Sicko: whaddayathink?

[Bunz]

We might be better off to trust the individual states to come up with 50 plans, rather than to trust the feds to come up with one.

I would agree, health coverage administered by the government should be done largely on the state level. What works in California probably wont work in smaller state and vice versa. It will also let individual state direct monies into areas they identify as needing focus, obesity, AIDS, whatever is a serious issue that is a local issue. Blanket programs across a nation as large and diverse as America is difficult at best.

 

[PLC1]

I would agree, health coverage administered by the government should be done largely on the state level. What works in California probably wont work in smaller state and vice versa. It will also let individual state direct monies into areas they identify as needing focus, obesity, AIDS, whatever is a serious issue that is a local issue. Blanket programs across a nation as large and diverse as America is difficult at best.

Not only that, b ut if we take back the money that the federal government wastes, we should be able to pay for a health care system with no new taxes.

 

[Bunz]

Not only that, b ut if we take back the money that the federal government wastes, we should be able to pay for a health care system with no new taxes.

While I think everything needs to be done to prevent waste and fraud of public monies, I seems to me the wise way to go about federal spending on healthcare should be given to the states and let them divvy it up(with a full accounting of course) My theory is to just pass the funds through the states and let the states supplement thier needs with thier own money.

 

[Cookie Parker]

Laughable?

This might not be the place to start a discussion on the economic and social situation of France, but it's not going that well. There is huge unemployment, especially among the young, and they aren't rioting in Paris for floppy fun!

As opposed to Johnny and Judy living at home with mommy and daddy in the US and working part-time at McDonalds you mean?

 

[Cookie Parker]

And that is the problem. And it needs to be addressed. We need to end the influence of the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical lobby.

But the left's solution is irrational. What the left is saying is that they want the same elected officials who are at the bottom of our current problems to totally remake the system with greater government control. Again, it's irrational - trusting the people who have screwed the entire system up to miraculously fix it.

No, the left isn't saying that...the right is saying the left is saying that....

 

[USMC the Almighty]

No, the left isn't saying that...the right is saying the left is saying that....

So the left's solution to healthcare isn't "nationalize" or "socialize" it which means put the government in control? Tell me then, what is their solution?

 

[Popeye]

The left's solution should be universal health care. Canada has it, the UK has the NHS, what's the problem with the US having it?

There are approximately 4 insurance and pharmaceutical company lobbyists for every 1 member of congress, that tell you something? Money, money, money, who cares about people who have died because they couldn't get the right treatment due to lack of funds, or have been denied treatment by their sleazy insurance company. How about a little dumping of hospital patients who can't pay their bill? Truly, only in America.

Meanwhile, half the population has been brainwashed with this "socialized medicine" nonsense, scare stories abound. Making it sound as if Lucifer himself came up with the idea. All of it fostered by the insurance lobby and the politicos working for them, how can what they say be taken seriously?

 

[Horizon]

I saw Michael Moore's new documentary Sicko on sunday. I was wondering what Americans think about it?

I was pretty shocked, coming from a country where everybody gets care, no matter whether you are insured or not.
Still, I must say that some scenes were REALLY over the top: the happy people in the British NHS for instance. I lived in the UK for a year and they are actually very unhappy with the level of care they receive, especially in poor neighbourhoods. Still, if Moore is right about the US, people not getting ANY care at all, children dying because of this and patients being dumped on the street by hospitals while theyre still in their surgery gowns?
That's really bad.

So, what do you guys think?

you probably got a wrong impression of the people of UK. they are pretty happy of the health care provided over there.

and Mr. Moore is right on his stance on the condition of american health care system. even many undeveloped countries do have better health care compared to US. and Moore had sufficient evidences to support his claims. but the gitmo part was an exaggeration.

 

[9sublime]

I'm from the UK, and the actual treatment you recieve is top class. Its just that the waiting lists can be very long.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

I'm from the UK, and the actual treatment you recieve is top class. Its just that the waiting lists can be very long.

Like most things, it all depends on who you ask. I found this story from earlier this month interesting, and it is only one of several I found citing different serious problems with the health care system (NIH) in GB.

Michael Moore - he's a self-serving "investigator" (Ha!) who will use any technique from unconscionable over-emphasizing, to manipulation of situations and facts, to taking quotes out of context, to down-right lying to serve his purpose. A shame - he started out truly wanting to be the voice of truth to the blue-collar world.

 

[Popeye]

Like most things, it all depends on who you ask. I found this story from earlier this month interesting, and it is only one of several I found citing different serious problems with the health care system (NIH) in GB.

Though Sublime would know best, I believe the Telegraph is a conservative newspaper.

Michael Moore - he's a self-serving "investigator" (Ha!) who will use any technique from unconscionable over-emphasizing, to manipulation of situations and facts, to taking quotes out of context, to down-right lying to serve his purpose. A shame - he started out truly wanting to be the voice of truth to the blue-collar world.

How many of his movies have you actually seen? I've heard the right wing continually complaining that his movies are lies and biased, but nobody on the right admits to seeing them. They just listen to Rush or watch O'Reilly and take their lead from those bozos. You wouldn't be doing that now, would you?

The fact the right hates Michael Moore so much speaks volumes as to the validity of his charges. His documentaries are factual, albeit presented from a left wing point of view.

 

[vyo476]

How many of his movies have you actually seen? I've heard the right wing continually complaining that his movies are lies and biased, but nobody on the right admits to seeing them. They just listen to Rush or watch O'Reilly and take their lead from those bozos. You wouldn't be doing that now, would you?

I'm not so fond of Moore anymore. I liked Bowling for Columbine (when I saw it three years ago), but I thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was over-the-top (fifteen straight minutes of a woman crying over her dead son, a soldier, was excessive, unnecessary, and just kind of a jerky thing to put on film) and largely irrelevant (all that talk about the Bush-Bin Laden family ties didn't suggest anything to me that would have served Moore's purposes).

I've yet to see Sicko. Maybe it'll be better than his last offerings. I miss the good old days when he did things like Stupid White Men. That was some quality stuff.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Though Sublime would know best, I believe the Telegraph is a conservative newspaper.

I've no idea if The Telegraph is conservative or not. What I did note in reading it was there was nearly nothing that indicated the writer (or the papers') political position. Perhaps if I had a bit more personal, first-hand insight into British politics I could read more into it.

For the most part, it seemed to be merely reporting statistical facts and details on the Healthcare Commission report on the current NHS performance on the front lines of hospitalized patients. I've no idea of the "Commission", it's origin or political purpose, if any.

Conservative, liberal, independent or Martian - does it matter the origin if the facts are accurate, and presented with a minimum of personal bias? To discount something simply because it is of conservative origin is an assault on reason.

How many of his movies have you actually seen? I've heard the right wing continually complaining that his movies are lies and biased, but nobody on the right admits to seeing them. They just listen to Rush or watch O'Reilly and take their lead from those bozos. You wouldn't be doing that now, would you?

Since you ask, I've seen every movie from Moore except Sicko. Whether I agreed with all his perceptions and views or not, I found all of them thought-provoking and felt that I had not wasted my time by watching them. It is nearly impossible to keep personal bias out of any report or documentary, although attempting to just cite facts is preferable. My problem with Moore's bias is that he has increasingly resorted to emotionalism, distortion and downright lies.

Oooooh! It's early afternoon here. I guess I shouldn't be doing this, but going to listen to Rush to get my marching orders. I listen to, and read, a multitude of sources on issues. Some I agree with, some I don't. But whatever I form as my viewpoint or belief, I try to base it as factually as possible.

The fact the right hates Michael Moore so much speaks volumes as to the validity of his charges. His documentaries are factual, albeit presented from a left wing point of view.

How in the world is that true? The reverse could be true also, then. The left hates, say, George Bush so much that it speaks volumes to the validity of his actions and policies. Hate is a strong word, and I don't hate Michael Moore. I've little use for him, and his hypocrisies and vitriol are sickening. What I do hate is the fact that the left holds him up as a hero of the common man, when he is no such thing. I hate the fact that those on the left takes what he says on face value, with no attempt to look at whether the truth is in it. I hate that because of these two things many will be deceived.

I don't have to ask - I can see that that is what you are doing.

 

[PLC1]

the only MM movie I've seen is Bowling for Columbine. In it, he talks about the killings at Columbine High, then begins to examine the reasons why there are so many more murders in the US than in other civilized countries. One by one, he looks at possible reasons, compares the US with somewhere else, then dismisses those causes.

More guns per citizen? Nope. Canada has as many, and far fewer murders. History of violence? Nope. Other countries have a history of violence, and far fewer murders. Aha! It's the white man's fear of black America, that's it! That one, he doesn't examine, but simply accepts uncritically.

Some of the movie is thought provoking, but the last merely provokes disbelief.

Bowling for Columbine doesn't even address our incessant gang wars, the most probably cause of the murder rate, nor does it examine the race of the perpetrators nor the victims. His conclusion is not plausible.

I suspect there are similar aspects to Sicko. Some of it is thought provoking, other parts simply make you want to throw up.

But, I haven't seen it. I could be wrong.

 

[Libsmasher]

.

The left's solution should be universal health care. Canada has it, the UK has the NHS, what's the problem with the US having it?

To name just a few, rationing, waiting for months to see a specialist or get an operation, age cutoffs for major operations.