PDA

View Full Version : Sicko


Cochise
06-29-2007, 04:26 PM
Kind of interesting to see a critical review come out of MTV.


'Sicko': Heavily Doctored, By Kurt Loder
Is Michael Moore's prescription worse than the disease?

By Kurt Loder

Michael Moore may see himself as working in the tradition of such crusading muckrakers of the last century as Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair — writers whose dedication to exposing corruption and social injustices played a part in sparking much-needed reforms. In his new movie, "Sicko," Moore focuses on the U.S. health-care industry — a juicy target — and he casts a shocking light on some of the people it's failed.

There's a man who mangled two of his fingers with a power saw and learned that it would cost $12,000 to save one of them, but $60,000 to save the other. He had no health insurance and could only scrape together enough money to salvage the $12,000 finger.

There's a woman whose husband was prescribed new drugs to combat his cancer, but couldn't get their insurance company to pay for them because the drugs were experimental. Her husband died.

Then there's a woman who made an emergency trip to a hospital for treatment and subsequently learned her insurance company wouldn't pay for the ambulance that took her there — because it hadn't been "pre-approved." And there's a middle-aged couple — a man, who suffered three heart attacks, and his wife, who developed cancer — who were bankrupted by the cost of co-payments and other expenses not covered by their insurance, and have now been forced to move into a cramped, dismal room in the home of a resentful son. There's also a 79-year-old man who has to continue working a menial job because Medicare won't cover the cost of all the medications he needs.

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's arrest. 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 18 million 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 in urgent need of reform, no question. Some 47 million people are uninsured (although many are only temporarily so, being either in-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, save one.

As a proud socialist, the director appears to feel that there are few problems in life that can't be solved by government regulation (that would be the same government that's already given us the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles). In the case of health care, though, Americans have never been keen on socialized medicine. In 1993, when one of Moore's heroes, Hillary Clinton (he actually blurts out the word "sexy!" in describing her in the movie), tried to create a government-controlled health care system, her failed attempt to do so helped deliver the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives into Republican control for the next dozen years. Moore still looks upon Clinton's plan as a grand idea, one that Americans, being not very bright, unwisely rejected. (He may be having second thoughts about Hillary herself, though: In the movie he heavily emphasizes the fact that, among politicians, she accepts the second-largest amount of political money from the health care industry.)

The problem with American health care, Moore argues, is that people are charged money to avail themselves of it. In other countries, like Canada, France and Britain, health systems are far superior — and they're free. He takes us to these countries to see a few clean, efficient hospitals, where treatment is quick and caring; and to meet a few doctors, who are delighted with their government-regulated salaries; and to listen to patients express their beaming happiness with a socialized health system. It sounds great. As one patient in a British hospital run by the country's National Health Service says, "No one pays. It's all on the NHS. It's not America."

That last statement is even truer than you'd know from watching "Sicko." 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 2005 documentary 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.

A man tells about his mother waiting two years for life-saving cancer surgery — and then twice having her surgical appointments canceled. She was still waiting when she died.

A man in critical need of neck surgery plays a voicemail message from a doctor he'd contacted: "As of today," she says, "it's a two-year wait-list to see me for an initial consultation." Later, when the man and his wife both needed hip-replacement surgery and grew exasperated after spending two years on a waiting list, they finally mortgaged their home and flew to Belgium to have the operations done there, with no more waiting.

Rick Baker, the owner of a Toronto company called Timely Medical Alternatives, specializes in transporting Canadians who don't want to wait for medical care to Buffalo, New York, two hours away, where they won't have to. Baker's business is apparently thriving.

And Dr. Brian Day, now the president of the Canadian Medical Association, muses about the bizarre distortions created by a law that prohibits Canadians from paying for even urgently-needed medical treatments, or from obtaining private health insurance. "It's legal to buy health insurance for your pets," Day says, "but illegal to buy health insurance for yourself." (Even more pointedly, Day was quoted in the Wall Street Journal this week as saying, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years.")

Actually, this aspect of the Canadian health-care system is changing. In 2005, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in favor of a man who had filed suit in Quebec over being kept on an interminable waiting list for treatment. In striking down the government health care monopoly in that province, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said, "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care." Now a similar suit has been filed in Ontario.

What's the problem with government health systems? Moore's movie doesn't ask that question, although it does unintentionally provide an answer. When governments attempt to regulate the balance between a limited supply of health care and an unlimited demand for it they're inevitably forced to ration treatment. This is certainly the situation in Britain. Writing in the Chicago Tribune this week, Helen Evans, a 20-year veteran of the country's National Health Service and now the director of a London-based group called Nurses for Reform, said that nearly 1 million Britons are currently on waiting lists for medical care — and another 200,000 are waiting to get on waiting lists. Evans also says the NHS cancels about 100,000 operations each year because of shortages of various sorts. Last March, the BBC reported on the results of a Healthcare Commission poll of 128,000 NHS workers: two thirds of them said they "would not be happy" to be patients in their own hospitals. James Christopher, the film critic of the Times of London, thinks he knows why. After marveling at Moore's rosy view of the British health care system in "Sicko," Christopher wrote, "What he hasn't done is lie in a corridor all night at the Royal Free [Hospital] watching his severed toe disintegrate in a plastic cup of melted ice. I have." Last month, the Associated Press reported that Gordon Brown — just installed this week as Britain's new prime minister — had promised to inaugurate "sweeping domestic reforms" to, among other things, "improve health care."

Moore's most ardent enthusiasm is reserved for the French health care system, which he portrays as the crowning glory of a Gallic lifestyle far superior to our own. The French! They work only 35 hours a week, by law. They get at least five weeks' vacation every year. Their health care is free, and they can take an unlimited number of sick days. It is here that Moore shoots himself in the foot. He introduces us to a young man who's reached the end of three months of paid sick leave and is asked by his doctor if he's finally ready to return to work. No, not yet, he says. So the doctor gives him another three months of paid leave — and the young man immediately decamps for the South of France, where we see him lounging on the sunny Riviera, chatting up babes and generally enjoying what would be for most people a very expensive vacation. Moore apparently expects us to witness this dumbfounding spectacle and ask why we can't have such a great health care system, too. I think a more common response would be, how can any country afford such economic insanity?

As it turns out, France can't. In 2004, French Health Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told a government commission, "Our health system has gone mad. Profound reforms are urgent." Agence France-Presse recently reported that the French health-care system is running a deficit of $2.7 billion. And in the French presidential election in May, voters in surprising numbers rejected the Socialist candidate, Sιgolθne Royal, who had promised actually to raise some health benefits, and elected instead the center-right politician Nicolas Sarkozy, who, according to Agence France-Presse again, "plans to move fast to overhaul the economy, with the deficit-ridden health care system a primary target." Possibly Sarkozy should first consult with Michael Moore. After all, the tax-stoked French health care system may be expensive, but at least it's "free."

Having driven his bring-on-government-health care argument into a ditch outside of Paris, Moore next pilots it right off a cliff and into the Caribbean on the final stop on his tour: Cuba. Here it must also be said that the director performs a valuable service. He rounds up a group of 9/11 rescue workers — firefighters and selfless volunteers — who risked their lives and ruined their health in the aftermath of the New York terrorist attacks. These people — there's no other way of putting it — have been screwed, mainly by the politicians who were at such photo-op pains to praise them at the time. (This makes Moore's faith in government medical compassion seem all the more inexplicable.) These people's lives have been devastated — wracked by chronic illnesses, some can no longer hold down jobs and none can afford to buy the various expensive medicines they need. Moore does them an admirable service by bringing their plight before a large audience.

However, there's never a moment when we doubt that he's also using these people as props in his film, and as talking points in his agenda. Renting some boats, he leads them all off to Cuba. Upon arrival they stop briefly outside the American military enclave on Guantanamo Bay so that Moore can have himself filmed begging, through a bullhorn, for some of the free, top-notch medical care that's currently being lavished on the detainees there. Having no luck, he then moves on to Cuba proper.

Fidel Castro's island dictatorship, now in its 40th year of being listed as a human-rights violator by Amnesty International, is here depicted as a balmy paradise not unlike the Iraq of Saddam Hussein that Moore showed us in his earlier film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." He and his charges make their way — their pre-arranged way, if it need be said — to a state-of-the-art hospital where they receive a picturesquely warm welcome. In a voiceover, Moore, shown beaming at his little band of visitors, says he told the Cuban doctors to "give them the same care they'd give Cuban citizens." Then he adds, dramatically: "And they did."

If Moore really believes this, he may be a greater fool than even his most feverish detractors claim him to be. Nevertheless, medical care is provided to the visiting Americans, and it is indeed excellent. Cuba is in fact the site of some world-class medical facilities (surprising in a country that, as Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar noted in the Los Angeles Times last month, "imprisoned a doctor in the late 1990s for speaking out against government failure to respond to an epidemic of a mosquito-borne virus"). What Moore doesn't mention is the flourishing Cuban industry of "health tourism" — a system in which foreigners (including self-admitted multimillionaire film directors and, of course, government bigwigs) who are willing to pay cash for anything from brain-surgery to dental work can purchase a level of treatment that's unavailable to the majority of Cubans with no hard currency at their disposal. The Cuban American National Foundation (admittedly a group with no love for the Castro regime) calls this "medical apartheid." And in a 2004 article in Canada's National Post, writer Isabel Vincent quoted a dissident Cuban neurosurgeon, Doctor Hilda Molina, as saying, "Cubans should be treated the same as foreigners. Cubans have less rights in their own country than foreigners who visit here."

As the Caribbean sun sank down on Moore's breathtakingly meretricious movie, I couldn't help recalling that when Fidel Castro became gravely ill last year, he didn't put himself in the hands of a Cuban surgeon. No. Instead, he had a specialist flown in — from Spain.

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 04:41 PM
But, Cochise.....Michael "I'm a Fugging-Dipshit-Jerkoff-GD-Socialist-and-I'm-PROUD-of it" Moore....is a GODSEND to American society, for the social consciousness and self-reflection he is TEACHING us.

He's a friggin' genious....you, you....moranic iddiot.

And, don't you forget it! You stinkin' NAZI.... :harumph:

:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

BucEyedPea
06-29-2007, 04:53 PM
But, Cochise.....Michael "I'm a Fugging-Dipshit-Jerkoff-GD-Socialist-and-I'm-PROUD-of it" Moore....is a GODSEND to American society, for the social consciousness and self-reflection he is TEACHING us.

He's a friggin' genious....you, you....moranic iddiot.

And, don't you forget it! You stinkin' NAZI.... :harumph:

:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:
Did someone else say "socialist?" In a thread called "SICKO?"

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! :D

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 05:08 PM
Did someone else say "socialist?" In a thread called "SICKO?"

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! :D

It's the new "closeted" condition in America. Gay folks come out of the closet...we demand it!

Socialists, on the other hand, have decided to hide, and grovel, in the secrecy of their closet.

No more folks; I say, 'Stand up, be loud and PROUD'....not another single day, people.

I say, screw that, bi-atches....come on, folks...if gay folks are out....you should be too. Are you with me???

Come on, all you....Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist/Mihnist/FDRist/LBJist/Clintonist disciples...OUT, OUT, OUT!!!

DECLARE yourself, freely and openly. Say it together...and the TRUTH shall set you free. PBJ PBJ PBJ

(Done to the music of 'YMCA'....come on everybody, hands together...)

"It's fun to be a......So-cial-ist-IST!
It's fun to be a......So-cial-ist-IST!"

PBJ PBJ PBJ

go bowe
06-29-2007, 05:14 PM
It's the new "closeted" condition in America. Gay folks are not only free to come out of the closet..

Socialists, on the other hand, have decided to hide, and grovel, in the secrecy of their closet.

No more folks; I say, you should stand for it....not another single day, people.

I say, screw that, bi-atches....come on, folks...if gay folks are out....you should be too. Are you with me???

Come on, all of you....Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist/Mihnist/FDRist/LBJist/Clintonist disciples...come on out...OUT, OUT, OUT!!!

DECLARE yourself, freely and openly. Say it together...and the TRUTH shall set you free. PBJ PBJ PBJ

(Done to the music of 'YMCA'....come on everybody, hands together...)

"It's fun to be a......So-cial-ist-IST!
It's fun to be a......So-cial-ist-IST!"

PBJ PBJ PBJ:shake: :shake: :shake:

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 05:15 PM
:shake: :shake: :shake:

:moon: :moon: :moon:

Frazod
06-29-2007, 05:17 PM
Interesting take. I'm sure there's a good measure of truth to it.

But does anyone else just assume that the good Mr. Loder will now be getting a little something extra in his stocking this Christmas from Blue Cross/Blue Shield?

Mr. Laz
06-29-2007, 05:26 PM
:shake: :shake: :shake:
kotter has gone almost completely off the deep end.

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 05:31 PM
kotter has gone almost completely off the deep end.

I figured you moonbat freakazoids might need a little company....my compassion for you has overwhelmed my more restrained sensibilities...Comrad. ;)

alnorth
06-29-2007, 05:52 PM
Michael Moore's proposal is beyond stupid, and would send us spiralling away into financial ruin.

Cochise
06-29-2007, 06:33 PM
Interesting take. I'm sure there's a good measure of truth to it.

But does anyone else just assume that the good Mr. Loder will now be getting a little something extra in his stocking this Christmas from Blue Cross/Blue Shield?

Perhaps. Seems like an honest counterpoint.

Much like gasoline, I'd rather have health care be expensive than have to wait ages for it or not be able to get it at all.

Jenson71
06-29-2007, 06:37 PM
Much like gasoline, I'd rather have health care be expensive than have to wait ages for it or not be able to get it at all.
I don't think that would happen if we had government funded healthcare. I think you could go to a private doctor as soon as you would want to, and just pay more.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2007, 06:43 PM
I don't think that would happen if we had government funded healthcare. I think you could go to a private doctor as soon as you would want to, and just pay more.
It WILL happen. Because it ALWAYS happened. Too much historical evidence. No doubt about it, these systems lead to overuse, due to the perception of low cost or being free. Then that leads to rationing. It's a law just like gravity. The market will still have the last say via lines,waits and an emerging black market to get around it.

Cochise
06-29-2007, 06:45 PM
I don't think that would happen if we had government funded healthcare. I think you could go to a private doctor as soon as you would want to, and just pay more.

Did you read the part about in Canada?

They aren't allowed to pay for health care there. I assume that it would create some kind of an issue of 'fairness' if not everyone got the same quality.

And generally speaking, we have this now. If you have the ability to pay, which 80-85% of Americans do, then you don't have to wait. If you can't pay, then you wait.

go bowe
06-29-2007, 06:47 PM
. . . Gay folks come out of the closet...we demand it!
. . .you demand it all right...

you outed 2 perfectly fine people who had not yet decided for THEMSLEVES to come out...

i think it's wrong to **** around with somebody's personal life that...

and you're a retart too...

but no matter how fos you get, i still loves ya, mon...

Jenson71
06-29-2007, 06:52 PM
Did you read the part about in Canada?

They aren't allowed to pay for health care there. I assume that it would create some kind of an issue of 'fairness' if not everyone got the same quality.

And generally speaking, we have this now. If you have the ability to pay, which 80-85% of Americans do, then you don't have to wait. If you can't pay, then you wait.

Why would someone wait for two years for life saving surgery when they could just go to Buffalo New York and get it done in no time? I wonder what their situation was. Dirt poor? There's always more to these stories. The health care situation is so complex.

Cochise
06-29-2007, 06:53 PM
you demand it all right...

you outed 2 perfectly fine people who had not yet decided for THEMSLEVES to come out...

i think it's wrong to **** around with somebody's personal life that...

and you're a retart too...

but no matter how fos you get, i still loves ya, mon...

I don't think I was here for the 'outing'. Did he expose what they had told him in confidence? Other than that, if you posted "I'm gay" then... you outed yourself...

Jenson71
06-29-2007, 06:58 PM
I don't think I was here for the 'outing'. Did he expose what they had told him in confidence? Other than that, if you posted "I'm gay" then... you outed yourself...

Kotter drove them to insanity. It was so bad, no country's health care system would have been able to help them.

Cochise
06-29-2007, 07:00 PM
Why would someone wait for two years for life saving surgery when they could just go to Buffalo New York and get it done in no time? I wonder what their situation was. Dirt poor? There's always more to these stories. The health care situation is so complex.

But Canada has the health care panacea. Everyone gets what they need right when they need it.

Jenson71
06-29-2007, 07:02 PM
The best way to help health care in this country would be to limit the food stamps welfare program to make it similar to WIC (woman infants and children). Developing cleaner cities would help alot as well.

Jenson71
06-29-2007, 07:07 PM
But Canada has the health care panacea. Everyone gets what they need right when they need it.

Have you ever seen "Bowling for Columbine"? In it, Moore, talks about how scared Americans are, so scared in fact, that they are always locking their doors at night. Then it films him in Canada. In the middle of the daytime, at what must have been the weekend (due to the complete families in their homes), Moore walks into random homes, saying basically "sorry, I was just seeing if your door was locked".

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 07:10 PM
I don't think I was here for the 'outing'. Did he expose what they had told him in confidence? Other than that, if you posted "I'm gay" then... you outed yourself...

The two "gobo" is talking about demonstrated clear signs....one was gay, the other transgendered. Both took strident positions on gay rights issues, both displayed uncommon (it turned out, not coincidentally) knowledge and familiarity with topics and subjects they were atttempting to establish themselves as objective about.

One of my biggest pet peeves is disclosure. If you attempt to be an expert on something, or to claim you are "objective about something...then for you to establish credibilty, in my mind, you can't hide your "expertise" or your biases. In both cases, they claimed special knowledge and "objectivity." I called them on it; some would say, badgered them into disclosing the truth of their alleged expertise....and, in my mind, bias.

Both, voluntarily....eventually, admitted I was right. And then tried to claim that their disclosure....had no bearing whatsoever on their ability to be objective. IMO, it goes to the heart of credibility. It would be like me, as a teacher, advocating zealously about education....and not disclosing that I'm, in fact, a teacher. JMHO.

Cochise
06-29-2007, 07:10 PM
Have you ever seen "Bowling for Columbine"? In it, Moore, talks about how scared Americans are, so scared in fact, that they are always locking their doors at night. Then it films him in Canada. In the middle of the daytime, at what must have been the weekend (due to the complete families in their homes), Moore walks into random homes, saying basically "sorry, I was just seeing if your door was locked".

What does this have to do with fear?

And how often do you hear of Americans traveling to Canada to have health care treatment?

Silock
06-29-2007, 07:11 PM
As usual, the truth is somewhere in between.

Is our current system perfect? No.

Is socialized medicine the cure-all? No.

It's obvious that something needs to be done so that everyone has access to basic medical coverage, but it shouldn't be a burden to everyone else in America. Something in between what we have now and socialism would be the best answer. Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to figure out what that would be.

Jenson71
06-29-2007, 07:13 PM
What does this have to do with fear?

And how often do you hear of Americans traveling to Canada to have health care treatment?

1. Americans lock their doors in fear. We're afraid of everything. In Canada, things are so nice and peaceful they leave their doors unlocked. But when was the last time you locked your doors when you were home on the weekend? Furthermore, how many stripes of film were cut for Moore to prove his point? It's just an example of Moore's manipulation. I responded in agreement with your sarcasm that Moore must be telling the whole truth.

2. None.

Cochise
06-29-2007, 07:14 PM
Both, voluntarily... admitted I was right.

That's what I thought.

If you don't want a part of yourself to accidentally show on the board then you shouldn't participate in those related topics.

Coach
06-29-2007, 07:14 PM
As some of you folks know me in person, that I have a hearing disability, I just can't imagine why that can't be covered in the health insurance? For instance, like ear testing, purchasing hearing aids, etc etc.

I mean, it's no different than getting your eyes checked out, getting glasses, etc.

Or no different than getting your teeth checked out, root canal, wisdom tooth pulled out, etc.

Cochise
06-29-2007, 07:15 PM
1. Americans lock their doors in fear. We're afraid of everything. In Canada, things are so nice and peaceful they leave their doors unlocked. But when was the last time you locked your doors when you were home on the weekend? Furthermore, how many stripes of film were cut for Moore to prove his point? It's just an example of Moore's manipulation. I responded in agreement with your sarcasm that Moore must be telling the whole truth.


So... what does fear have to do with the health care argument? We're afraid to change? I think it could be honestly said by many that they don't think we need to change this thing in this way without fear ever entering into it.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2007, 07:16 PM
1. Americans lock their doors in fear. We're afraid of everything. In Canada, things are so nice and peaceful they leave their doors unlocked. But when was the last time you locked your doors when you were home on the weekend? Furthermore, how many stripes of film were cut for Moore to prove his point? It's just an example of Moore's manipulation. I responded in agreement with your sarcasm that Moore must be telling the whole truth.

2. None.
I rarely lock my doors when I leave here, in the daytime at least.
I never found Michael Moore waiting in my house for an interview when I cam back in. :harumph: :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 07:18 PM
That's what I thought.

If you don't want a part of yourself to accidentally show on the board then you shouldn't participate in those related topics.

Exactly. Unfortunately, some of our regulars....don't share my insistence on disclosure as it relates to credibility. gobo, being one of them.

Cochise
06-29-2007, 07:19 PM
I rarely lock my doors when I leave here, in the daytime at least.
I never found Michael Moore waiting in my house for an interview when I cam back in. :harumph: :hmmm:

I wonder what his point was? That Canadians are brave courageous people and Americans are sniveling cowards?

Or that Canada doesn't have the crime rate that makes them think it prudent to lock their doors?

Jenson71
06-29-2007, 07:24 PM
I wonder what his point was? That Canadians are brave courageous people and Americans are sniveling cowards?

Or that Canada doesn't have the crime rate that makes them think it prudent to lock their doors?

The second.

Logical
06-29-2007, 07:29 PM
As a proud socialist, the director appears to feel that there are few problems in life that can't be solved by government regulation (that would be the same government that's already given us the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles).

I don't like socialism but frankly the U.S. Postal Service does a f*cking amazingly good job.

Logical
06-29-2007, 07:33 PM
Exactly. Unfortunately, some of our regulars....don't share my insistence on disclosure as it relates to credibility. gobo, being one of them.

WTF are you talking about, gobo (John) has disclosed pretty much his entire life story you f*cking asswipe. You may say anything you want about me but I don't backstab other BB members like you do. F*ck off and die Rob.

Logical
06-29-2007, 07:39 PM
I don't think I was here for the 'outing'. Did he expose what they had told him in confidence? Other than that, if you posted "I'm gay" then... you outed yourself...

No he hounded them until they broke and he did it twice, really f*cking pitiful that he has such low self-esteem he feels the need to harm others.

Frazod
06-29-2007, 08:19 PM
Perhaps. Seems like an honest counterpoint.

Much like gasoline, I'd rather have health care be expensive than have to wait ages for it or not be able to get it at all.

But where does it end? I don't want socialized medicine either, but when will these greedy cocksuckers be satisfied? I pay $400 a month for heathcare insurance for TWO reasonably healthy adults, and the bastards either automatically deny everything or have an excuse as to why they only pick up a smaller amount that they should. God forbid either of us really get sick.

We are being bled dry by the unholy trinity of insurance, doctors/hospitals and the drug companies. NOBODY IS DOING ANYTHING TO STOP THEM. My wife had an outpatient procedure a few months ago - our local hospital has a new annex that could only be described as palacial. Looked like we were stepping into a five star resort. It's ridiculous. No wonder their goddamn services are so expensive - somebody's gotta pay for all that marble.

More than ever before, it seems, our Congressmen and our President ignore the problem, primarily because, I assume (a) they're all rich, so its not their problem, and (b) they're all bought by the industries creating the problem in the first place. Hell, it's getting to the point where they're not even pretending to give a shit.

I don't think Michael Moore and Cuba's medical system is the answer, but what is? How do you check uncontrollable greed in a freemarket economy?

go bowe
06-29-2007, 08:29 PM
I don't think I was here for the 'outing'. Did he expose what they had told him in confidence? Other than that, if you posted "I'm gay" then... you outed yourself...well, shit...

i better out myself now to beat that basterd to the punch (meaning kotter)...

just for grins and chuckles, ask kotter sometime whether he had anything to do with it, he'll tell you all about it...

btw, there's a lot of territory between breaking a confidence and posting that "i'm gay"....

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 08:58 PM
WTF are you talking about, gobo (John) has disclosed pretty much his entire life story you f*cking asswipe. You may say anything you want about me but I don't backstab other BB members like you do. F*ck off and die Rob.

Eh...you may wanna read the thread, before you go off the deepend, cocksmoker.

John, and I...are fine. Despite our "spats."

No he hounded them until they broke and he did it twice, really f*cking pitiful that he has such low self-esteem he feels the need to harm others.

Hounded, my ass. They were dying to tell someone....otherwise, they'd have done exactly like Cochise has suggested...left those discussions alone. OR at the very least, not pretended to be such experts with no bias....they "outed" themselves. I don't own a gun...and I surely didn't hold one to their heads.

If one wants to be taken seriously, and have credibility....full disclosure, especially on sensitive topics, is required IMHO. Otherwise, one really just needs to S.T.F.U. Period.

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 09:01 PM
well, shit...

i better out myself now to beat that basterd to the punch (meaning kotter)...

just for grins and chuckles, ask kotter sometime whether he had anything to do with it, he'll tell you all about it...

btw, there's a lot of territory between breaking a confidence and posting that "i'm gay"....

WTF, John? You and Jim got amnesia...breakin' confidence? What the HELL are you talking about?

BOTH admitted on the open board, of their own volition. PERIOD.

go bowe
06-29-2007, 09:04 PM
* * *
I called them on it; some would say, badgered them into disclosing the truth of their alleged expertise...now, who would say a thing like that?

other than me, that is... :Poke:

yes i know what the next sentence says, that they voluntarily
admitted their sexual orientation...

but what you said first (badger) seemed like a kind of freudian/kotter slip to me...

some people (somewhere) think freudian/kotter slips can be indicative of a person's true feelings...

enquiring minds want to know...

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 09:07 PM
now, who would say a thing like that?

other than me, that is... :Poke:

yes i know what the next sentence says, that they voluntarily
admitted their sexual orientation...

but what you said first (badger) seemed like a kind of freudian/kotter slip to me...

some people (somewhere) think freudian/kotter slips can be indicative of a person's true feelings...

enquiring minds want to know...


No, there's nothing Freudian about it, John....only you folks who don't understand that there was no gun, no real coercion....except the fact they were dying to tell us, but needed some "encouragement."

You and Jim really need to just accept it's a honest disagreement, and move past it....rather than insisting on dredging it up every six months or so. Get over it, man.

:rolleyes:

go bowe
06-29-2007, 09:24 PM
WTF, John? You and Jim got amnesia...breakin' confidence? What the HELL are you talking about?

BOTH admitted on the open board, of their own volition. PERIOD.number one, nobody is saying that YOU broke a confidence...

read the post again...

i was trying to illustrate the range between someone (not named rob) who would break a confidence and so-called "voluntary" admissions...

in my view that is a very large terrritory (between the poles, so to speak)

if that wasn't clear in my post, i aplogize...


did someone say poles?

where's dc when you need him?

go bowe
06-29-2007, 09:39 PM
No, there's nothing Freudian about it, John....only you folks who don't understand that there was no gun, no real coercion....except the fact they were dying to tell us, but needed some "encouragement."

You and Jim really need to just accept it's a honest disagreement, and move past it....rather than insisting on dredging it up every six months or so. Get over it, man.

:rolleyes:i've haven't gone back and read every post again, but i think you were the first one to bring up gays outing "themselves" in this thread...

someone else in this thread said that if you don't want some part of your life to become public knowledge don't post on those topics...

everytime that i see you bring up the subject of outing people, i just can't help myself, i have to mention your expertise and experience in the area...

isn't that what you want, full disclosure? :p :p :p

Logical
06-29-2007, 10:07 PM
No, there's nothing Freudian about it, John....only you folks who don't understand that there was no gun, no real coercion....except the fact they were dying to tell us, but needed some "encouragement."

You and Jim really need to just accept it's a honest disagreement, and move past it....rather than insisting on dredging it up every six months or so. Get over it, man.

:rolleyes:

I will never get over it, you are a depraved motherf*cker who won't leave well enough alone. You have small penis mentality due to your lack of self-esteem about your career choices. When you decide to step up and be a man and admit your faillings career wise maybe the rest of us will respect you more. This is clearly why Taco John gets so under your skin. Just admit how you are a failure career wise and you will feel better about yourself Rob. It will be cleansing if you admit your failures.

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 10:33 PM
I will never get over it, you are a depraved motherf*cker who won't leave well enough alone. You have small penis mentality due to your lack of self-esteem about your career choices. When you decide to step up and be a man and admit your faillings career wise maybe the rest of us will respect you more. This is clearly why Taco John gets so under your skin. Just admit how you are a failure career wise and you will feel better about yourself Rob. It will be cleansing if you admit your failures.

LMAO LMAO LMAO

You are SOOOO far off-base, it's not even funny. You've become a pathetic and bitter old man. I really feel very sorry for you; and if you were paying attention, you'd notice many of us do. TJ? The ONLY thing that gets "under my skin" about TJ....is his apparent simultaneous intellect, coupled with his blatant myopic stupidity when it comes to people who simply disagree with him--his rejection of the notion that reasonable people can disagree. You and he are two peas in a pod, in that respect. Arrogance beyond the pale. If that makes you proud; once again, it shows the depth to which you've sunk.

For that, I feel sorry for you. Seriously. :shake:

FTR, in the name of full disclosure....the ONLY regret I have, is that society doesn't fully value and reward me for the job I love. Period. That's it. Anything beyond that, is just a figment of your over-active (given your silliness and attention whoring on the board of late) imagination. Get a life, Jimbo.

Logical
06-29-2007, 10:53 PM
LMAO LMAO LMAO

You are SOOOO far off-base, it's not even funny. You've become a pathetic and bitter old man. I really feel very sorry for you; and if you were paying attention, you'd notice many of us do. TJ? The ONLY thing that gets "under my skin" about TJ....is his apparent simultaneous intellect, coupled with his blatant myopic stupidity when it comes to people who simply disagree with him--his rejection of the notion that reasonable people can disagree. You and he are two peas in a pod, in that respect. Arrogance beyond the pale. If that makes you proud; once again, it shows the depth to which you've sunk.

For that, I feel sorry for you. Seriously. :shake:

FTR, in the name of full disclosure....the ONLY regret I have, is that society doesn't fully value and reward me for the job I love. Period. That's it. Anything beyond that, is just a figment of your over-active (given your silliness and attention whoring on the board of late) imagination. Get a life, Jimbo.

No Rob come on man just admit it you know you want to, say it with me, I Rob am a career failure. I use the BB to bully other people to admit things they don't want to, so I can feel better about myself. Say it Rob you know you want to, you really, really do.

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 10:58 PM
No Rob come on man just admit it you know you want to, say it with me, I Rob am a career failure. I use the BB to bully other people to admit things they don't want to, so I can feel better about myself. Say it Rob you know you want to, you really, really do.

Only a materialistic, narcissistic, humanistic, arrogant....blowhard like you, would reach this conclusion (based on what you "know" about me--which FTR, ain't much.)

I know you also have something to admit/come "out" to us about.....but, alas, I won't to "hound" you into it. It's clear, you are on the verge (based on your posting of late)...so I'll simply let nature take it's course.

For what it's worth, it will be liberating for you.... ;)

Logical
06-29-2007, 11:10 PM
Only a materialistic, narcissistic, humanistic, arrogant....blowhard like you, would reach this conclusion (based on what you "know" about me--which FTR, ain't much.)

I know you also have something to admit/come "out" to us about.....but, alas, I won't to "hound" you into it. It's clear, you are on the verge (based on your posting of late)...so I'll simply let nature take it's course.

For what it's worth, it will be liberating for you.... ;)
I am trying to help you Rob, you have not been truthful with the BB you claim you love educating our nations children but you secretly despise them, I have seen it in the way you talk about them. You resent them because you made a poor career choice and now you are stuck and hope you can get out from under it by becoming a Vice Principle. Well for your victims sake I hope you get that promotion. Now just admit your frustration and your bad choice of careers, you will feel better.

Oh and you are right, I do have something to admit, I really don't like you and I have been faking it.

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 11:17 PM
I am trying to help you Rob, you have not been truthful with the BB you claim you love educating our nations children but you secretly despise them, I have seen it in the way you talk about them. You resent them because you made a poor career choice and now you are stuck and hope you can get out from under it by becoming a Vice Principle. Well for your victims sake I hope you get that promotion. Now just admit your frustration and your bad choice of careers, you will feel better.

Oh and you are right, I do have something to admit, I really don't like you and I have been faking it.

Damn, you are going to join the lore of FloridaChief and JOhn at this rate.... ROFL

That's not the ONLY thing you need to admit, Nancy. It's liberating, man. Go ahead. ;)

Pitt Gorilla
06-29-2007, 11:28 PM
I'll admit that Kotter talking about credibility made me chuckle.

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 11:31 PM
I'll admit that Kotter talking about credibility made me chuckle.

You puttin' a coherent thought in more than four or five words, makes me chuckle. Guess we are even. ;)

If jAZ, Zach & TJ show up, then we'll have all my stalker/"Haters" together in the same thread....how quaint. Heh. ROFL

Logical
06-29-2007, 11:31 PM
Damn, you are going to join the lore of FloridaChief and JOhn at this rate.... ROFL

That's not the ONLY thing you need to admit, Nancy. It's liberating, man. Go ahead. ;)

What, is keeping you from admitting you are suffering from career failure syndrome. Why did you let it force you into hound BB members into admitting private life details? Did you really make their lives better? Really did you?

Logical
06-29-2007, 11:32 PM
You puttin' a coherent thought in more than four or five words, makes me chuckle. ;)

Guess we are even. If jAZ, Zach & TJ show up, then we'll have all my stalker/"Haters" together in the same thread....how quaint. Heh. ROFL

That you think you have stalkers, that you even would merit stalkers is what is a trip. Probably due to your inadequacy issues.

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 11:34 PM
... Did you really make their lives better? Really did you?

DC's actually done quite well, as far as I can tell.

Of course, you'd have to ask he and Hel'n to know for sure. :hmmm:

That you think you have stalkers, that you even would merit stalkers is what is a trip. Probably due to your inadequacy issues.

You could NOT be barking up a more WRONG tree....if only you knew. Heh.

My WIFE is the only one who could ever raise those sorts of questions, within myself....so give up the lame assed effort, Jimbo.

Logical
06-29-2007, 11:38 PM
DC's actually done quite well, as far as I can tell.

Of course, you'd have to ask he and Hel'n to know for sure. :hmmm:



You could NOT be barking up a more WRONG tree....if only you knew. Heh.

My WIFE is the only one who could ever raise those sorts of questions, within myself....so give up the lame assed effort, Jimbo.

See you are getting closer, you are admitting your wife has caused you to have doubts, this is real progress Rob. Come on just give in to it, admitting your feeling of failure will set you free.

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 11:42 PM
See you are getting closer, you are admitting your wife has caused you to have doubts, this is real progress Rob. Come on just give in to it, admitting your feeling of failure will set you free.

Nice try. I said "could;" she hasn't. Can you say the same? :hmmm:

I still live with my wife. And as far as I can tell....will for the very far foreseeable future. :shrug:

:hmmm:

Logical
06-29-2007, 11:49 PM
Nice try. I said "could;" she hasn't. Can you say the same? :hmmm:

I still live with my wife. And as far as I can tell....will for the very far foreseeable future. :shrug:

:hmmm:

Sure Rob, we all see what you mean ;) I mean she is going to put up with all those kids and no money forever right? No pressure, you will some day have that Vice Principles job fall in your lap and some success will come your way. Right?

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 11:52 PM
Sure Rob, we all see what you mean ;) I mean she is going to put up with all those kids and no money forever right? No pressure, you will some day have that Vice Principles job fall in your lap and some success will come your way. Right?

I gotta admit. You are tying hard. The difference is, they WANTED to "out" themselves, because it was the truth...and they did. I not only have no desire to...more importantly, there is no "truth" to what you suggest--it's so far removed from truth...but your efforts are very amusing.

So, let's talk about you....why'd yours leave? :spock: Oh, sure....you left, right? ROFL

LMAO

Logical
06-30-2007, 12:00 AM
I gotta admit. You are tying hard. The difference is, they WANTED to "out" themselves, because it was the truth...and they did. I not only have no desire to...more importantly, there is no "truth" to what you suggest--it's so far removed from truth...but your efforts are very amusing.

So, let's talk about you....why'd yours leave? :spock: Oh, sure....you left, right? ROFL

LMAOSmall matter of we hate each other, it was a mutual parting.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2007, 12:08 AM
Small matter of we hate each other, it was a mutual parting.


Got it, Jimbo. Happy trails, you bitter and arrogant old man.

Silock
06-30-2007, 12:18 AM
Wow, what the **** is going on in this thread?

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2007, 12:24 AM
Wow, what the **** is going on in this thread?

Jim just got bi-atch slapped; I won this....

Logical
06-30-2007, 12:36 AM
Jim just got bi-atch slapped; I won this....

Typical Rob, when he is losing he declares victory. Same way he deals with his career failure.

patteeu
06-30-2007, 07:47 AM
No he hounded them until they broke and he did it twice, really f*cking pitiful that he has such low self-esteem he feels the need to harm others.

He didn't harm them, they outed themselves. And so what if they did. I don't see how they were harmed by it. As for hounding though, I think you have your own pet targets. Tom Cash comes immediately to mind.

patteeu
06-30-2007, 07:55 AM
But where does it end? I don't want socialized medicine either, but when will these greedy cocksuckers be satisfied? I pay $400 a month for heathcare insurance for TWO reasonably healthy adults, and the bastards either automatically deny everything or have an excuse as to why they only pick up a smaller amount that they should. God forbid either of us really get sick.

We are being bled dry by the unholy trinity of insurance, doctors/hospitals and the drug companies. NOBODY IS DOING ANYTHING TO STOP THEM. My wife had an outpatient procedure a few months ago - our local hospital has a new annex that could only be described as palacial. Looked like we were stepping into a five star resort. It's ridiculous. No wonder their goddamn services are so expensive - somebody's gotta pay for all that marble.

More than ever before, it seems, our Congressmen and our President ignore the problem, primarily because, I assume (a) they're all rich, so its not their problem, and (b) they're all bought by the industries creating the problem in the first place. Hell, it's getting to the point where they're not even pretending to give a shit.

I don't think Michael Moore and Cuba's medical system is the answer, but what is? How do you check uncontrollable greed in a freemarket economy?

The rising cost of healthcare is largely due to (what I consider understandable) greediness on the part of health care consumers as much as (maybe more than) the health care providers. You mentioned palatial hospitals with an abundance of marble in your post, but surely you recognize that there are less audacious hospitals out there that people can go to. I don't know about your specific experience so this may not apply to you, but when patients are given an option of going to two different hospitals, they're going to go to the nicer one not the one that's cutting costs but looks shabby. More to the point, healthcare consumers want all the best tests and all the best drugs and all the best equipment used when they need it. And who can blame them. As better tests, drugs and equipment are invented, everyone wants the latest and greatest. That's expensive, but if the insurance companies deny access to these better, more expensive medical technologies to keep costs down, they get blamed for that too.

Messier
06-30-2007, 08:19 AM
I think people should see the film. Moore isn't advocating we just switch to the same system as Canada, or London or, France, and I know not Cuba. He wants to incorporate things that work in other countries with thinks that work in America and make a system unique to America.

dirk digler
06-30-2007, 08:34 AM
Moore got it right it appears.




http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/28/sicko.fact.check/index.html

Analysis: 'Sicko' numbers mostly accurate; more context needed


By A. Chris Gajilan
CNN


(CNN) -- Michael Moore's "Sicko," which opened nationwide Friday, is filled with horror stories of people who are deprived of medical service because they can't afford it or haven't been able to navigate the murky waters of managed care in the United States.

It compares American health care with the universal coverage systems in Canada, France, the United Kingdom and Cuba.

Moore covers a lot of ground. Our team investigated some of the claims put forth in his film. We found that his numbers were mostly right, but his arguments could use a little more context. As we dug deep to uncover the numbers, we found surprisingly few inaccuracies in the film. In fact, most pundits or health-care experts we spoke to spent more time on errors of omission rather than disputing the actual claims in the film.

Whether it's dollars spent, group coverage or Medicaid income cutoffs, health care goes hand in hand with numbers. Moore opens his film by giving these statistics, "Fifty million uninsured Americans ... 18,000 people die because they are uninsured." (Review: "Sicko" a tonic despite flaws)

For the most part, that's true. The latest numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Preventionexternal link say 43.6 million, or about 15 percent of Americans, were uninsured in 2006. For the past five years, the overall count has fluctuated between 41 million and 44 million people. According to the Institute of Medicineexternal link, 18,000 people do die each year mainly because they are less likely to receive screening and preventive care for chronic diseases.

Moore says that the U.S. spends more of its gross domestic product on health care than any other country.

Again, that's true. The United States spends more than 15 percent of its GDP on health care -- no other nation even comes close to that number. France spends about 11 percent, and Canadians spend 10 percent.

Like Moore, we also found that more money does not equal better care. Both the French and Canadian systems rank in the Top 10 of the world's best health-care systems, according to the World Health Organizationexternal link. The United States comes in at No. 37. The rankings are based on general health of the population, access, patient satisfaction and how the care's paid for.

So, if Americans are paying so much and they're not getting as good or as much care, where is all the money going? "Overhead for most private health insurance plans range between 10 percent to 30 percent," says Deloitte health-care analyst Paul Keckley. Overhead includes profit and administrative costs.

"Compare that to Medicare, which only has an overhead rate of 1 percent. Medicare is an extremely efficient health-care delivery system," says Mark Meaney, a health-care ethicist for the National Institute for Patient Rightsexternal link.

Moore spends about half his film detailing the wonders and the benefits of the government-funded universal health-care systems in Canada, France, Cuba and the United Kingdom. He shows calm, content people in waiting rooms and people getting care in hospitals hassle free. People laugh and smile as he asks about billing departments and cost of stay.

Not surprisingly, it's not that simple. In most other countries, there are quotas and planned waiting times. Everyone does have access to basic levels of care. That care plan is formulated by teams of government physicians and officials who determine what's to be included in the universal basic coverage and how a specific condition is treated. If you want treatment outside of that standard plan, then you have to pay for it yourself.

"In most developed health systems in the world, 15 percent to 20 percent of the population buys medical services outside of the system of care run by the government. They do it through supplemental insurance, or they buy services out of pocket," Keckley says.

The people who pay more tend to be in the upper income or have special, more complicated conditions.

Moore focuses on the private insurance companies and makes no mention of the U.S. government-funded health-care systems such as Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program and the Veterans Affairs health-care systems. About 50 percent of all health-care dollars spent in the United States flows through these government systems.

"Sicko" also ignores a handful of good things about the American system. Believe it or not, the United States does rank highest in the patient satisfaction category. Americans do have shorter wait times than everyone but Germans when it comes to nonemergency elective surgery such as hip replacements, cataract removal or knee repair.

That's no surprise given the number of U.S. specialists. In U.S. medical schools, students training to become primary-care physicians have dwindled to 10 percent. The overwhelming majority choose far more profitable specialties in the medical field. In other countries, more than one out of three aspiring doctors chooses primary care in part because there's less of an income gap with specialists. In those nations, becoming a specialist means making 30 percent more than a primary-care physician. In the United States, the gap is around 300 percent, according to Keckley.

As Americans continue to spend $2 trillion a year on health care, everyone agrees on one point: Things need to change, and it will take more than a movie to figure out how to get there.

Silock
06-30-2007, 09:25 AM
He may have gotten the numbers right, but that doesn't mean the message is correct.

go bowe
06-30-2007, 01:07 PM
Got it, Jimbo. Happy trails, you bitter and arrogant old man.hey, watch out...

there's no need to insult old people like that...

besides, i'm older than logical...

and prettier...

Logical
06-30-2007, 03:05 PM
I think people should see the film. Moore isn't advocating we just switch to the same system as Canada, or London or, France, and I know not Cuba. He wants to incorporate things that work in other countries with thinks that work in America and make a system unique to America.

As usual Moore seems to have a good intent but blurs it with his deceptive film making methods that cause people to focus on those instead of his goal.

Baby Lee
06-30-2007, 07:48 PM
As usual Moore seems to have a good intent but blurs it with his deceptive film making methods that cause people to focus on those instead of his goal.
Particularly when on The Daily Show, Jon asks him "what's the solution?" and he replies "Canada."
Messier might've missed that exchange.

I think that goes to a greater criticism of Moore overall.

He's good at finding specific instances of poignancy, and moving anecdotes, and damning isolated data. But he's content just to get everyone up in arms about how shitty [gun laws, auto industry, healthcare, etc.] is, with no concrete insight into how shitty or not-shitty it truly is, or what yo do to improve it.

Take this thread. People are talking about the plight of the poor in our medical system, assuming that must be what cause Moore'd be championing. When those reviewing the film say he presents the case that the rich have it good, AND the poor actually have it pretty darn good, it's the middle class getting screwed by red-tape, provisos and loopholes that's the thrust of the movie.

Then Messier assumes [not attacking, Messier], that Moore has a coherent platform he's presenting in this movie, when it's little more than 'doesn't it suck here? isn't it great over there?'

alnorth
06-30-2007, 08:20 PM
I think people should see the film. Moore isn't advocating we just switch to the same system as Canada, or London or, France, and I know not Cuba. He wants to incorporate things that work in other countries with thinks that work in America and make a system unique to America.

Wrong, Moore wants to ban private health insurance, nationalise health care like Canada, and strictly regulate the drug companies in a manner similar to public utilities.

In other words, long waiting lines, super-high taxes, a very strong disincentive for the drug companies to take any risks or innovate, basically misery for everyone... but that misery gets spread along to everyone equally and fairly.

As it is, the rest of the world is benefitting from the American drug company's pursuit of profit, they are allowed to sell at a huge markup in the US with patent protection, but the rest of the world forces them to slash costs in their countries. If we do the same, they stop innovating, and the rest of the world stops profiting off of our innovation at bargain prices.

People in Canada and Europe have been marvelling at Moore's film, wondering where the hell they can get the good care and short waiting times that he says they apparently have.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2007, 09:46 PM
I don't buy the line if Big Pharm can't patent they won't innovate.

I researched that one night on a cancer drug someone claims no one would bring to market as it was unpatentable as it was around before, just not for cancer. Yet, someone is now putting money into testing it for cancer. What I found is that, so long as their is a need for the drug then there will be a demand. And they can still make money. In fact what I found was that more things were not patentable and still made money. Now I'm not making a case for denying patents but I'd like to see some reform here,like te exceptions that ©s have.

Furthermore, Big Pharm uses a lot of university research that is funded by the govt....so they should have NO exclusive right to a patent in such cases. And with govt provided healthcare, even Medicaid and Medicare they get a gauranteed market to boot.

These days more of their drugs are a big fraud too. They're practically making up problems to treat. It's no wonder they want all vitamin supplements to be by prescription...so they can get rid of competition from alternative markets. Big Pharm is one of the worst case examples of business benefitting from govt, or too close a relationship. If they had to really compete in a real free market they'd not have this edge. And the people would be better off price wise and health wise.

alnorth
07-01-2007, 01:34 AM
I didnt say that removing patents was a deal-breaker. I said that regulating them like the utilities and forcing them to price towards a tiny profit will kill the incentive to take big risks, sticking instead to safe stuff that sells.

They might be able to deal with no patents, but tell them to only make a 7% return on equity, and you can say good-bye to the high-risk R&D investments into something like might have a very small chance of working without killing people.

That said, most companies dont have a huge up-front investment to deal with like drug companies. If you dont think the lack of patents will severely curtail research, your deluded, there would be a serious re-think of drug R&D based on cost vs benefit. Your cute little cancer example is just an anecdote, similar to what Michael Moore resorts to in areas where the facts do not support him. (The truth is that Canadians suffer horrific waiting lists for specialists? hmm... well, interview 100 people, we'll take the 3 idiots who say its all fine, and put them in the film! The truth is that a lack of patents would seriously reduce drug R&D? Hmmm... search for one example that bucks the trend, and trumpet that story!)

Messier
07-01-2007, 06:33 AM
Particularly when on The Daily Show, Jon asks him "what's the solution?" and he replies "Canada."
Messier might've missed that exchange.

I think that goes to a greater criticism of Moore overall.

He's good at finding specific instances of poignancy, and moving anecdotes, and damning isolated data. But he's content just to get everyone up in arms about how shitty [gun laws, auto industry, healthcare, etc.] is, with no concrete insight into how shitty or not-shitty it truly is, or what yo do to improve it.

Take this thread. People are talking about the plight of the poor in our medical system, assuming that must be what cause Moore'd be championing. When those reviewing the film say he presents the case that the rich have it good, AND the poor actually have it pretty darn good, it's the middle class getting screwed by red-tape, provisos and loopholes that's the thrust of the movie.

Then Messier assumes [not attacking, Messier], that Moore has a coherent platform he's presenting in this movie, when it's little more than 'doesn't it suck here? isn't it great over there?'


You must have missed him on Larry King, when he said that he doesn't want to switch to what Canada does or London, because we can't. We must adopt our own system, that incorporates the good things from other health care systems and keeps the things that work with our own,( I would guess mainly the timeliness and quality of the care.)

Messier
07-01-2007, 06:36 AM
Really, Moore's only message is that the medical insurance industry is getting in the way and should not be the middle man in health care, and I agree.

Simplex3
07-01-2007, 07:34 AM
I don't think Michael Moore and Cuba's medical system is the answer, but what is? How do you check uncontrollable greed in a freemarket economy?
...by getting the govt the hell out of it, and realizing that s**t happens.

Both of my grandmothers and my mother in law were diagnosed with cancer in the last three years. None of them went broke with treatments and drugs and surgeries. Why? They chose not to have them.

I think Americans, and I would guess many people around the world, are entirely too afraid of death. Medical science keeps telling us that age doesn't matter, that you can live forever. We extend the viability of our body out well past the viability of our mind and our true ability to live. I would venture to guess that if you asked every person in a nursing home if they've lived too long you'd be surprised at the number who would say "yes".

Life is for living, not for clinging to desperately.

Frazod
07-07-2007, 07:19 PM
...by getting the govt the hell out of it, and realizing that s**t happens.

Both of my grandmothers and my mother in law were diagnosed with cancer in the last three years. None of them went broke with treatments and drugs and surgeries. Why? They chose not to have them.

I think Americans, and I would guess many people around the world, are entirely too afraid of death. Medical science keeps telling us that age doesn't matter, that you can live forever. We extend the viability of our body out well past the viability of our mind and our true ability to live. I would venture to guess that if you asked every person in a nursing home if they've lived too long you'd be surprised at the number who would say "yes".

Life is for living, not for clinging to desperately.

I agree with this assessment. Of course, I'm 42. When I'm 82, it's quite possible that I won't. It's also possible that you won't, either. Holding on to life is a basic driving instinct.

Anyway, I'm not just mindlessly bumping this thread after a week - I saw Sicko this afternoon. It is exactly what you expect - valid points mixed with ridiculous propoganda. I realize that Canada, England, France and especially Cuba are NOT utopian societies. I also realize that since Canada, England and France exist under the blanket of U.S. protection, they don't need to expend tax dollars towards defense the way we do. And I also feel that if somebody has had four friggin heart attacks, maybe his number's just up.

However....

Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, conservative or liberal (othat than patteeu, I assume) you have to realize that our healthcare system is completely f#cked and in need of a massive overhaul. Profits at any cost and providing medical services for the general public just aren't really compatable, IMO. There needs to be some oversight, or something. Of course, the people who could do it have been bought and sold, so other than pissing people off, I doubt if this movie will end up accomplishing anything. But it was thought provoking and entertaining.

Sure hope I stay healthy. Good health only costs me and the wife $400 a month. Anything beyond that gets a bit pricy.

Mr. Kotter
07-07-2007, 08:36 PM
...valid points mixed with ridiculous propoganda...

A perfect....and I do mean, perfect, assessment of Michael Moore. :clap:

Taco John
07-07-2007, 09:39 PM
The original post was interesting. I was hoping for a thread of worthwhile discussion. Unfortunately, it looks like Kotter got here before the worthwhile discussion did, and pretty much wrecked the thread.

Mr. Kotter
07-07-2007, 10:16 PM
The original post was interesting. I was hoping for a thread of worthwhile discussion. Unfortunately, it looks like Kotter got here before the worthwhile discussion did, and pretty much wrecked the thread.

:huh:

My God, I have such...awesome power...I'm sooooo AMAZING. :rolleyes:

Go suck a new Bronco DL off so you can, maybe, keep LJ under 200 yds versus ya 'all. ROFL

Taco John
07-07-2007, 10:53 PM
It is what it is, man. You're a thread-wrecker. You bring little to threads, but you're in them a lot.

Mr. Kotter
07-07-2007, 10:57 PM
It is what it is, man. You're a thread-wrecker. You bring little to threads, but you're in them a lot.

Actually, I'm much more selective than I use to be. But, of course, you wouldn't notice....because you aren't here nearly like you use to be--which is probably a good thing, BTW.

;)

I honestly hope your new life as a dad, and as a "more involved" husband....has treated you well, as a re-prioritized life, in a good way...for you.

:)

Adept Havelock
07-08-2007, 10:24 AM
I also realize that since Canada, England and France exist under the blanket of U.S. protection, they don't need to expend tax dollars towards defense the way we do.

:hmmm:

Exactly whom are we "protecting" Canada from? They are a member of NATO, but that doesn't seem to be what you are alluding to.

BTW- I'm not so sure about our "Blanket of Protection" for England and France, either. England and France both have fairly large and modern land armies for nations of that size, Carriers and Ballistic Missile Submarines, and strategic nuclear deterrents created and controlled by those nations.

Yet they can still afford their medical systems (this is not a suggestion we should adopt them). :shrug:

banyon
07-14-2007, 11:07 AM
It's not surprising that almost everyone who criticizes this film will probably never see it. It's too bad as well, because after I saw it on Thursday, I think this is probably his best film since Roger and Me and possibly his most important. I did not like Farenheit 9-11, but this movie asks some really important questions that have too much credibility in the real world to be ignored.

For people saying that Moore wants us to adopt the Canadian system, he never says anything of the sort in the movie, although the movie implies that it's better than what we have.

For my part, I like John Edwards's plan because it will do the best job of answering the critics. He advocates a dual system (http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070614-health-care-costs-quality.pdf) that allows the current private system to compete alongside a public system and see which one people choose. Of course the private plans are pretty frightened by this because they know that they will lose.

In my job I have personally helped people appeal some of the denials made by health insurers and medical examiners. It's very telling in the film that M.E.'s often get paid with an incentive structure based on how many people they deny coverage to. There's also some footage of a Dr. who stares at some denials with his stamped signature that he admits he never even looked at prior to their being stamped. I once had a claims agent tell me that my client's acute mercury poisoning was not a "serious medical problem". I told him he might want to swallow a thermometer and see how it goes.

Anyway, frazod could not be more correct, whether you like or dislike Moore's style, the subject matter is probably the most important topic in the 08 election outside of Iraq. Our system is out of control and we need changes.

banyon
07-14-2007, 11:31 AM
Some comments for Mr. Loder's review.



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 18 million 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 in urgent need of reform, no question. Some 47 million people are uninsured (although many are only temporarily so, being either in-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, save one.

Moore specifically states at the beginning of the film that his movie is not about the uninsured, but about the insured who are being denied coverage. Loder seems to have strolled into the movie late and missed this point.

As a proud socialist, the director appears to feel that there are few problems in life that can't be solved by government regulation (that would be the same government that's already given us the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles).

Um, I guess he missed where Moore specifically ridicules people who lable attempts at reforming healthcare as socialists. Moore's point is that some services (viz. healthcare) may be better suited to be run as not for profit operations, while others are not. A very weak ad hominem.

In the case of health care, though, Americans have never been keen on socialized medicine. In 1993, when one of Moore's heroes, Hillary Clinton (he actually blurts out the word "sexy!" in describing her in the movie), tried to create a government-controlled health care system, her failed attempt to do so helped deliver the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives into Republican control for the next dozen years.

The "sexy" comment was clearly in jest, as the photos chosen would indicate. I have no idea how Loder missed that.

(various unsubstantiated anecdotes from one book...)

Great, :rolleyes: there's one book out there with some people who haid to wait a while. That's still preferable to not even being able to wait because of being denied coverage. That's what Sicko is about.


As it turns out, France can't. In 2004, French Health Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told a government commission, "Our health system has gone mad. Profound reforms are urgent." Agence France-Presse recently reported that the French health-care system is running a deficit of $2.7 billion. And in the French presidential election in May, voters in surprising numbers rejected the Socialist candidate, Sιgolθne Royal, who had promised actually to raise some health benefits, and elected instead the center-right politician Nicolas Sarkozy, who, according to Agence France-Presse again, "plans to move fast to overhaul the economy, with the deficit-ridden health care system a primary target." Possibly Sarkozy should first consult with Michael Moore. After all, the tax-stoked French health care system may be expensive, but at least it's "free."

Wow, Kurt Loder, they are running a deficit of $2.7 billion in health care? Have you ever looked at our defecits? Even so, the point is that what we are spending privately on for less care is still far greater than what France spends, whether it is in tax dollars or from our checkbooks.

However, there's never a moment when we doubt that he's also using these people as props in his film, and as talking points in his agenda. Renting some boats, he leads them all off to Cuba. Upon arrival they stop briefly outside the American military enclave on Guantanamo Bay so that Moore can have himself filmed begging, through a bullhorn, for some of the free, top-notch medical care that's currently being lavished on the detainees there. Having no luck, he then moves on to Cuba proper.

Yep, it's a movie, not an episode of 60 Minutes, so there had to be something to keep people awake. Big surprise.

... Moore, shown beaming at his little band of visitors, says he told the Cuban doctors to "give them the same care they'd give Cuban citizens." Then he adds, dramatically: "And they did."

If Moore really believes this, he may be a greater fool than even his most feverish detractors claim him to be. Nevertheless, medical care is provided to the visiting Americans, and it is indeed excellent. Cuba is in fact the site of some world-class medical facilities

I agree with this criticism. I thought it too when I was watching the film that he really didn't examine what kind of treatment ordinary Cubans got and I'm sure they jumped at the chance to show how great they were.

Overall, though, Loder seems to miss the main message of the movie almost entirely and relies on some minutae to ineffectively criticize a much broader movie than he is willing to give it credit for. It looks like that as MTV got more corporatized in the last twenty years, so did Mr. Loder.

recxjake
07-14-2007, 12:31 PM
I saw it.... I liked it for the most part.... I don't like his solutions, but I like that he is creating a national debate on the issue. Something has to be done because what we currently are doing isn't working.

My biggest problem with the movie is his constant use of the word "free".... there is nothing free about it.

banyon
07-14-2007, 12:36 PM
I saw it.... I liked it for the most part.... I don't like his solutions, but I like that he is creating a national debate on the issue. Something has to be done because what we currently are doing isn't working.

My biggest problem with the movie is his constant use of the word "free".... there is nothing free about it.

I don't recall him continually using the word "free". He does ask a lot of people abroad what they had to pay and that was something that people replied with though.

Adept Havelock
07-14-2007, 12:36 PM
I saw it. Interesting film. Some things I agreed with, and some I didn't. I will say he's one of the more effective propagandists in the biz, and I'm damn glad he's not working for the Government.

I do have to wonder how the guy who runs the "watchdog" anti-MM site felt when he realized MM anon. donated the funds to help his wife out and allow him to keep running his website. I thought that was a nice touch.

Hell of a propagandist, agree with him or not.

recxjake
07-14-2007, 12:43 PM
I don't recall him continually using the word "free". He does ask a lot of people abroad what they had to pay and that was something that people replied with though.

It wasn't just him, it was the people he interviewed... but he always said how much did you pay... free, free, free.... but not one mention about how much they pay in income taxes.

banyon
07-14-2007, 12:49 PM
It wasn't just him, it was the people he interviewed... but he always said how much did you pay... free, free, free.... but not one mention about how much they pay in income taxes.

Actually he did interview that french couple who made about $80k (IIRC) about their financial status. But it really doesn't matter, because we are still paying far more for healthcare than they do, it's just out of our checkbooks.

Simplex3
07-15-2007, 07:31 AM
Actually he did interview that french couple who made about $80k (IIRC) about their financial status. But it really doesn't matter, because we are still paying far more for healthcare than they do, it's just out of our checkbooks.
Except that, unlike them, we can actually GET health care.

banyon
07-15-2007, 07:49 AM
Except that, unlike them, we can actually GET health care.

If you have money.

Simplex3
07-15-2007, 09:03 AM
If you have money.
Yeah, or if you're smart enough to find an emergency room.

It's illegal to turn away someone with life-threatening injuries, money or not. Everything else is truthfully unnecessary anyway.

banyon
07-15-2007, 09:24 AM
Yeah, or if you're smart enough to find an emergency room.

It's illegal to turn away someone with life-threatening injuries, money or not. Everything else is truthfully unnecessary anyway.

So now we are back to square one, since it's illegal to turn away the people in Canada, UK and France as well and the people with elective treatments have to wait.

You should at least watch the movie before you try to criticize it so vehemently with a couple of blithe, pithy comments.

And the fact that turning away patients with emergency situations is illegal is true, but doesn't do anyone any good if not enforced. There are several examples of patient dumping in the film.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 07:05 AM
So now we are back to square one, since it's illegal to turn away the people in Canada, UK and France as well and the people with elective treatments have to wait.

You should at least watch the movie before you try to criticize it so vehemently with a couple of blithe, pithy comments.

And the fact that turning away patients with emergency situations is illegal is true, but doesn't do anyone any good if not enforced. There are several examples of patient dumping in the film.

OK, banyon. You inspired me to go see the movie. Too bad... :rolleyes:

Let me say this, clearly....Michael Moore, and those who think he has portrayed the problem in an honest and fair way (including you, apparently) could not be more FOS.

It's just more of the same from him....cherry picked propaganda used to try to incite controversy and to demagogue an issue (and enrich himself.)

Is heathcare a problem? There is no doubt about it. Absolutely. Do we need to arrange some sort of reasonable solution to address the problems with our system? Sure we do. On the other hand, it's a tremendously complex and difficult issue for which a one-size-fits-all or band-aid solution....will likely only make things worse in many ways.

If Moore thinks there isn't enough attention given to the issue, I'd agree....to a point, with that. However, even with that....politicians (on both sides of the isle,) NOT the media, are the ones to blame for that. The media has given plenty of attention to the issues; politicians are the only ones, outside of medicine itself, who are going to be able to play a significant role in fixing this problem.

Check his latest on-going BS with CNN....

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/15/moore.gupta/index.html

penchief
07-16-2007, 07:58 AM
OK, banyon. You inspired me to go see the movie. Too bad... :rolleyes:

Let me say this, clearly....Michael Moore, and those who think he has portrayed the problem in an honest and fair way (including you, apparently) could not be more FOS.

It's just more of the same from him....cherry picked propaganda used to try to incite controversy and to demagogue an issue (and enrich himself.)

Is heathcare a problem? There is no doubt about it. Absolutely. Do we need to arrange some sort of reasonable solution to address the problems with our system? Sure we do. On the other hand, it's a tremendously complex and difficult issue for which a one-size-fits-all or band-aid solution....will likely only make things worse in many ways.

If Moore thinks there isn't enough attention given to the issue, I'd agree....to a point, with that. However, even with that....politicians (on both sides of the isle,) NOT the media, are the ones to blame for that. The media has given plenty of attention to the issues; politicians are the only ones, outside of medicine itself, who are going to be able to play a significant role in fixing this problem.

Check his latest on-going BS with CNN....

It's simple. Take greed out of the equation. It's an issue of humanity, not a free pass for corporate gluttons to overindulge themselves at the expense of people's lives and livelihoods. Take away any incentive that the greed-based system has to deny people essential care and that would go a long long way in curbing the abuse, IMO.

banyon
07-16-2007, 08:53 AM
OK, banyon. You inspired me to go see the movie. Too bad... :rolleyes:

Let me say this, clearly....Michael Moore, and those who think he has portrayed the problem in an honest and fair way (including you, apparently) could not be more FOS.

It's just more of the same from him....cherry picked propaganda used to try to incite controversy and to demagogue an issue (and enrich himself.)

Do you have any specific criticisms, or just generalized animosity?

Is heathcare a problem? There is no doubt about it. Absolutely. Do we need to arrange some sort of reasonable solution to address the problems with our system? Sure we do. On the other hand, it's a tremendously complex and difficult issue for which a one-size-fits-all or band-aid solution....will likely only make things worse in many ways.

I don't recall the film proposing such a solution. Could you be more specific? Did you walk in with the expectation that Michael Moore was going to resolve our health care problems in 2 hours? You must think more highly of him than you admit.

If Moore thinks there isn't enough attention given to the issue, I'd agree....to a point, with that. However, even with that....politicians (on both sides of the isle,) NOT the media, are the ones to blame for that. The media has given plenty of attention to the issues; politicians are the only ones, outside of medicine itself, who are going to be able to play a significant role in fixing this problem.

Check his latest on-going BS with CNN....

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/15/moore.gupta/index.html

B.S. The Media is slowly abdicating its public duties bit by bit over the last 30 years and you well know it. Michael Moore is right we do have better things to do than fill our "news" shows with 80% celebrity gossip.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 08:55 AM
It's simple. Take greed out of the equation. It's an issue of humanity, not a free pass for corporate gluttons to overindulge themselves at the expense of people's lives and livelihoods. Take away any incentive that the greed-based system has to deny people essential care and that would go a long long way in curbing the abuse, IMO.

So, socialized medicine is your answer? Okay. Thanks for that.

Do you have any specific criticisms, or just generalized animosity?

I don't recall the film proposing such a solution. Could you be more specific? Did you walk in with the expectation that Michael Moore was going to resolve our health care problems in 2 hours? You must think more highly of him than you admit.

B.S. The Media is slowly abdicating its public duties bit by bit over the last 30 years and you well know it. Michael Moore is right we do have better things to do than fill our "news" shows with 80% celebrity gossip.

I've wasted more than enough time, IMO...on Moore, thanks to you. ;)

OTOH, if I get some time to waste....later, I may indulge you. Seriously though, t's not an attempt to evade you.... but I'll have to try to get back later.

Hydrae
07-16-2007, 11:04 AM
So, socialized medicine is your answer? Okay. Thanks for that.



I've wasted more than enough time, IMO...on Moore, thanks to you. ;)

OTOH, if I get some time to waste....later, I may indulge you. Seriously though, t's not an attempt to evade you.... but I'll have to try to get back later.


Sorry but if you are not going to watch the piece being discussed, get out of the thread! Talk about credibility issues. :rolleyes:

Cochise
07-16-2007, 11:09 AM
B.S. The Media is slowly abdicating its public duties bit by bit over the last 30 years and you well know it.

Yes, they have gone from reporting the news to managing public opinion.

Baby Lee
07-16-2007, 11:15 AM
Sorry but if you are not going to watch the piece being discussed, get out of the thread! Talk about credibility issues. :rolleyes:
:spock:
OK, banyon. You inspired me to go see the movie. Too bad... :rolleyes:
Kotter was just saying he's not gonna waste time drafting a treatise on his specific beefs with Moore.

Hydrae
07-16-2007, 11:20 AM
That's no surprise given the number of U.S. specialists. In U.S. medical schools, students training to become primary-care physicians have dwindled to 10 percent. The overwhelming majority choose far more profitable specialties in the medical field. In other countries, more than one out of three aspiring doctors chooses primary care in part because there's less of an income gap with specialists. In those nations, becoming a specialist means making 30 percent more than a primary-care physician. In the United States, the gap is around 300 percent, according to Keckley.


That is a good part of the problem right there. Which goes back to what Fraz has said all along, this should not be a for profit industry.

I tell you what, let us get cheap or free preventative medicine and we can go from there. Improve the basic health level will help to reduce the need for larger, more expensive treatments.

Oh, and we really should include dental in this. Dental health can have a major impact on overall health, perhaps more than any other single area of the body.

Hydrae
07-16-2007, 11:22 AM
:spock:

Kotter was just saying he's not gonna waste time drafting a treatise on his specific beefs with Moore.


Ok, you are probably correct. My bad.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 11:44 AM
Ok, you are probably correct. My bad.

Yeah, it's two hours of my life I won't get back either. :cuss:


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Hydrae
07-16-2007, 11:52 AM
Yeah, it's two hours of my life I won't get back either. :cuss:


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


And not one good point in the whole thing? Personally the highlight of the movie was at about 1:08:00 when he is talking to an older English gentleman (don't remember who he was). The older guy talked about how a demoralized society will accept whatever it is fed. Sure sounded familiar in many ways. I have said for several years now that I believe our society is clinically depressed.

penchief
07-16-2007, 11:58 AM
So, socialized medicine is your answer? Okay. Thanks for that.

I'm not sure that's exactly what I said but go ahead and paint it anyway you choose.

I said, "remove greed from the equation," and you respond that I'm advocating soicialized medicine.

So if people believe that corporate greed is corrupting the system they are automatically a bunch of socialists? See, this is where I think the right has been brainwashed by the "free-market" rantings of the corpo-fascists.

Eliminating greed from the system might mean something as simple as regulating the system in order to prevent abuses, unethical business practices, or obscene profits based on the corporate welfare practices of the federal government.

Regulation is just that; a regulator. Something that regulates balance in the name of perpetuating that which is good for everybody.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 12:06 PM
And not one good point in the whole thing? Personally the highlight of the movie was at about 1:08:00 when he is talking to an older English gentleman (don't remember who he was). The older guy talked about how a demoralized society will accept whatever it is fed. Sure sounded familiar in many ways. I have said for several years now that I believe our society is clinically depressed.

Some of the anecdotes and personal testimony were compelling. Many of the interviews began to sound the same. Society sure seems frustrated by the healthcare dilemma, that is true. And certainly, the fact that ant-depressants are now the largest class of drugs being despensed in this country speaks to your last thought.

However, I also think....depression is over-diagnosed and is more sympomatic of other health-related issues (obesity, lack of sleep and exercise, for example)--and that a government run and managed healthcare system would be worse than the one we presently have. Doctors and hospitals are giving Americans what we demand, in our search for the fountain of youth...and it's an obsession that's become damn expensive. On the other hand, market forces and government regulation/coercion to make basic, preventative, and catostrophic care...really need to get going. Unfortunately, things like elective services, lifestyle choices, and "long term care" really cloud the whole debate.....between what is necessary, and what we can really afford.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 12:08 PM
I'm not sure that's exactly what I said but go ahead and paint it anyway you choose.

I said, "remove greed from the equation," and you respond that I'm advocating soicialized medicine.

So if people believe that corporate greed is corrupting the system they are automatically a bunch of socialists? See, this is where I think the right has been brainwashed by the "free-market" rantings of the corpo-fascists.

Eliminating greed from the system might mean something as simple as regulating the system in order to prevent abuses, unethical business practices, or obscene profits based on the corporate welfare practices of the federal government.

Regulation is just that; a regulator. Something that regulates balance in the name of perpetuating that which is good for everybody.

Regulation already exists. More may be needed. How much more, though....can you be specific?

You go much further, and you begin to approach a socialistic system, pretty quickly IMO.

Hydrae
07-16-2007, 12:22 PM
Some of the anecdotes and personal testimony were compelling. Many of the interviews began to sound the same. Society sure seems frustrated by the healthcare dilemma, that is true. And certainly, the fact that ant-depressants are now the largest class of drugs being despensed in this country speaks to your last thought.

However, I also think....depression is over-diagnosed and is more sympomatic of other health-related issues (obesity, lack of sleep and exercise, for example)--and that a government run and managed healthcare system would be worse than the one we presently have. Doctors and hospitals are giving Americans what we demand, in our search for the fountain of youth...and it's an obsession that's become damn expensive. On the other hand, market forces and government regulation/coercion to make basic, preventative, and catostrophic care...really need to get going. Unfortunately, things like elective services, lifestyle choices, and "long term care" really cloud the whole debate.....between what is necessary, and what we can really afford.


I completely agree that depression is WAY over diagnosed. My thinking though is to diagnose the society, not the individuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_depression

...

Although a low mood or state of dejection that does not affect functioning is often colloquially referred to as depression, clinical depression is a clinical diagnosis and may be different from the everyday meaning of "being depressed." Many people identify the feeling of being clinically depressed as "feeling sad for no reason", or "having no motivation to do anything." A person suffering from depression may feel tired, sad, irritable, lazy, unmotivated, and apathetic. Clinical depression is generally acknowledged to be more serious than normal depressed feelings. It often leads to constant negative thinking and sometimes substance abuse. Extreme depression can culminate in its sufferers attempting or committing suicide.

...


Given the helplessness most voters exhibit by not even bothering to vote. How much people are unhappy with Washington but don't really do anything about it? The resorting to drugs and alcohol not to mention the mindless stuff we zone out on on the tube these days. Don't look at the individuals so much as looking at the country as a single entity.

penchief
07-16-2007, 03:31 PM
Regulation already exists. More may be needed. How much more, though....can you be specific?

You go much further, and you begin to approach a socialistic system, pretty quickly IMO.

If we already had the proper regulation we wouldn't be experiencing the kind of problems we're experiencing. Which are being brought on by the profit-driven priorities of the health care industry. They have way too much sway.

go bowe
07-31-2007, 12:33 PM
threadwrecker...

penchief
08-02-2007, 05:45 PM
threadwrecker...

Who or what do you mean?

go bowe
08-03-2007, 10:47 AM
Who or what do you mean?i was trying to respond to my good buddy kotter...

you guys post faster than i do...