that don't work hard and have no desire to.
We all want lower healthcare costs, but it shouldn't be on the backs of folks that are trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. If the govt (and I defy you to point out one thing that the feds do better versus the private sector) would keep their nose out of healthcare and let the free market work PROPERLY for a change you might be surprised. The govt can't have that though. Then people would actually have more control over their own destiny and need less govt. Heaven forbid. We can't have that. |
|
|
It just amazes me where people come up with this stuff. Social security is in so much trouble (thanks to the govt) that that money gets taxed 3 times from the time the money is earned to the time you actually cash a SS check and there still isn't "enough" money. Unbelievable. Anyone that thinks the govt can live our lives better than we can just doesn't get it. |
|
|
Anyone can "raise the (level) of debate" here. |
|
That Kommie-Kim posted half of the responses(?) to this article...it cut my reading time in half.
The Drs must have given permission for her to be allowed internet accessed again...or her hospital stay is finally over (for the time being). |
|
|
|
I hate to break the news to you but GOPGin is absolutely correct. It was the Johnson administration that put SS in the general fund. You may want to look that one up. There hasn't been a trust for 40+ years.
And people say our education system isn't doing its job! Keep the misinformation coming Kimberlyric. |
|
As noted in my last post, we can thank the Dems for taking social security from an independent trust fund & making it available for government spending. NOT G.W.BUSH! If you want to blame G.W. for using Social Security money to fund the Iraq war, then you must first thank your fellow democrats for making it available for him to use.
But in typical Michael Moore style, you have officially signed your divorce papers from reality by taking the truth and substituting it with your hatred.
I appreciate Keith's suggestion that you do some research, but since you clearly have problems reading, I'm not sure that would make a difference. |
|
|
Have we gone off the point of this post? Everyone can gang up on poor misguided, misinformed Kimberly, but I don't think this is the right place to do that. The young lady needs to take a few deep breaths, go to the library and do some reading. And stop blaming the president for everything since the beginning of time. |
|
Amusing. You are exactly the same in your support for social programs as Republicans are in regards to our current military adventure in Iraq.
If the program has problems or is failing, it is never a failure of the program itself. It is a failure of the personnel running it, or a lack of resources, or because we have not given the program enough time to work.
There is no Social Security Trust Fund and that started long before Bush (and long before Reagan.) All excess SS funds were used to purchase US Treasury bonds which went to finance many other social programs and other little military adventures (like Truman’s Korea and Kennedy/LBJ/Nixon’s Vietnam) since the US government has run continual deficits for most of the 20th century and all of the current century.
Current US liabilities to the national debt alone are approximately 9 trillion dollars. Current liabilities factoring in Medicare and Social Security bonds and projected deficits bring the tally up to 48 trillion dollars.
The system was broken from the beginning as it depends on unrealistic population growth to maintain solvency and did not include any provision to save (or invest) excess revenue collected during boom years or at the least put that money out of reach of greedy Democratic and Republican lawmakers who were easily swayed to buy votes with pork right at that moment than act as guardians of money entrusted to them so that retirees in 70 years would be able to retire. Short sighted fools from all parties are responsible and if there were any justice in the world, all of them would rot in prison for the rest of their lives.
However, this is just an aside.
I suppose that if I assume that we could pay for it by magically printing 48 trillion dollars of uninflatable currency, ignore that much of our current spending on health care is from government dollars in the form of federal Medicare (or state equivalent programs), ignore laws of supply and demand where by the demand for ‘free’ health would increase far beyond people’s means to pay for it which would force massive tax increases or rationing, and ignore government regulations and high tort and insurance costs that add to the cost of health care, and suspend my belief in free association and my right to form contracts or buy insurance of my own, I suppose I could get behind socialized medicine.
|
|
|
Think of same day abortion for your neighbor... but a three month wait to see your high risk ob-gyn. Think of immediate surgery for sex-change... and a six month wait to see a cardiologist. Think about going to an inner-city clinic miles away... because the new hospital is for politicians and the rich. Think of your doctor deciding you need chemotherapy right away... and then be told "we can't fit you in for months". Think of rehab for heroin addicts... while your child waits for an important cat-scan. I work in healthcare... and can't wait to join a union and suck up taxpayer money. Please vote for my pay-raise and a big cut in my workload. Don't worry, I'll be too self-absorbed in union issues to worry about your care. Go Hillary Go!!! |
|
|
You do nothing except blame every problem mentioned on George W. Bush. Therefore you're doing nothing but coming onto this site and inciting arguments NOT debate. You don't even attempt to try to even come close to accepting the possibility that all earthly problems aren't the fault of George W. Bush. The comprehension that problems in recent times came before and will be around after George W. Bush isn't there in your head. You are no different than some idiotic moron who blames every issue that occurs on anything liberal or Democrat. People like you are either extreme-leftists or extreme-rightists. You contribute to nothing except hatred. |
|
Wow!! She returns yet again,in (snicker)cognito!
I see you didn't learn anything from you time in TH Siberia. More spewing but no brain power gained. Ah, well. SOme things will ever change.
Anyone who gives moreasss credence deserves to be called stupid. |
|
More ridiculousness that Social Security is all Bush's fault.
Liberalism used to stand for something...now it is simply...lie, lie often, lie loudly and eventually people assume if you are saying it this often it must be the truth.
Top lies of todays liberals...Bush stole the election, 911 was an inside job, Bush lied to get us into the war. Saying these things over and over doesn't make them true. Even the facts that liberals porport to prove these things are transparent lies.
And...what exactly did Clinton do that was so fantastic again? He presided over a booming economy that had little of nothing to do with his policies and everything to do with the internet coming into its own.
I would take Reagan over Bush (and most other presidents) but he is still better than Clinton. I could have some beers with Clinton, that might be fun...but running the country...no thanks.
|
|
You made me laugh out loud with your response to my comment!
Let's review the facts...
Your Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Many who have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month are now finding that they are getting taxed on 85% of the money they paid to the Federal government to "put Away".
Q: Which political party took Social Security from the Independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the general fund so that congress could spend it (on the Viet Nam War)?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as president of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the
US.
Q: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security
payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Although your name implies that you are probably 12 years old, your lack of knowledge for history and the facts implies that you are about 3 years old. Please do not post on this cite if you are not knowledgeable. Thank you. |
|
I wondered how long it would take for MTV to wake up to the fact that its demographic are significantly more moderate in their politics than Hollywood and music industry old timer socialists and liberals.
Now if only SKY in the UK would broadcast the moderate FOX News rather than hard left CNN for its US news segements we would really be getting some modicum of balance in the media. |
|
Moore says the American Health System stinks and says that Cuba's healthcare system is the greatest thing since sliced bread. So what do you think he would favor, capitalistic system that lets the market decide or Marxist, one that the government decides. Remember this is the same government that can't, according to you, get out of its own way and you want them to run health care? That's crazy. Don't try to tell me that the Dems would do better since apparently no one in the country except a nutty 14% think that Congress is doing their job. The best thing for the Healthcare industry would be for government to get out of the business.
As Ronald Reagan once said: "Government IS the problem." |
|
"it would be great if they took on the issue rather than further bashing gays, brown people and chest thumping over he-man issues of terrorism and torture."
That is your idea of raising the debate? This is what you believe is the conservative agenda. It is hard to have a conversation with you if you are that ignorant about conservative values. It is sort of like me calling out the fact that you live in fantasy land and you think the government and its social programs are going to fix everything as long as there is a democrat in office because those evil republicans are going to steal from the minorities and give to the big bad corporations --- forgetting that a lot of those same liberal democrats are heaviliy invested in those same corporations.
That said, not that I am an expert in what to do about health care (ahem...neither is Michael Moore) but privatizing health care is certainly better than socializing it. Government is not good at running programs of this sort. History proves that out. I mean...social security has been run so well right? Ever hear of the registry of motor vehicles...
Liberals are great with the rattling of cages, but ask the great liberal thinkers to come with ideas and you get more "comprehensive legislation" that won't work and is government top heavy.
|
|
It's pointless.
If medicare works, why did we have to upgrade it a few years ago? Plus, if medicare works, then George W. Bush is responsible for this because it was his plan. It's way too costly and still doesn't work. It's interesting to see a liberal agrees with a plan that was backed by Dubya.
If Social Security works, then why won't I ever see anything that I've contributed(like I opted to contribute)?
If the VA is working, then why do we hear all these stories from the media that the VA isn't working?
FEMA- Now there's another great working government agency. If this one agency can't take care of 600,000 people in one city after a hurricane, how is the government supposed to take care if the estimated 46 million people in every county in America?
FBI/CIA- These two government agencies couldn't even work together to stop terrorism from hitting our own streets
TSA- Long lines. Huge complaints. Congressional leaders end up on the terror list. This government agency has everything goin right.
IRS- This government agency spends billions of dollars annually, just on processing.
BTW- My girlfriend is one of those estimated 46 million uninsureds. However, she is in-between jobs and will soon have insurance through work. |
|
"The problem with the US healthcare system today is that 46 million don't have it."
But she clearly did not read the article of topic...
"Some 47 million people are uninsured (although many are only temporarily so, being eitherin-between jobs or young enough not to feel a pressing need to buy health insurance)."
It's a FACT that a large majority of uninsured people in America are either between jobs or choose not to have insurance.
Did Michael mention that FACT in his movie? |
|
Kimberlyric writes:
"Regardless of who the recipients are of Medicare, SS and the VA, these are government services that work."
Was the “social security” “works” comment supposed to be a joke? Because last I checked social security was a crock of crap.
"...by 2017, Social Security tax revenues will be less than promised benefits, and a government system that millions of Americans depend on will become bankrupt. The year 2017 is 10 years down the road." Matt Kibbe, Examiner, May 4, 2007
I can't even trust our government to save my money for my retirement... why would I trust them with my healthcare?
|
|
I sell Medicare Supplements in my agency. I have to keep reminding my clients that while I can and will assist them if their insurance company makes a mistake (infrequently, but you must remember that most insurance companies' main offices are on buslines), I cannot intervene with the government. From what my clients tell me, their supplement companies, perform well. (They better, I represent 20 of those companies and have been known to move an entire book of business from a company for ineptitude.) They don't however have much good to say about government service with the DDS (GA version of the DMV) getting much higher marks than Medicare.
Also, I know many uninsured. I've had companies fail to be able to maintain participation requirements because enough of their employees would rather wait in the emergency room for free care and a $3 prescription, than contribute $20 a month for a plan with $15 co-pays and a $500 a year deductible.
I remain unconvinced that more than 15% of the uninsured can't get insurance or can't afford some level of coverage. Medicaid (PeachCare) is free up to an income level where you should be able to afford insurance, individual medical insurance in Metro Atlanta can be as cheap as $89/mo Male $160/mo Female (including maternity) for a 30 yr old offering $30 office visits and $15 prescriptions. If you actually cannot afford that, you qualify for government programs, if you choose not to, it's your fault you're not covered. |
|
For one, we can encourage and should encourage more companies to emulate Wal-Mart and make more generic prescription drugs afforable to the poor for $4.
We should also encourage more alternative clinics which deal with common ailments and render aid for non-serious cases. Again, Wal-Mart already has a pilot program for some of these and they reduce what would otherwise be an expensive trip to the ER for a non-serious ailment to an inexpensive trip to the local store.
They don't even have to be set up in stores. I've read articles about other lower cost clinics that offer affordable medical care to low income and uninsured persons. Usually these clinics have a doctor on call, but most office visits take place with an RN who calls in the MD if the patient's condition is serious.
Of course, the AMA would love to get the government to step in and end these initiatives since they cut into their member's profits. |
|
What percentage of your income (or your parent's, if you're still living in the basement) would you be willing to give up?
I spent 14 years living in Europe with so-called "universal healthcare". Can you say 60% tax rate for the poor to middle class people?
Take a look at your last pay statement from Burker King and subtract 60%. Now imagine losing all of that money just so you can wait 5-8 months for a routine appointment, and then having a frazzled overworked doctor give you 5 minutes of attention.
You need to experience what you are asking for...I promise your "feelings" will change. |
|
She doesn't normally allow facts to get in the way of her therapeutic rants, so I'm not surprised that Kimberlyric is accusing lefty Kurt Loder of being a "right wing tool" simply because Loder questions the veracity of Moore's propaganda.
This whole notion that the government is the 'solution' to every problem in our lives is not only silly, but I wonder if Dr. Freud might speculate that it reflects an attempt by 'I need the government to save me !' advocates to evade personal responsibility for their own fate.
The government cannot even run a Department of Motorized Vehicles efficiently---can you imagine how they would manage kidney transplants ?
I find it ironic that a painfully obese man such as Michael Moore---a man who lacks the self-control regarding diet and exercise---wishes to forfeit self-determination about his health care to government bureaucrats.
I wonder how Moore would react if a government bureaucrat showed up unannounced at his door at 2 in the morning to ensure that he wasn't stuffing his face with Ben & Jerry's ice cream or 'fourth meal' runs to Taco Bell.
Moore doesn't want the government to wiretap foreign terrorists because that's a Big Brother invasion of privacy---but if the government fails to provide every living American with free dental care, it is a failure of "rights" guaranteed by the Constitution !
|
|
It's from March, but I can't find any newer ones.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml
This poll does show that the Troll's numbers are about equal to the poll, it doesn't state anything about "higher taxes".
Here are some other tidbits from this poll:
-most Americans say they are generally satisfied with the quality of their own health care, including 41 percent who say they are very satisfied
-Less than one in three, however, say the government would do a better job than private insurance companies at actually providing medical coverage
-Forty-four percent said the government would be worse as a health care provider than private companies
The interesting part in this poll is that most Americans believe that "universal" coverage is more important that health costs. That's unfortunate, because the lower the health costs, the cheaper health insurance and medicine gets.
Notice that the poll I linked to does actually reinforce what some of the troll said. Perhaps next time the troll can do their own homework. |
|
you are right to a certain extent.
if you go to gallup they lay out all the questions and history of poll numbers.
i do not trust left or right media but a composite of both will lead towards the truth. |
|
"Additionally, polls show that Americans would overwhelmingly approve of a national health insurance program, even if it would require higher taxes (64% for, 35% opposed)"
Who is being polled?
See that is the danger...64% of statistics are made up on the spot...or is the 45%...20%.
Any right wing/left wing organization can spin polls easy enough to make their point...it doesn't make it a good idea. It's all in the way you ask the question.
|
|
Loder is a Rightwing tool but Moore is fair and impartial and "just trying to raise the debate". That is so intellectually dishonest it is dizzying.
So, half truths and misdirection is raising the level of discourse now? These films are supposed to be documentaries right? There was a time when documentaries were based on facts.
Health care in this country does need an overhaul, but please...PLEASE don't suggest that overhauling them to be more like Cuba's would be a step in the right direction.
Moore is a liar and a con artist...his whole persona of the everyman is an act...that should be clue one as to his ability to paint an honest picture. |
|
|
|
And while you are at it, make sure we have access to the questions asked.
Michael Moore is the KING of propaganda. The fact you cannot see that is beyond belief. My very liberal sister thinks Moore makes good points, but she also says he is a Marxist. I will believe her over you since she is an honest person. |
|
Clever pun at the end of your comments, whether intended or otherwise.
incite - encourage or stir up violent or unlawful behavior
insight - accurate and deep understanding of a person or thing
-----
Just for good measure:
cite - quote a reference for evidence
site - a location, place or whereabouts; on the Internet, commonly a Web site
sight - a thing that can be seen, the ability to see, or an aligning mechanism
No offense intended. I just love playing with words. Thanks for bringing up the MTV critique.
|
|
|
...to continue to be more reasonable. |
|
There is hope for MTV after all.
Next steps for them to become a respectable network would be to 1) Have someone from the NRA discuss how it is your constitutional right to own a gun; and that gun ownership prevents crime 2) Have a constitutional scholar explain that the Fist Amendment does not prevent a Bible Clubs in public High Schools and 3) Have someone present without interruptions the Pro-Life viewpoint.
|
|
|
|