If the ending, without giving too much away, doesn't drive the point home, I don't know what will. If Americans had to flee to our supposed enemy, Cuba, to get the real treatment that they needed, where the hell does that leave us? It was sickening and should have been enough of an argument to support socialized health care.

I bet if the rich had to deal with HMOs they (HMOs) wouldn't be such a problem. Bottom of the barrel programs for the poor are always going to suck. Complications lessen when a program is equalized.

elliott (otiose)...

I've avoided looking at or replying to this topic until I saw "Sicko," so today I will grace you with some hastily written ramblings.

I turned twenty-eight last week.

I've had health insurance for exactly fourteen months of my life, when I worked for a Canadian beer company from the ages of 24-25. I've worked since the age of fourteen, just not at jobs that offer insurance...same as my mom.

Basically, what Moore said was true about the uninsured.

While you don't get turned away from ERs in life-threatening situations, you get turned away from doctors. I totaled my car last fall, and had 25K in medical coverage. No doctor would see me after I was referred from the ER until my claims rep from Progressive faxed over proof of Financial Responsibility and spoke with them on the phone. Seriously. Nine doctors.

Most recently, I was days away from losing a large percentage of hearing in my right ear...I didn't want to drop $1200 on an E.R. visit when I've got to move to LA for USC at month's end...but finally, I caved in when my ear started bleeding and I had a 103 fever... My prescriptions cost another three-fifty, and BAM! A month's rent in the city of angels is gone...I just count my blessings that I make enough money as a freelance writer not to have been greatly impacted...it just meant I couldn't come out to LA to visit before I moved there.

When I had insurance, apparently it was great insurance, if I learned nothing from Moore's film...There was no BS about pre-existing conditions, I could choose my own doctors and hospitals, and when I knowingly got a benign two-ounce lump removed from my breast, even though it was "optional" surgery, it cost me a grand total of fifteen bucks.

But it was also a union plan, so that's a whole nother ball game when compared to HMOs.


That's really all I have to say at this moment, and it was probably too much anyway.

In order to fund this, taxes would have to be radically increased
I understand Moore's argument that this increase in tax payments would actually be less than the average amount of copays and premiums that a person pays per year...
but its also has been proven over time that higher taxes seriously damage the economy in the long run.

I wonder if any parallels could be drawn between the food industry and the health industry (both are needs, life/death situations) and how they should be operate and function.

quote:

Originally posted by braininabox:
In order to fund this, taxes would have to be radically increased

I'm not sure how "radically" they'd have to be increased - but they'd be increased. There are ways to do it where the really wealthy pay a larger percentage of it to take the burden off of the people with lower incomes. (for starters - rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and putting back the inheritance tax that only affects the wealthiest people)

quote:

but its also has been proven over time that higher taxes seriously damage the economy in the long run.

ORLY? Where is this proven? We have the lowest taxes out of most countries in the world. Other countries seem to be doing just fine with higher taxes.

-Chris
Studentfilms.com

quote:

Originally posted by Studentfilms.com:
ORLY? Where is this proven? We have the lowest taxes out of most countries in the world. Other countries seem to be doing just fine with higher taxes.

Maybe it was just the bias of my economics professors, but the inverse relationship between tax rate vs. economic efficiency rate was taught as a fact. The more money people are giving to the government through taxes, the less money they have to spend on other goods and services. This decrease in spending hurts business which then in turn results in higher unemployment rates.
The French economy and debt statistics aren't looking too great by the way...I think I remember reading somewhere that their President declared they were in an state of economic emergency.

quote:

Originally posted by braininabox:
The more money people are giving to the government through taxes, the less money they have to spend on other goods and services. This decrease in spending hurts business which

I don't completely buy this reasoning. Bush dropped taxes alot (albeit mainly for his rich buddies) and the economy is doing pretty bad right now. The economy was doing great during the previous years before his tax cuts. This points to the fact that there might not be such a big correlation after all.

Any boost from lowering taxes is short lived at best. OOooh! A quick refund let me buy a TV - but after that? what...nothing. It's a short term boost - not a long term one.

Look at it this way - I think that a universal health care system will BOOST the economy because people won't be as worried about their health and being buried in health costs. That's a long term boost.

Healthy people = healthy economy. (well maybe not for the drug companies that make you think you need a pill for everything)

-Chris
Studentfilms.com

Don't get me wrong...I definitely thing universal healthcare is a viable solution. It would definitely fix our health system atrocity, regardless of whether there were any economic repercussions.

However there are other possible solutions, and as an advocate of small government and low taxes, I am turned off to the socialized medicine argument and more sympathetic to returning to the way our health care was before Nixon corrupted it by trying to reel in profit through it.

quote:

Chris said:
Bush dropped taxes alot (albeit mainly for his rich buddies) and the economy is doing pretty bad right now.

But, like you observed, these tax cuts are mostly geared toward a select few with high incomes. Plus, we have plenty other reasons why the American economy is in decline now: Our exports are dwindling; Our workforce is imbalanced because of the babyboomer generation retiring; We sold our freakin' oil reserves five years ago; Terrorism still scares us; China can do everything we can cheaper and better; China exports everything; China is taking America's investors; China > America. And anyway, even if the tax cuts did benefit the average American, it would take years to notice the effects.

quote:

I think that a universal health care system will BOOST the economy because people won't be as worried about their health and being buried in health costs.

Right now, moving health care away from the private sector would detriment the economy, and that would probably linger for awhile. The U.S. government is already shirking responsibility for American soldiers and their families. Our taxes can't even cover their injuries.

quote:

Healthy people = healthy economy.

Strangely enough, because our economy has been so great, Americans got fat and sickly, their medical bills soared, thus healthcare suffered, and now we're a nation of unhealthy people with poor medical coverage in an unhealthy economy.

I like the idea of free, universal healthcare, but it's far off, and we probably have bigger concerns soon anyway.

As for the film, I haven't seen it, and I hate Moore's style. He's a sorry journalist. He does no fact-digging. He stands on the shoulders of innovative, brave reporters, takes what's already been said and screams it. Moore said Fahrenheit 9/11 would show Americans things they had never seen before, and he was right... only because Americans had rather buy a movie ticket than a subscription to Newsweek. I guess I mostly like what Moore is trying to do, but I despise the way he does it. His films are slick and sensational, and he has everybody in them saying exactly what he wants them to say. They're not documentaries as much as they are Moore's tools and weapons to push an agenda and his own public image.

I'll probably see Sicko, though.

quote:

Originally posted by Harris:

I like the idea of free, universal healthcare, but it's far off, and we probably have bigger concerns soon anyway.

Unfortunately this may be true.

quote:

As for the film, I haven't seen it, and I hate Moore's style. He's a sorry journalist. He does no fact-digging.

Well I can't argue that you don't like his style. But no fact digging? Come on. I doubt that.

However, this is the most un-Michael Moore-ish film of them all. It really is a good film. He does make good arguments.

He's NOT a journalist - he's a documentarian. There's a difference. He does try to show the other side's opinion and he shows his response to it.

I really don't understand why universal health care is so controversial. Who wouldn't want to know that if god forbid they do get sick it won't bankrupt them or they will get the needed medical attention and treatment?

-Chris
Studentfilms.com

quote:

Originally posted by Studentfilms.com:
I really don't understand why universal health care is so controversial.

Libertarianism vs. Socialism!

Obviously everyone that supports Universal Health Care is not a raging communist, and everyone that is against Universal Health Care is not an anarchist...
but how we handle this issue is a HUGE foreshadowing of what direction or country will head in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by braininabox:
Libertarianism vs. Socialism!

So, jerk off corporations versus jerk off government? Well, honestly, neither of them have really earned my trust in my lifetime. However, if a liberal president were elected, I'd be more inclined to trust him over anyone who's doing anything for money rather than the benefit of their fellow man.

Even if my signature quote is about something entirely different, if we took it to heart, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. God's honest truth is, if our taxes weren't paying for a lot of **** they shouldn't be paying for, we could have socialized health care and not think twice about having that second Royale avec fromage.

elliott (otiose)...

I never fully appreciated universal health care until i saw this film. A few years back, my mother was diagnosed with a potentially, but not emmediately life threatening heart condition which required multiple surgeries to correct. These procedures likely cost near $100 000 each. Having lived in Canada my whole life, i found it absolutely shocking that people could be denied treatment if their insurance would not cover it because the treatment is experimental.

Perhaps i am ignorant, having been relatively oblivious to the way health care works in the united states, but i am truely thankful that the kinds of situations depicted in this film have never even crossed my mind before now....I never dreamed that this kind of thing happened.

Libertarians and other free-market proponents really need to get over the whole notion that socialized medicine will turn us into the Soviet Union.

And for those arguing that taxes would be dramatically increased, the amount of money people pay in the US for healthcare is far more than the taxes they would pay for a universal system. The US spends more money per person on healthcare than any other country in the world.

On another note, the whole American, free market ethic is supposed to promote individualism and entrepreneuship. People are much less free when crippled with health expenses, and entrepreneuship is discouraged since Americans are likely to stay at a job with health benefits than to take any risks.

quote:

Originally posted by DrMagnificent:
Libertarians and other free-market proponents really need to get over the whole notion that socialized medicine will turn us into the Soviet Union.

Libertarians understand this already. Socialized medicine will not turn our country into an immediate intrusive communist society. You are right. However, it IS an issue if our answer to all of our problems becomes "ENLARGE THE GOVERNMENT". Its that mindset that Libertarians are fighting, not necessarily the individual issue of universal healthcare. If US socialized medicine becomes a reality...its just another step in that direction of thinking:
Small amount of evidence that shows our world is becoming hotter and hotter gradually? Enlarge the government and monitor and restrict CO2 emmisions.
Too many Americans to keep track of? Enlarge the government and issue everyone a national ID card.

People against socialized medicine are just trying to destroy that "enlarge the government" mindset before it becomes out of control.

Is it the idea of spending your own money for projects that may benefit other people that you don't like?

Did you read his post? It's the idea of enlarging the government that he doesn't like it seems.

I can't speak for braininabox, but we do seem to have similar opinions on this issue. For me, I certainly don't have a problem with spending my money to benefit other people. But why do you automatically say the government should get involved? The best solution, in my opinion, would be for people to take a more humanitarian approach to these issues without depending on the feds to do everything for them. There's apparently a lot of people who are fed up with the costs of medical care, yet instead of trying to do something about it themselves, most seem to just want to let the gov solve it. I can't speak for other places in the world, but U.S. government has a tendency to **** up most of what it touches. I would be much more inclined to try to solve this problem privately before offering the government more money/power to abuse.

quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Prokosch:
Is it the idea of spending your own money for projects that may benefit other people that you don't like?

Absolutely not. If you noticed I advocated returning to the locally run low-cost charity hospitals of the 50's and 60's.

I agree with politicsofecstasy. I think people have reinterpreted what the government's roles and responsibilities are.

quote:

Originally posted by politicsofecstasy: U.S. government has a tendency to **** up most of what it touches

Just look at the Department of Education...public schooling is free and socialized, but it is also failing miserably and noone is satisfied with it. Do you really think the same government that is inefficient at running our education system should be allowed to be in charge of our personal health and well-being?

Just came back from seeing it. I am so angry at our country and all the greedy fat bald men in big chairs without a care in the world for anyone or anything but their own goddamn pocketbook. This country is driven by greed, by $$$ and by ignorant fools like Bush. I pray this country can turn itself around come next election. Or impeach the SOB and burn all those insurance headquarters to the ground. Yeah, that's right, Patriot Act be damned.