SICKO!

[K0RGR]

Just got back from seeing St. Michael's newest and finest documentary.

'Documentary' fits this one pretty well, I think.

The movie does not deal with the 50+ million Americans who have no health insurance. It deals with the rest of us "lucky" ones who do.

He starts off with a number of health insurance horror stories that illustrate a number of points. He interviews a lot of former health insurance industry people, and shows us some shocking congressional testimony, where an M.D. and former health insurance executive confesses to having made an unfair denial of a patient, that resulted directly in their death.

He follows a case of hard-working middle class professionals forced to move in with their children because their health insurance refused to cover the costs of their needed care.

He shows a healthy child dying because their insurance company refused to pay for antibiotics at an out-of-network hospital.

Many of the patients ask the question "this is America?", or state their disbelief that something like this could happen here.

He goes thorugh the litanny of tricks companies use to refuse payment and to stonewall their customers. This is done with the aid of some former industry insiders, who talk about what they used to do. It becomes absolutely obvious that the only goal of any health insurer is to make a profit.

He even dug up one of Richard Nixon's recorded Oval Office conversations, where the Kaiser Permanente HMO system is explained to him. It's explained to the president that Kaiser makes profits by reducing the amount of health care provided to its patients. Nixon endorses this idea, and comes out in favor of HMOs the next day.

Then, he starts comparing our system to some 'one-payer' universal health care systems.

He starts off showing the preposterous movies and recordings done by the AMA back in the 1950's. If you've heard the arguments against universal health care, you will now recognize where most of that propaganda came from.

He then goes to Canada, England, France, and Cuba, and shows in great depth how health care is delivered there, and perhaps more importantly why.

In Canada, he asks the question "why should I pay taxes to pay for your medical care?". The answer is "because you would do the same for me".

In England, he asks how this got started, and learns that after WWII, the English people had worked so hard together, that they decided to take care of each other, just as they did during the war, and universal health care was how they chose to do it.

After watching this you will be very, very jealous of the French. You also won't see any of the evil things the anti-universal health people talk about - I think he does a great job of debunking a lot of those myths and propaganda. The young English doctor he interviews has a lovely home in Greenwich, and makes about 1,000,000 U.S. dollars in salary a year. He is paid an incentive based on the amount of preventive medicine he accomplishes each year.

As for the trip to Cuba - anybody complaining about it is just trying to discredit Moore, so you won't see the truth.
I wouldn't go to Cuba for any reason - but I wouldn't worry about health care if I found myself there.

I was impressed by the number of X-ray and MRI machines we see in these places. We're told all the time that they don't have those things. All I can say is "see for yourself".

Once again, Moore asks the hard question : if these countries, including impoverished Cuba, can do this - provide health care and drugs at little or no cost to everybody in the country, why can't we?

Every one of the countries he visited, including Cuba, has a lower infant mortality rate and a longer average life span than we have here. Every one practices preventive medicine. Everyone he asks in the movie, and everyone I've asked privately, would not change places with us.

Go see it. Then throw rocks at an insurance company and any politician who is not doing something to bring us universal health care.

Oh, Republicans, he starts off by ripping Hillary a new one.
It appears she will not be getting his endorsement for president! You might want to go just to see that.

[w7lpn]

So no smoke screen & lies this time? Come on? He had to exaggeraste or lie a little, right? Fudge the truth here, slander a little there? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[n2ize]

RGR, based on your synopsis it sounds like a worthwhile film to see. of course there are those who will deny that we need a national health care plan regardless. They want to belive that everything here is 100% perfect and that national health care = communism.

My girl friend told me a great deal about the French health care system. Not only does it get a very high approval rating from the WHO but it also gets a very high approval rating from the citizens of France. And unlike the canadian system the French system does not encounter the long "waiting lists" that is frequently touted by the opponents of national health care.

As you point out if countries like Cuba can have a health care plan and if countries like france can have an excellent health care system there is absolutely no reason why we cannot have an even better one here. especially with the resources that are at our disposal. And yes, most countries that have a national health care plan do enjoy a lower infant mortality rate and longer average life expectancy than here in the USA.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ July 04 2007,22:24)]So no smoke screen & lies this time? Come on? He had to exaggeraste or lie a little, right? Fudge the truth here, slander a little there? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
No more than conservative talk radio does on a daily basis.

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 05 2007,00:22)]Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ July 04 2007,22:24)]So no smoke screen & lies this time? Come on? He had to exaggeraste or lie a little, right? Fudge the truth here, slander a little there? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
No more than conservative talk radio does on a daily basis.
There are, no doubt, two sides to every story.

But if I had to make any criticism of the movie, it's that Moore missed a couple of really key points in favor of a single payer system. He overlooked the 'lifetime maximums' we all have on our insurance policies, where people get to their 50's and find they aren't covered anymore. There was no mention of 'coordination of benefits' that guarantee you have to pay, no matter how much insurance you have.

As for the waits in Canada - how long do you wait in America for elective surgery? It takes me 3 months to get in to see my high-priced opthalmologist, and much longer than that to see an allergist. NOTE: I live in the "Med City" - it don't get much better than it is here! Like everywhere else, there is a triage system. The most serious problems are treated first. Personally, I think blurry vision is important, but my opthalmologist's office and insurance company don't.

How about it Canadians and Brits, how many people do you know that have died in your country waiting for surgery?

In short, health insurance is a total scam.

I'm also NOT voting for anybody who isn't pushing a single-payer plan. That means, I won't vote for Hillary OR Obama. Come on Edwards, I'm counting on YOU.

[AK7V]

Do more research, you'll see plenty of problems with the Canadian and British systems. IMO, the best one to emulate is the German system. Did he discuss that one? If not, why don't you look into it?

You do realize that Moore is an extreme propagandist who doesn't even try to pass his movies off as documentaries anymore, right? I hope you're not serious about taking his movie to heart as a reasonable exploration and endorsement of single-payer health care. I have family in health care, who care for sick Americans every day and support massive reforms who can easily see (and are offended by) his misrepresentations and distortions.

And trust me, as someone who knows first hand, there are people who are very unhappy with the health care system in Canada and England, just as there are here. Can our system be improved? It has to be. But I am thankful every day that our system is as advanced as it is, otherwise I wouldn't be here to type this.

But it sounds like he was preaching to the choir in this case, RGR.

Moore is like Coulter. Take what you see/read with a huge/politicized/distorted grain of salt. Enjoy the clever ways they re-inforce your biases. Think about the issues they bring up, sure, but don't use what they present as the bulk of your data -- you're getting a very, very stacked deck handed to you. If you play with that deck, intelligent people won't take you seriously.

I am offended by enemies of the truth. And I believe Moore is one - he has no credibility.

[n2nh]

Moore is in NO WAY like Coulter. Moore hasn't told the terrorists to attack a conservative newspaper. Moore hasn't taken credit for a possible anthrax attack at a major newspaper. Moore has not called a Republican a 'f*gg*t'.

OTOH, despite this obvious exaggerated smear, I saw SiCKO.

It was great. His portrayal of the American Dysfunctional Medical System was right on the money. I've taken care of a sick relative for over a decade and I myself was sick for a couple of years. The Medical system here is a bad joke. NOTHING could be worse short of no medical system. His movie is right on the button and I strongly urge every American to see it.

For the time being, all I can say is, don't get sick.

[kc2orw]

I won't put a dollar in MM's hat but for free I would look, like Bravo had Bowling on. Interesting but I figure he got it wrong...
I figure it could be done without much need to penalize anyone. I can't say much about bad quality hospitals some exist and it is a separate issue to universal coverage.
We are close here in New York but there are still 1.9 mil not covered. I figure it wouldn't take all that much to remedy that one in state tax dollars.
Unfortunately some have made this a partisan issue and seem to use it as a class warfare battle. I figure it really doesn't need to be that but there are some that seem to desire punishing somebody, anybody so long as they can use the issue to punish someone.
Personally I would rather not see the feds control this they never do a good job with such things or much of anything.

[k6bbc]

Why do you libs want to destroy America?

bbc

[w4wtf]

Any discussion of Moores work is not complete without a good analysis of how he works to lead you to his conclusions.

Read here. (http://www.workingpsychology.com/fahrenheit.html)

And look at his work and see how he wants to manipulate you, and how he distorts to support his agenda. Even if you agree with him, it is a great read and well documented.

If you already agree with him, Moores work is nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation to make you feel better about how you think. But to have you position changed by him shows a profound ignorance of the issues and a though process based mostly upon emotion and not on logical thought.

Moore knows that the latter is his target audience.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (AK7V @ July 05 2007,10:04)]
Quote[/b] ]
And trust me, as someone who knows first hand, there are people who are very unhappy with the health care system in Canada and England, just as there are here. #Can our system be improved? #It has to be. #But I am thankful every day that our system is as advanced as it is, otherwise I wouldn't be here to type this.


And as unhappy as some of them may be they don;t want our system where how much you can afford determines what kind of health care you get. We have a system where vast numbers of peole (insured and uninsured) are driven into bankruptcy due to medical costs. That does not happen in countries that have a health care plan. And not all health care plans are the same. Some are better than others. From what I have learned the french system is pretty darned good and most of the people there give it a relatively high approval rating.

We don't have to copy any particular country's health care plan. But we can look at the features of various health care plans and devise a system that is at least as good or better than the best that are already out there. And it's about time we do it. We've sat on this long enough at the behest of profiteers in the health care industry who's bottom line is to make money forst and foremost. helping people get well is secondary to profits.

Therer is no reason why a country with the vast resources such as ours cannot design a quality health care plan. There is no reason why an illness should drive so many Americans into deep debt or bankruptcy. There is no reason why some Americans should have to forgo mych needed health care because they are afraid of the astronomical costs. We pay more for health care and prescriptions than in most countries.

Quote[/b] ]
You do realize that Moore is an extreme propagandist who doesn't even try to pass his movies off as documentaries anymore, right? #I hope you're not serious about taking his movie to heart as a reasonable exploration and endorsement of single-payer health care. #


I have not even seen Moore's film but I have been well aware of these problems with our health care system for quite some time. Moore is merely publicizing problems that have existed for a very long time. All his film seems to be doing is putting these problems into the spotlight and raising peoples concerns about the problems with our health care system. There is nothing new about any of this. It's been goin on for a long time now.

Quote[/b] ]
I am offended by enemies of the truth. #And I believe Moore is one - he has no credibility.


I am offended by people who put profits ahead of public health, I am offended by a system of health care that can drive people into debt simply because they happened to become ill and needed medical help. I am offended by deceptive insurance practices and a ssytem that would rather deny people coverage if their doctor, hospital, or medical procedure does no match the business model of the insurance industry. I am offended by a system of health care who's terms are mandated by lawyers, insurance analysts and businessmen rather than doctors, nurses and health care professionals. I am offended by a system that results in Americans paying several times as much for a prescription than anywhere else in the world, a system that prompts people to have to buy drugs from outside the country rather than at the local pharmacy.

Most of his (Moores) films have plenty of truths within. Much of the claims made in Moore's fils are quite verifiable. And whether or not everything is an absolute is not the issue. The whole idea of Moore's film is to present an issue, portray some of the facts. The rest is up to you.

As I said I don't think Moore is lying about the problems portrayed with our health care system as most of what he is putting forward has been common knowledge for quite some time.

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (AK7V @ July 05 2007,10:04)]I have family in health care, who care for sick Americans every day and support massive reforms who can easily see (and are offended by) his misrepresentations and distortions.
And have you and your family seen the film, or are you just assuming they won't agree with what they see?

My wife is an expert on medical insurance claims. She spent over 20 years filing claims for doctors who couldn't get reimbursement from the insurance companies. Then, she went to work for one of the insurance companies and worked from that side of it. She's seen the film and says that Moore's depiction of that whole scam is accurate and not exaggerated.

Moore does not propose a solution - he just shows what is. He shows what an ugly mess Havana is, but shows that they have what looks like decent health care. He shows clinincs and hospitals and emergency rooms in all four of these countries.

[AK7V]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 05 2007,11:00)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ July 05 2007,10:04)]I have family in health care, who care for sick Americans every day and support massive reforms who can easily see (and are offended by) his misrepresentations and distortions.
And have you and your family seen the film, or are you just assuming they won't agree with what they see?

I haven't, but they have. I heard about it from them. They soaked up the Moorey-goodness when he was smearing gun owners or the auto industry. All was fair until their ox was gored. Then, suddenly, they see his tactics for what they've been all along -- misleading.
Quote[/b] ]
My wife is an expert on medical insurance claims. She spent over 20 years filing claims for doctors who couldn't get reimbursement from the insurance companies. Then, she went to work for one of the insurance companies and worked from that side of it. She's seen the film and says that Moore's depiction of that whole scam is accurate and not exaggerated.

My family's in the medical care provider end, so they didn't talk about that part. But, I have personal experience dealing with insurance companies, trying to get them to pay my claims, and it's a horrible joke of a system. That I certainly agree with.
Quote[/b] ]
Moore does not propose a solution - he just shows what is.

No, he shows some of what is. Plenty of people, for example, love their Kaiser health plan. Plenty of people, for example, loathe their foreign single-payer system. How many of those did he show?
Quote[/b] ]
He shows what an ugly mess Havana is, but shows that they have what looks like decent health care. He shows clinincs and hospitals and emergency rooms in all four of these countries.
Give me a break. Everyone I've ever spoken to or read about who went to Cuba says that they were only allowed in certain parts of the country. There are tourist resorts there where locals aren't even allowed to go. The same is true with hospitals, I bet. You think Moore and his crew were allowed wherever they wanted to go? It's a dictatorship over there.

Anyway, looks are one thing. We have a decent "looking" health care system, too, IMO.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ July 05 2007,12:24)]Why do you libs want to destroy America?

bbc
Actually it's "why do you libs hate America so much?"

[AK7V]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 05 2007,11:00)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ July 05 2007,10:04)]
Quote[/b] ]
And trust me, as someone who knows first hand, there are people who are very unhappy with the health care system in Canada and England, just as there are here. Can our system be improved? It has to be. But I am thankful every day that our system is as advanced as it is, otherwise I wouldn't be here to type this.


And as unhappy as some of them may be they don;t want our system where how much you can afford determines what kind of health care you get.

Really? You've asked the people I know? Small world. Fascinating.

Quote[/b] ]We have a system where vast numbers of peole (insured and uninsured) are driven into bankruptcy due to medical costs. That does not happen in countries that have a health care plan. And not all health care plans are the same. Some are better than others. From what I have learned the french system is pretty darned good and most of the people there give it a relatively high approval rating.
OK. This is a different country with different spending needs and priorities. Wanting to shift those is a legit, even if I don't agree necessarilly.
Quote[/b] ]

We don't have to copy any particular country's health care plan. But we can look at the features of various health care plans and devise a system that is at least as good or better than the best that are already out there. And it's about time we do it.
I agree wholeheartedly. But "looking at" features should NOT involve obvious, unnecessary distortion; and Moore and the other political propagandists on both sides introduce tons of distortion. The portrayal of Americans loathing and being abused by their system, while foreigners love and are taken care of by theirs, is distortion. It's an oversimplified, black-and-white presentation.
Quote[/b] ]
We've sat on this long enough at the behest of profiteers in the health care industry who's bottom line is to make money forst and foremost. helping people get well is secondary to profits.
I'm not sure about that. People I know in health care sure do like helping people. They also like having homes. And they recognize the necessity of a legal system (and malpractice insurance necessitated by it) that protects patients, even though it's costly.

I am for restructuring health care, and thinking about the issues. I am amused that those of you who complain about people like Coulter and Limbaugh (BTW, so what if they use ad homs while Moore uses different fallacies) are FINE with Moore's fallacious presentations of reality.

[al2i]

There are so many ways in which the final abandonment of health-care freedom can take place that it is impossible to say which government scheme to stamp out freedom will be adopted to "fix" the current system that the government has caused to happen with a lack of freedom.

Socialized medicine can turn out to be more expensive, less effective, and more deadly than the system of massive regulation and government spending we have now. To have a hater of individualism like Michael Moore seen as our glorious revolutionary leader in this issue scares the hell out of me. It scares the hell out of me.

When a co-worker was in an Indian Health Service hospital back in the 80's and some of us visited him, we noticed uncollected trash in the hallways, incapacitated patients abandoned in wheelchairs that were parked in various random locations and ignored -- and my personal favorite, two chatty nurses talking about their boyfriends while one absentmindedly shaved the face of a blankly staring elderly man with blood from shaving cuts mixing with the shaving cream and running off of his chin.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (AK7V @ July 05 2007,11:30)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 05 2007,11:00)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ July 05 2007,10:04)]
Quote[/b] ]
And trust me, as someone who knows first hand, there are people who are very unhappy with the health care system in Canada and England, just as there are here. #Can our system be improved? #It has to be. #But I am thankful every day that our system is as advanced as it is, otherwise I wouldn't be here to type this.


And as unhappy as some of them may be they don;t want our system where how much you can afford determines what kind of health care you get.

Really? #You've asked the people I know? #Small world. #Fascinating.

Quote[/b] ]We have a system where vast numbers of peole (insured and uninsured) are driven into bankruptcy due to medical costs. That does not happen in countries that have a health care plan. And not all health care plans are the same. Some are better than others. From what I have learned the french system is pretty darned good and most of the people there give it a relatively high approval rating.
OK. #This is a different country with different spending needs and priorities. #Wanting to shift those is a legit, even if I don't agree necessarilly.
Quote[/b] ]

We don't have to copy any particular country's health care plan. But #we can look at the features of various health care plans and devise a system that is at least as good or better than the best that are already out there. And it's about time we do it.
I agree wholeheartedly. #But "looking at" features should NOT involve obvious, unnecessary distortion; and Moore and the other political propagandists on both sides introduce tons of distortion. #The portrayal of Americans loathing and being abused by their system, while foreigners love and are taken care of by theirs, is distortion. #It's an oversimplified, black-and-white presentation.
Quote[/b] ]
We've sat on this long enough at the behest of profiteers in the health care industry who's bottom line is to make money forst and foremost. helping people get well is secondary to profits.
I'm not sure about that. #People I know in health care sure do like helping people. #They also like having homes. #And they recognize the necessity of a legal system (and malpractice insurance necessitated by it) that protects patients, even though it's costly.

I am for restructuring health care, and thinking about the issues. #I am amused that those of you who complain about people like Coulter and Limbaugh (BTW, so what if they use ad homs while Moore uses different fallacies) are FINE with Moore's fallacious presentations of reality.
I'd just be curious ? have you seen Moore's film ? If you have then perhaps you can point out the glaring lies and distortions and propaganda. But we don;t need a film to understand the problems with todays health care in America, do we ? We can use the numbers, the raw data , the stats, and we will find that there are very serious and glaring problems with todays health care system and with peoples ability to afford and access health care here in the USA. We do have some mega problems with out system and a national health care plan is one possible solution to the problem


Of course a guy like Moore is going to present the most serious cases of insurance abuse and most within our health care system. Of course he is going to present the most glaring cases if a system that is highly responsive to money and often indifferent to the needs of the patient. The average movie is 1.5 - 2.0 hours long and there is not nearly enough time to present every single in-between case and every success story. The purpose of the film is most likely to raise awareness to the fact that there is a serious problem with health care in this country and to raise the awareness that many nations have solved at least some of these problems through a national health care plan. No documentary film made by any one producer should be taken as 100% absolute verbatim fact. rather it should serve as a guideline through which we look deeper and deeper into the issue at hand, identify what problems do exist, and work out rational solutions to the problems.

[n2nh]

The personal attacks on those who see the truth in Michael Moore's films is all to transparent. I for one will not lower myself to engage in same.

Anybody who has had any experience with this medical system and has seen Moore's film knows he's right. Sadly we live in a country that says God bless America, yet likes to take a long stinky dump on the sick. Sadder yet are people who defend this practice. You may not like Moore, but what this film says is truth. I only hope that those here who think this is a big farce will someday experience the same themselves. And I hope that they are themselves ridiculed the same way they are ridiculing the sick for the sin of being sick. It seem totally unchristian to laugh and BS about the suffering, and at the same time elevate those who chose to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan to heroes. We can see here for ourselves what those 'heroes' are made of.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,11:49)]The personal attacks on those who see the truth in Michael Moore's films is all to transparent. I for one will not lower myself to engage in same.

Anybody who has had any experience with this medical system and has seen Moore's film knows he's right. Sadly we live in a country that says God bless America, yet likes to take a long stinky dump on the sick. Sadder yet are people who defend this practice. You may not like Moore, but what this film says is truth. I only hope that those here who think this is a big farce will someday experience the same themselves. And I hope that they are themselves ridiculed the same way they are ridiculing the sick for the sin of being sick. It seem totally unchristian to laugh and BS about the suffering, and at the same time elevate those who chose to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan to heroes. We can see here for ourselves what those 'heroes' are made of.
Quote[/b] ]I for one will not lower myself to engage in same.

But John, you just did! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[al2i]

Once government is seen as having the moral right to interfere with something, it seems there is no end to the "interference", it is never enough, until we have complete tyranny.

[w4wtf]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,12:49)]The personal attacks on those who see the truth in Michael Moore's films is all to transparent. #I for one will not lower myself to engage in same.

Anybody who has had any experience with this medical system and has seen Moore's film knows he's right. #Sadly we live in a country that says God bless America, yet likes to take a long stinky dump on the sick. #Sadder yet are people who defend this practice. #You may not like Moore, but what this film says is truth. #I only hope that those here who think this is a big farce will someday experience the same themselves. #And I hope that they are themselves ridiculed the same way they are ridiculing the sick for the sin of being sick. #It seem totally unchristian to laugh and BS about the suffering, and at the same time elevate those who chose to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan to heroes. #We can see here for ourselves what those 'heroes' are made of.
Yet you lower yourself to his level with this very post.

You equate those of us who say "government is not the answer" with #someone who will "laugh and BS about the suffering".

Because we think the system can be fixed without creating a massive government system that, in your eyes, means we take a dump on and laugh at the sick.

Moore would be proud of your ideology.

Ive got news for you, I have been sick. I have had terminally ill relatives. I have been there and done that too.... but while I say our system has problems, I don't see government taking it over as the answer.

If that means I am taking a "long stinky dump on the sick", please pass the TP.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,13:10)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,12:49)]The personal attacks on those who see the truth in Michael Moore's films is all to transparent. #I for one will not lower myself to engage in same.

Anybody who has had any experience with this medical system and has seen Moore's film knows he's right. #Sadly we live in a country that says God bless America, yet likes to take a long stinky dump on the sick. #Sadder yet are people who defend this practice. #You may not like Moore, but what this film says is truth. #I only hope that those here who think this is a big farce will someday experience the same themselves. #And I hope that they are themselves ridiculed the same way they are ridiculing the sick for the sin of being sick. #It seem totally unchristian to laugh and BS about the suffering, and at the same time elevate those who chose to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan to heroes. #We can see here for ourselves what those 'heroes' are made of.
Yet you lower yourself to his level with this very post.

You equate those of us who say "government is not the answer" with #someone who will "laugh and BS about the suffering".

Because we think the system can be fixed without creating a massive government system that, in your eyes, means we take a dump on and laugh at the sick.

Moore would be proud of your ideology.

Ive got news for you, I have been sick. I have had terminally ill relatives. I have been there and done that too.... but while I say our system has problems, I don't see government taking it over as the answer.

If that means I am taking a "long stinky dump on the sick", please pass the TP.
How come the French can develop a national health care system that works quite well, that gets a high approval rating from both the WHO and the French people but we cannot accomplish such a thing here ? I guess the french are smarter than we are. They can do what we cannot ?

There is only one reason why we cannot accomplish it here. Because the present day health care racketeers that have placed profits far above the health of the American people don't want it to be accomplished here. Beyond that there is no apparent or logical reason why we cannot accomplish such a thing here. We certainly have the resources, the personnel and the know how. We have other government entities which work remarkably well, i.e. social security, military, post office, space program, etc. There is no reason why we cannot invoke a health care plan that works even better than these government entities and works as well or better than what is available in Europe. Time and resources are on our side. But we are forbidden to use them by a handful of business interests who don't want it to happen.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,16:10)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,12:49)]The personal attacks on those who see the truth in Michael Moore's films is all to transparent. I for one will not lower myself to engage in same.

Anybody who has had any experience with this medical system and has seen Moore's film knows he's right. Sadly we live in a country that says God bless America, yet likes to take a long stinky dump on the sick. Sadder yet are people who defend this practice. You may not like Moore, but what this film says is truth. I only hope that those here who think this is a big farce will someday experience the same themselves. And I hope that they are themselves ridiculed the same way they are ridiculing the sick for the sin of being sick. It seem totally unchristian to laugh and BS about the suffering, and at the same time elevate those who chose to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan to heroes. We can see here for ourselves what those 'heroes' are made of.
Yet you lower yourself to his level with this very post.

You equate those of us who say "government is not the answer" with someone who will "laugh and BS about the suffering".

Because we think the system can be fixed without creating a massive government system that, in your eyes, means we take a dump on and laugh at the sick.

Moore would be proud of your ideology.

Ive got news for you, I have been sick. I have had terminally ill relatives. I have been there and done that too.... but while I say our system has problems, I don't see government taking it over as the answer.

If that means I am taking a "long stinky dump on the sick", please pass the TP.
Sorry. I did not. I said that this country takes a dump on the sick. It does. Fact. This system encourages just that.

Maybe it's time to think of alternatives. Anybody who has been sick knows that they do not want to be sick. You can have all the money in the world and one illness can wipe it out. (Remember Christopher Reeve?) Do I hear how we have Socialized Education? Yet we have had public schools for over a century with enforced education until the age of 16. Do I hear how we have Socialized Libraries? Yet every community has government funded libraries and nobody complains of paying for this?

Yet, look at every other western country and their medical system is run by the government. It works. They're not starving and they're not complaining.

This country is not only behind the times. It is totally bereft of compassion to let people die rather than help them with treatments that are out there. Irony is to then say God Bless America when this is how we treat people.

Enjoy life. It goes fast. If you've been sick before, then you know how this system works and I'd find it hard to believe anybody thinks that it actually does. And when you get sick, and you will, while the insurance companies find easy ways to deny your requests, try very hard to remember this thread.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 05 2007,12:19)]Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,13:10)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,12:49)]The personal attacks on those who see the truth in Michael Moore's films is all to transparent. I for one will not lower myself to engage in same.

Anybody who has had any experience with this medical system and has seen Moore's film knows he's right. Sadly we live in a country that says God bless America, yet likes to take a long stinky dump on the sick. Sadder yet are people who defend this practice. You may not like Moore, but what this film says is truth. I only hope that those here who think this is a big farce will someday experience the same themselves. And I hope that they are themselves ridiculed the same way they are ridiculing the sick for the sin of being sick. It seem totally unchristian to laugh and BS about the suffering, and at the same time elevate those who chose to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan to heroes. We can see here for ourselves what those 'heroes' are made of.
Yet you lower yourself to his level with this very post.

You equate those of us who say "government is not the answer" with someone who will "laugh and BS about the suffering".

Because we think the system can be fixed without creating a massive government system that, in your eyes, means we take a dump on and laugh at the sick.

Moore would be proud of your ideology.

Ive got news for you, I have been sick. I have had terminally ill relatives. I have been there and done that too.... but while I say our system has problems, I don't see government taking it over as the answer.

If that means I am taking a "long stinky dump on the sick", please pass the TP.
How come the French can develop a national health care system that works quite well, that gets a high approval rating from both the WHO and the French people but we cannot accomplish such a thing here ? I guess the french are smarter than we are. They can do what we cannot ?

There is only one reason why we cannot accomplish it here. Because the present day health care racketeers that have placed profits far above the health of the American people don't want it to be accomplished here. Beyond that there is no apparent or logical reason why we cannot accomplish such a thing here. We certainly have the resources, the personnel and the know how. We have other government entities which work remarkably well, i.e. social security, military, post office, space program, etc. There is no reason why we cannot invoke a health care plan that works even better than these government entities and works as well or better than what is available in Europe. Time and resources are on our side. But we are forbidden to use them by a handful of business interests who don't want it to happen.
The answer for you is always a command economy, isn't it OM?! Government guns are a favorite in this forum.

Sadly, liberty would work if we believed in it, and were brave and moral enough to adopt complete health deregulation.

The government could not even efficiently deliver toilet paper, yet you wish to place your health and my children's health in the ever-loving arms of a new American socialism. Once implemented, any new system will only get more and more untenable and tyrannical over time.

PS: There is no way that we will ever practice socialism as well as the French.... thankfully.

[KI4HAS]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,13:22)]This country is not only behind the times. It is totally bereft of compassion to let people die rather than help them with treatments that are out there. Irony is to then say God Bless America when this is how we treat people.
Why don't you and your liberal friends start a non profit, and buy heathcare plans for the poor? Show some compassion, and put your effort, and your money were your mouth is.

[w4wtf]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 05 2007,13:19)]Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,13:10)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,12:49)]The personal attacks on those who see the truth in Michael Moore's films is all to transparent. #I for one will not lower myself to engage in same.

Anybody who has had any experience with this medical system and has seen Moore's film knows he's right. #Sadly we live in a country that says God bless America, yet likes to take a long stinky dump on the sick. #Sadder yet are people who defend this practice. #You may not like Moore, but what this film says is truth. #I only hope that those here who think this is a big farce will someday experience the same themselves. #And I hope that they are themselves ridiculed the same way they are ridiculing the sick for the sin of being sick. #It seem totally unchristian to laugh and BS about the suffering, and at the same time elevate those who chose to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan to heroes. #We can see here for ourselves what those 'heroes' are made of.
Yet you lower yourself to his level with this very post.

You equate those of us who say "government is not the answer" with #someone who will "laugh and BS about the suffering".

Because we think the system can be fixed without creating a massive government system that, in your eyes, means we take a dump on and laugh at the sick.

Moore would be proud of your ideology.

Ive got news for you, I have been sick. I have had terminally ill relatives. I have been there and done that too.... but while I say our system has problems, I don't see government taking it over as the answer.

If that means I am taking a "long stinky dump on the sick", please pass the TP.
How come the French can develop a national health care system that works quite well, that gets a high approval rating from both the WHO and the French people but we cannot accomplish such a thing here ? I guess the french are smarter than we are. They can do what we cannot ?

There is only one reason why we cannot accomplish it here. Because the present day health care racketeers that have placed profits far above the health of the American people don't want it to be accomplished here. #Beyond that there is no apparent or logical reason why we cannot accomplish such a thing here. We certainly have the resources, the personnel and the know how. We have other government entities which work remarkably well, i.e. social security, military, post office, space program, etc. There is no reason why we cannot invoke a health care plan that works even better than these government entities and works as well or better than what is available in Europe. Time and resources are on our side. But we are forbidden to use them by a handful of business interests who don't want it to happen.
There are other differneces between us and France.

For one, the French tax at a much higher level, inlcuding the poor and middle class, than we do. Are we willing to?

For another, France is largely a nation that is healthier, and filled with people that live healthier lifestyles. Therefore the overall costs of care are lower. Given the state of health for the average American....something that is mostly because they choose to allow themselves to get that way..... it would cost us, per person, far more than it does the French.

Third, I have my doubts if the French model is sustainable over the long term without a huge impact upon the growth and sustainability of thier economy.... there or here.

I agree that the "health insurance" system is broken. But I don't see government is the answer.

The first problem is that we have created an atmosphere in this country where people think they are "entitled" to health care without ever paying a dime. They whine that the "co-pay" is too high for ruotine doctor visits, when in reality we all should be just paying out of pocket for those.

My solution?

Routine health care should be just like routine auto care...you pay for it.

Insurance should be for catastrophic illness only. However, insurance should not negotiate with, nor pay directly, the providers. The patient gets billed, and files the claim to get repaid. The patient, or their designated represenative, is involved at every level. This keeps them aware of, and concerned about, the costs.

The law should simply be that insurance should pay in a timely fashion.

The insured chooses how much of a lifetime, or per year, cap they want to buy, based on a risk assement they make for themselves based upon how much they feel they may need vs how much they wish to pay.

The insured then chooses what tests and procedures they want, based upon coverage level and advice from thier doctor...... the insurance company does not approve or deny, they just pay until that cap is reached.

Insurance should be purchased by the individual, always, not an employer. I don't expect my boss to pay my car insurance. Insurance companies should not be able to terminate due to illness.

Rates should be adjusted based upon certain risk behaviors, but not upon things that the insured has no control over. For example illness shoudl not increase it, but being overwieght, smokeing, drinking, drug use, etc should.

Do it like this and then insurance costs would drop, it would be much simpler, and people would be involved with thier own healthcare and managing costs.

In other words....auto insurance is not broken, life insurance is not broken, and if we model health insurance after them instead of the fiasco it has become we can fix it.

For routine healthcare now you have this big middleman in the insurance company that takes your money, then pays your doctor, while they skim off the top. We need to eliminate the middleman, not just make him a government employee instead of private.

But everyone wants a system that just "gives" where they don't have any responsibility.

[KI4HAS]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ July 05 2007,13:29)]The government could not even efficiently deliver toilet paper, yet you wish to place your health and my children's health in the ever-loving arms of a new American socialism. Once implemented, any new system will only get more and more untenable and tyrannical over time.
Think of what our government would become with government run healthcare. They would decide that any behavior that could cost the government healthcare system money would need to be regulated. Look at how government when after the Tobacco companies. Think of that on a grand scale.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (KI4HAS @ July 05 2007,12:41)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,13:22)]This country is not only behind the times. It is totally bereft of compassion to let people die rather than help them with treatments that are out there. Irony is to then say God Bless America when this is how we treat people.
Why don't you and your liberal friends start a non profit, and buy heathcare plans for the poor? Show some compassion, and put your effort, and your money were your mouth is.
They want your money and your freedom, and are willing to use government guns to take both.


Edited for accuracy: They want your remaining money and remaining freedom and will continue using government guns to take the remainder of both.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (KI4HAS @ July 05 2007,16:41)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,13:22)]This country is not only behind the times. It is totally bereft of compassion to let people die rather than help them with treatments that are out there. Irony is to then say God Bless America when this is how we treat people.
Why don't you and your liberal friends start a non profit, and buy heathcare plans for the poor? Show some compassion, and put your effort, and your money were your mouth is.
Let's see.

1) first the movie was partisian.

2) second, when that was refuted by no less than Fox News, well, it's made by Michael Moore and I don't like Michael Moore.

3) third, when people still went to see it, well, he's not credible, he uses tactics to make his point.

DUH. Doesn't every film maker?? Don't believe me? Ask BBC.

http://i8.tinypic.com/4xot6xu.jpg

[AK7V]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,13:22)]Sorry. I did not. I said that this country takes a dump on the sick. It does. Fact. This system encourages just that.
I am often sick. I have a chronic illness. Abbott Labs _gives_ me expensive medicine every month because I can't afford it and my crummy student insurance doesn't cover it. All I had to do is fill out a couple forms and send in my tax information. I've spent a decent portion of my relatively young life in the hospital for various things. Nobody in this country has ever taken a dump on me. And I've lived in four different states in different regions, from coast to coast. Sometimes things are tough, but I am alive and generally well. I have two degrees from a top university. And I can function meaningfully and usefully in society. I have to make smart choices that ensure my coverage -- it effects what kind of job I choose to do, where I live, and that's unfortunately limiting, but it's something I can live with. I certainly have problems - big problems - with how health insurance is dealt with in this country. But most providers function well in spite of the crummy system. It should be improved, but there is no need for hyperbole.

People in the medical field have gone out of their way to help me countless times. Maybe I'm just that charming. I think the reality is that in some ways I'm fortunate, in some ways I'm intelligent, and in some ways I simply choose to be grateful for the things that I know are good.

But you are attacking me, my doctors, my country, my family, and the very profit system that encourages the drugs and procedures I need (and you may need someday, along with the socialized world) to be developed.

Perhaps someday you'll have reason to be as grateful as I am for our system - profit and all. I hope not, for your sake and that of your family.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,13:43)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 05 2007,13:19)]Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,13:10)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,12:49)]The personal attacks on those who see the truth in Michael Moore's films is all to transparent. #I for one will not lower myself to engage in same.

Anybody who has had any experience with this medical system and has seen Moore's film knows he's right. #Sadly we live in a country that says God bless America, yet likes to take a long stinky dump on the sick. #Sadder yet are people who defend this practice. #You may not like Moore, but what this film says is truth. #I only hope that those here who think this is a big farce will someday experience the same themselves. #And I hope that they are themselves ridiculed the same way they are ridiculing the sick for the sin of being sick. #It seem totally unchristian to laugh and BS about the suffering, and at the same time elevate those who chose to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan to heroes. #We can see here for ourselves what those 'heroes' are made of.
Yet you lower yourself to his level with this very post.

You equate those of us who say "government is not the answer" with #someone who will "laugh and BS about the suffering".

Because we think the system can be fixed without creating a massive government system that, in your eyes, means we take a dump on and laugh at the sick.

Moore would be proud of your ideology.

Ive got news for you, I have been sick. I have had terminally ill relatives. I have been there and done that too.... but while I say our system has problems, I don't see government taking it over as the answer.

If that means I am taking a "long stinky dump on the sick", please pass the TP.
How come the French can develop a national health care system that works quite well, that gets a high approval rating from both the WHO and the French people but we cannot accomplish such a thing here ? I guess the french are smarter than we are. They can do what we cannot ?

There is only one reason why we cannot accomplish it here. Because the present day health care racketeers that have placed profits far above the health of the American people don't want it to be accomplished here. #Beyond that there is no apparent or logical reason why we cannot accomplish such a thing here. We certainly have the resources, the personnel and the know how. We have other government entities which work remarkably well, i.e. social security, military, post office, space program, etc. There is no reason why we cannot invoke a health care plan that works even better than these government entities and works as well or better than what is available in Europe. Time and resources are on our side. But we are forbidden to use them by a handful of business interests who don't want it to happen.
There are other differneces between us and France.

For one, the French tax at a much higher level, inlcuding the poor and middle class, than we do. Are we willing to?

For another, France is largely a nation that is healthier, and filled with people that live healthier lifestyles. Therefore the overall costs of care are lower. Given the state of health for the average American....something that is mostly because they choose to allow themselves to get that way..... it would cost us, per person, far more than it does the French.

Third, I have my doubts if the French model is sustainable over the long term without a huge impact upon the growth and sustainability of thier economy.... there or here.

I agree that the "health insurance" system is broken. But I don't see government is the answer.

The first problem is that we have created an atmosphere in this country where people think they are "entitled" to health care without ever paying a dime. They whine that the "co-pay" is too high for ruotine doctor visits, when in reality we all should be just paying out of pocket for those.

My solution?

Routine health care should be just like routine auto care...you pay for it.

Insurance should be for catastrophic illness only. However, insurance should not negotiate with, nor pay directly, the patient. The patient gets billed, and files the claim to get repaid. The patient, or their designated represenative, is involved at every level. This keeps them aware of, and concerned about, the costs.

The law should simply be that insurance should pay in a timely fashion.

The insured chooses how much of a lifetime, or per year, cap they want to buy, based on a risk assement they make for themselves based upon how much they feel they may need vs how much they wish to pay.

The insured then chooses what tests and procedures they want, based upon coverage level and advice from thier doctor...... the insurance company does not approve or deny, they just pay until that cap is reached.

Insurance should be purchased by the individual, always, not an employer. I don't expect my boss to pay my car insurance. Insurance companies should not be able to terminate due to illness.

Rates should be adjusted based upon certain risk behaviors, but not upon things that the insured has no control over. For example illness shoudl not increase it, but being overwieght, smokeing, drinking, drug use, etc should.

Do it like this and then insurance costs would drop, it would be much simpler, and people would be involved with thier own healthcare and managing costs.

In other words....auto insurance is not broken, life insurance is not broken, and if we model health insurance after them instead of the fiasco it has become we can fix it.

For routine healthcare now you have this big middleman in the insurance company that takes your money, then pays your doctor, while they skim off the top. We need to eliminate the middleman, not just make him a government employee instead of private.

But everyone wants a system that just "gives" where they don't have any responsibility.
France is not that much different than us. And yes they pay a higher tax but they also have access to health care. They pay less for health care, they pay less for prescriptions and few fall into debt over health care. If paying a higher tax here means that affordable health care is readilly available with fewer people going bankrupt, paying 5x or more for prescriptions here than anywhere else then perhaps a higher tax is well justified in that you'll make up for it in money saved on health care. There are also other ways that a higher tax can be offset. In any event it makes no sense to talk about taxpayer cost at this point when we don;t even have a proposal for a decent health care system.

[al2i]

http://www.davemcgraw.com/Images/FalseEquiv.jpg

A little socialism is never enough, proposals are always "modest" and ridicule is not an argument.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (AK7V @ July 05 2007,13:57)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,13:22)]Sorry. #I did not. #I said that this country takes a dump on the sick. #It does. #Fact. #This system encourages just that.
I am often sick. #I have a chronic illness. #Abbott Labs _gives_ me expensive medicine every month because I can't afford it and my crummy student insurance doesn't cover it. #All I had to do is fill out a couple forms and send in my tax information. #I've spent a decent portion of my relatively young life in the hospital for various things. #Nobody in this country has ever taken a dump on me. #And I've lived in four different states in different regions, from coast to coast. #Sometimes things are tough, but I am alive and generally well. #I have two degrees from a top university. #And I can function meaningfully and usefully in society. #I have to make smart choices that ensure my coverage -- it effects what kind of job I choose to do, where I live, and that's unfortunately limiting, but it's something I can live with. #I certainly have problems - big problems - with how health insurance is dealt with in this country. #But most providers function well in spite of the crummy system. #It should be improved, but there is no need for hyperbole.

People in the medical field have gone out of their way to help me countless times. #Maybe I'm just that charming. #I think the reality is that in some ways I'm fortunate, in some ways I'm intelligent, and in some ways I simply choose to be grateful for the things that I know are good.

But you are attacking me, my doctors, my country, my family, and the very profit system that encourages the drugs and procedures I need (and you may need someday, along with the socialized world) to be developed.

Perhaps someday you'll have reason to be as grateful as I am for our system - profit and all. #I hope not, for your sake and that of your family.
Nobody is attacking your doctors or your country. people are simply recognizing that our health care system is broken and needs to be fixed. recognizing and addressing a problem is not attacking the country or the doctors, nor does it mean you won;t get your health care. it simply means that more people will have access to the same care in a manner which is affordable and in which people don;t have to chose between taking care of themselves versus paying the rent.

We can do two things. We can put on a pair of rose tinted glasses and pretend that America is 100% perfect and nothing is ever wrong and that everything is 100% right and America is so vastly different than the rest of the world. Or we can recognizxe that some things are broke here at home and fix them.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KI4HAS @ July 05 2007,13:41)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,13:22)]This country is not only behind the times. #It is totally bereft of compassion to let people die rather than help them with treatments that are out there. #Irony is to then say God Bless America when this is how we treat people.
Why don't you and your liberal friends start a non profit, and buy heathcare plans for the poor? #Show some compassion, and put your effort, and your money were your mouth is.
Why don't we take a simpler path and adopt a nationalized health care plan like every other industrialized nation (and some non industrialized nations) in the world already have. National health care is not a liberal versus conservative issue. There are plenty of conservatives who are sensible and are willing to recognize the problems with our current model of medical care and who see a national health care plan as a viable option.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AK7V @ July 05 2007,12:57)]Perhaps someday you'll have reason to be as grateful as I am for our system - profit and all.
Most of us will need or have needed health care, and if not us, then someone we love. It is terribly important to us.

I am thankful that our nation's health care system has worked for you so far. Unfortunately, the health care system in the USA works for fewer and fewer of our fellow USA citizens every year, and at the current rate, it may stop working for you and I as well.

[AK7V]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 05 2007,14:03)]Nobody is attacking your doctors or your country. people are simply recognizing that our health care system is broken and needs to be fixed. recognizing and addressing a problem is not attacking the country or the doctors, nor does it mean you won;t get your health care. it simply means that more people will have access to the same care in a manner which is affordable and in which people don;t have to chose between taking care of themselves versus paying the rent.

We can do two things. We can put on a pair of rose tinted glasses and pretend that America is 100% perfect and nothing is ever wrong and that everything is 100% right and America is so vastly different than the rest of the world. Or we can recognizxe that some things are broke here at home and fix them.
Actually, he was attacking. Pretty plain. Maybe he didn't mean to, but I don't think you nor I are taking a dump on any sick people. Even when I worked in the industry, I wasn't. So I'll refute that, thanks. That along with all the good stuff like "I only hope that those here who think this is a big farce will someday experience the same themselves. And I hope that they are themselves ridiculed the same way they are ridiculing the sick for the sin of being sick. " Always nice to wish ill on others. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Anyway, I am obviously not saying that things are 100% great with our system (nor is anyone here), so keep your strawmen out in the field and try to keep up. Moore's presentation is a distortion that re-enforces only negative, outlying circumstances in order to draw attention to a problem that could be more usefully tackled with clearer heads and fuller data sets. And that if you use his movie as a basis for your position, I won't take you seriously.

What do you think of the German system, anyway?

[al2i]

I posted this in the logged-in area of zrq.informe.com where we tend to respect each other even when we disagree, so I guess I should post it here:

I would support a national health care insurance scheme if

1- I understood it, and
2- it was based on market economies, and
3- simple choice and freedom were re-invigorated.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (AK7V @ July 05 2007,14:21)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 05 2007,14:03)]Nobody is attacking your doctors or your country. people are simply recognizing that our health care system is broken and needs to be fixed. recognizing and addressing a problem is not attacking the country or the doctors, nor does it mean you won;t get your health care. it simply means that more people will have access to the same care in a manner which is affordable and in which people don;t have to chose between taking care of themselves versus paying the rent.

We can do two things. We can put on a pair of rose tinted glasses and pretend that America is 100% perfect and nothing is ever wrong and that everything is 100% right and America is so vastly different than the rest of the world. Or we can recognizxe that some things are broke here at home and fix them.
Actually, he was attacking. #Pretty plain. #Maybe he didn't mean to, but I don't think you nor I are taking a dump on any sick people. #Even when I worked in the industry, I wasn't. #So I'll refute that, thanks. #That along with all the good stuff like "I only hope that those here who think this is a big farce will someday experience the same themselves. #And I hope that they are themselves ridiculed the same way they are ridiculing the sick for the sin of being sick. " #Always nice to wish ill on others. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Anyway, I am obviously not saying that things are 100% great with our system (nor is anyone here), so keep your strawmen out in the field and try to keep up. #Moore's presentation is a distortion that re-enforces only negative, outlying circumstances in order to draw attention to a problem that could be more usefully tackled with clearer heads and fuller data sets. #And that if you use his movie as a basis for your position, I won't take you seriously.

What do you think of the German system, anyway?
Again, you don't take a documentary like Moore's documentary verbatim or even as an absolute representation of the entire health care system. Did you see the movie ?? How long is it ? Most movies avarage between 1.5 to 2.0 hours. The purpose of the movie is to illustrate the reality that there are some serious problems with Americas health system. You watch the documentary, listen to the proposed alternatives and then you do your own research. Of course there are many in between case scenarios. There are people who's insurance covers health care quite nicely with no major problems. Yes, there are people rich enough to absorb the full cost of heath care with no problems. In a 1.5 hour documentary designed to show the problems with the health care system and what some alternatives are not every case scenario can be presented, unless we want to make a 5+ hour or multipart movie. Quite naturally Moore is going to focus on the problem cases. You might also make note of the fact that according to information about the film Moore didn;t even focus on the issues of the many uninsured people who have no medical coverage at all and are not quite rich enough to pay out of their own pockets without serious debt.

Furthermore, you don't really need Moore to know there are some serious problems with todays health care system. A good look at the raw data and the various case scenarios should make this reality abundantly clear. Clearly Moore doesn;t need to make up lies and propaganda to get the point across. just talk to the many Americans cross country who have gotten short changed by the system in one way or another. This is not to say that our doctors are bad. Rather it is the system of financing and accessing health care that is the main problem here.

National health care is but one viable solution to much of this. it is a solution that most Americans feel is worth taking a long hard look at and perhaps implementing in one form or another.

I am not particularly familiar with the german system but I have heard a great deal about the French system which is supposed to be pretty darned good. Again, we don't have to adopt any one's particular system and there is no reason why we are not capable of designing and implementing a better system. Or we can maintain our present course which will probably be the likely path on which both the democrats and / or republicans will lead us.

[AK7V]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ July 05 2007,14:11)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ July 05 2007,12:57)]Perhaps someday you'll have reason to be as grateful as I am for our system - profit and all.
Most of us will need or have needed health care, and if not us, then someone we love. It is terribly important to us.

I am thankful that our nation's health care system has worked for you so far. Unfortunately, the health care system in the USA works for fewer and fewer of our fellow USA citizens every year, and at the current rate, it may stop working for you and I as well.
I don't know the stats, but I believe you. Regardless, there are costs -- health costs in addition to moral costs -- to us and the world if the US goes in the direction of Cuba or Canada or Britain or France -- that should be discussed as well. Parading England or Canada as some sort of Utopian solution is moronic, as most socialistic fantasies turn out to be.

Many thinkers in those countries consider their own systems unsustainable in the long term, and there have already been cuts, anyway.

I'm not convinced that we have more people dying in the streets due to lack of care than any other industrialized nation. Anyone want to show me numbers?

There are lots of blogs by NHS doctors in England and other places if you guys are interested in seeing different perspectives. It's pretty interesting.

I know that I'd prefer to have a problem that could be solved with money, rather than one that requires the fortuitous turn of a bureaucrat's whim. I can make payments if I'm living.

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 05 2007,20:59)]France is not that much different than us. And yes they pay a higher tax but they also have access to health care. They pay less for health care, they pay less for prescriptions and few fall into debt over health care. If paying a higher tax here means that affordable health care is readilly available with fewer people going bankrupt, paying 5x or more for prescriptions here than anywhere else then perhaps a higher tax is well justified in that you'll make up for it in money saved on health care. There are also other ways that a higher tax can be offset.
The higher tax would be offset by not having to pay the exorbitant price for private medical insurance, the cost of which is often hidden because the employer pays a large share of it.

My family medical policy costs me $165 a month, deducted from my pay. But I pay only 15% of the total cast, while my employer picks up the other 85%. Therefore, my policy actually costs about $1100 a month.

Under a single-payer plan, my employer would pay nothing and that $1100 would be part of my gross pay.

But I would have a tax withheld from my pay every month to pay into the medical care system, just as I do now for Medicare, Social Security and income tax. (Actually, the Medicare part would be included in the overall medical plan.) And chances are, the total tax withheld would be less than the $11,000 a year I now pay to the insurance company plus the Medicare deduction (I receive my "monthly" salary in 10 payments a year).

Let's take the worst case, and say that I would end up paying just as much as I do now (including my employers' share). I still wouldn't have to worry about losing medical coverage if I got laid off or fired, or simply got fed up with the job and decided to try something else, or if I moved out of state. I would have no lifetime cap on coverage. My present lifetime cap is over $1,000,000 but with the cost of medical care rising substantially higher than the rate of inflation, it is conceivable that a series of serious illnesses or a major accident could push it beyond the limit.

Of course, some of this tax money would go for covering people who do not work or otherwise do not earn a salary to be taxed. But even that is already happening. People without medical insurance are rarely denied emergency treatment. That money is recovered by increasing the cost to those who do pay. The money owed by people who simply do not pay their bills is recovered the same way. Our present day insurance premiums are substantially higher to offset the cost of medical care for those who do not or cannot pay into the system.

Under the present system, my employer does make out in one way. Those employees who choose not to take advantage of the medical insurance that is offered, for example because they are covered under their spouse's plan, are not reimbursed for that 85% that the employer does not have to pay into their plan.

It is only fairly recently that the national health system in France has been truly universal. When I was there back in the 70's, a person was not automatically enrolled. People with no work history and no salary, were not covered, although like under our system, they were not refused treatment for serious life-threatening conditions. IIRC, the plan was made universal under Chirac. Previously their national health plan was like our private insurance in that only qualified people who paid into the system were covered.

[AK7V]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 05 2007,14:43)]
I am not particularly familiar with the german system but I have heard a great deal about the French system which is supposed to be pretty darned good.
Look at the German system! Germany has the biggest economy in Europe. Why aren't you guys looking at it? Because Moore didn't feature it? Or because it involves some -- shudder -- profit?

Moore's prime driver is his hatred of freedom and capitalism, not anyone's health.

[KI4HAS]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 05 2007,14:07)]Quote[/b] (KI4HAS @ July 05 2007,13:41)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,13:22)]This country is not only behind the times. It is totally bereft of compassion to let people die rather than help them with treatments that are out there. Irony is to then say God Bless America when this is how we treat people.
Why don't you and your liberal friends start a non profit, and buy heathcare plans for the poor? Show some compassion, and put your effort, and your money were your mouth is.
Why don't we take a simpler path and adopt a nationalized health care plan like every other industrialized nation (and some non industrialized nations) in the world already have. National health care is not a liberal versus conservative issue. There are plenty of conservatives who are sensible and are willing to recognize the problems with our current model of medical care and who see a national health care plan as a viable option.
Who cares how the rest of the world does things. We are looking at a Social Security system that is looking to cost more then it takes in sometime in the future.

"Social Security is not sustainable over the long term at present benefit and tax rates without large infusions of additional revenue. There will be a massive and growing shortfall over the 75-year period."

Source: http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

Medicare is going to grow out of control.

"Medicare will have to begin dipping into its trust fund this year to keep up with expenditures and will run out of trust money by 2019 without changes in a program that is swelling because of rising health costs and a new prescription drug benefit."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0324/p02s01-usgn.html

And your solution is to add one more government program that will grow out of control. Sounds smart.


Money does not grow on trees, and Europe cannot keep on spending forever. They are seeing increased costs in heathcare. When costs out pace growth, you are headed for trouble.

"Spending on health and healthcare in most OECD countries has risen dramatically over the past five years. Combined with lower economic growth, the increase in health spending has driven the share of health expenditure as a percentage of GDP up from an average 7.8% in 1997 to 8.5% in 2002. This is in sharp contrast to the period 1992 - 1997, when the share of GDP spent on health remained almost unchanged."

http://www.epha.org/a/1285


Here read this:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/326

If one is to believe the self-created haze of the media when it comes to healthcare the Europeans are pampered from cradle to grave while the vast majority of US citizens are:

* Sick and dying
* Lacking health insurance (implying a lack of actual healthcare)
* Denied access to any form of healthcare
* Being carted to a hospital every 15 minutes
* One nanosecond away from a catastrophic health emergency at all times

In the ‘minds’ of many, all of these problems and more stem from the fact that public spending on healthcare is non-existant at any governmental-level in the US. A fringe group in Paris, the OECD, has a publication titled Factbook 2005. Factbook has a section regarding healthcare. How does the US stack-up against other industrialized nations when it comes to publicly funded healthcare? ‘Other’ industrialized nations who are reported to have perfect healthcare systems. Perfect in the mind of the left because the systems are largely government-controlled.

[N3ATS]

Okay, how about we finish this off once and for all.

Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh.

Naked Cole Slaw Wrestling!!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

(you have to check your Oxy and your side arm at the door)

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ July 05 2007,16:59)]http://www.davemcgraw.com/Images/FalseEquiv.jpg

A little socialism is never enough, proposals are always "modest" and ridicule is not an argument.
This is merely a satire of time proven arguments that we have seen from the right numerous times. As far as Socialisation, where are all the complaints of socialised schooling and libraries? Let's just dump those while we're at it.

And no, I've never said the drug companies and the professionals who work in the field are dumping on the sick. Heck, I really appreciate the job they do. OTOH, many medical insurance companies have refused to pay for ambulance transport for injured people to the hospital. It gets worse from there. And God help you if you think when your money runs out that Medicare or Medicaid will help. Guess again.

You don't have to like it, but you will have to deal with it. Probably sooner than you think. Try not to get flushed when they're through with you.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K0RGR]

Well, if we're discussing freedom, KYV pretty well hit the nail on the head. Freedom from worrying about where your medical care is coming from would be a great thing. I for one don't think political freedom is very useful without the economic freedom to exercise it, and there's a severe shortage of ecomonic freedom for too many Americans.

Yeah, I don't "have" to work here. I can quit and let my family die. Yeah - that's freedom all right.

I only found one website about the German system. It is still based on employer contributions to a large extent. I am opposed to that. I don't think employers or private insurance companies should be involved. Employer involvement greatly limits the mobility of employees. I know - I'm in that boat myself. Very, very few places that offer insurance will hire a diabetic. Private insurers will not accept one, either.

As for the profitablility of drug companies, I believe there are other ways to promote the development of new drugs that are even better than the current profit model. One of the Democratic candidates, and I don't remember which one, has proposed replacing the market-based incentives on drug development with a cost-plus program that guarantees a good return on investment, and reimburses actual development costs. Perhaps with such a program, we can avoid each of the big pharma conglomerates spending hundreds of billions of dollars developing four different versions of Viagra that all make you go blind.

[n6hcm]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 05 2007,14:07)]Why don't we take a simpler path and adopt a nationalized health care plan like every other industrialized nation (and some non industrialized nations) in the world already have.
because the rich won't get richer as quickly this way.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,14:52)]As far as Socialisation, where are all the complaints of socialised schooling and libraries? Let's just dump those while we're at it.
I guess you don't know me as well as I thought John, because I view the government takeover of our education system to be the most fatal mistake America ever made.

If it wasn't for that, we probably wouldn't have started our third millennium with calls for government to takeover the remaining half of health care.

[K3XR]

Shame on you Mickey Moose for telling all those lies.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion....nt.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/07/06/2007-07-06_more_lies_from_moore_print.html)

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ July 05 2007,08:59)]ridicule is not an argument.
Ah yes how true

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ July 06 2007,07:50)]Shame on you Mickey Moose for telling all those lies.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion....nt.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/07/06/2007-07-06_more_lies_from_moore_print.html)
Please.

An opinion piece touted as fact, from New York's tabloid newspaper?

[AK7V]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 05 2007,17:20)]I know - I'm in that boat myself. Very, very few places that offer insurance will hire a diabetic. Private insurers will not accept one, either.
Not hiring someone for being a diabetic is against the law, AFAIK. I'd suggest you get a lawyer if that's happening to you. Private insurance, yep, I know all about that. It's a real problem. Tough to be self-employed if you have a condition that renders you un-insurable. I think our system effectively reduces the numbers and quality of people doing innovative work in this country. It also probably reduces the number of people doing zero work.

The problem of supplying top-notch health care, which is getting better, more technological, and more expensive every year, to a growing and aging populace is huge. I can understand how looking to the state to solve huge problems is attractive to some people, but it isn't the answer. The French system has problems and makes pay and care cuts. As does every other system. One that involves competition is at least more flexible and can better respond to the market and reality.

I don't know that there is a solution. We can't all live forever, but I think we'll always be trying and feeling that we deserve it. Government control will be a runaway train. We do need to make some changes, and I think we can. But we need to be honest about it.

I also agree with al2i about public schooling.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,16:43)]How come the French can develop a national health care system that works quite well, that gets a high approval rating from both the WHO and the French people but we cannot accomplish such a thing here ? I guess the french are smarter than we are. They can do what we cannot ?

There is only one reason why we cannot accomplish it here. Because the present day health care racketeers that have placed profits far above the health of the American people don't want it to be accomplished here.

This much I can agree with.

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,16:43)]Beyond that there is no apparent or logical reason why we cannot accomplish such a thing here. We certainly have the resources, the personnel and the know how. We have other government entities which work remarkably well, i.e. social security, military, post office, space program, etc. There is no reason why we cannot invoke a health care plan that works even better than these government entities and works as well or better than what is available in Europe. Time and resources are on our side. But we are forbidden to use them by a handful of business interests who don't want it to happen.

Agree with you there too.

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,16:43)]There are other differneces between us and France.

For one, the French tax at a much higher level, inlcuding the poor and middle class, than we do. Are we willing to?

If not, it will be pay later. And we have seen that the cost of healthcare and medicine has risen drastically compared to every other sector.

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,16:43)]For another, France is largely a nation that is healthier, and filled with people that live healthier lifestyles.

Not when it comes to what they eat. Have you ever seen French pastries, French cooking? Peasant cooking is fairly healthy, but still not up to American dietary standards. OTOH, a lot of that healthiness probably is due to the mandatory 5 week vacations that every Frenchman gets. Are they healthier, yes, but it's not the food.

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,16:43)]Therefore the overall costs of care are lower. Given the state of health for the average American....something that is mostly because they choose to allow themselves to get that way..... it would cost us, per person, far more than it does the French.

Maybe there should be a penalty for smokers, the grossly overweight and those who use drugs. The French drink at least as much as we do. Many have wine at every meal. And as far as food, there is probably no food in the world that is as rich and decadent as French Cuisine. I have never heard a doctor say anybody should switch to eating french food for their health.

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,16:43)]Third, I have my doubts if the French model is sustainable over the long term without a huge impact upon the growth and sustainability of thier economy.... there or here.

That is arbitrary and hardly a reason to say that this system wouldn't work.

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,16:43)]I agree that the "health insurance" system is broken. But I don't see government is the answer.

So, in your view, the system, which is run by private industry, is broken. Yet the Gov't shouldn't run it. Which means that the only other possibility is NO system, since there is no other option? Just trying to figure this out.

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,16:43)]The first problem is that we have created an atmosphere in this country where people think they are "entitled" to health care without ever paying a dime. They whine that the "co-pay" is too high for ruotine doctor visits, when in reality we all should be just paying out of pocket for those.

No, the first problem is that as a country, we have created an atmosphere of it's the other guys problem. It's not my problem. We have stopped caring about anybody else but number one. If somebody else gets sick, well that's not my problem. When it does become 'my' problem, well guess what? Everybody else is saying, well that's not my problem. As a country, we claim to be Christians, while as a country, we have stopped practicing 'Christian' values, all the while proclaiming to near and far how 'Christian' we are.

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,16:43)]My solution?

Routine health care should be just like routine auto care...you pay for it.

Can I, like a car, junk this body when it gets old and trade it in for a new one? Can I get detailed and replace all the worn out parts with new ones, a new face, a new heart, new eyes..? Very bad analogy. No, extremely bad. Of course if it makes you feel good, keep saying it.

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,16:43)]Insurance should be for catastrophic illness only. However, insurance should not negotiate with, nor pay directly, the providers. The patient gets billed, and files the claim to get repaid. The patient, or their designated represenative, is involved at every level. This keeps them aware of, and concerned about, the costs.

Now THIS is mental masturbation. It is ludicrous. And anybody who has had any kind of catastrophic illness knows that unless you are independently wealthy, you can not afford to manage your heatlh care this way. WTF must be extremely wealthy to even consider this option. Sorry to burst this pretty bubble, but well over 90% of the rest of us do not have this option. The fact that he posted this shows a disdain and arrogantly dismissive contempt for anybody who does not have this kind of wealth.

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,16:43)]The law should simply be that insurance should pay in a timely fashion.

The insured chooses how much of a lifetime, or per year, cap they want to buy, based on a risk assement they make for themselves based upon how much they feel they may need vs how much they wish to pay.

The insured then chooses what tests and procedures they want, based upon coverage level and advice from thier doctor...... the insurance company does not approve or deny, they just pay until that cap is reached.

Of course, paying out of pocket first. If they can't afford this? SOL. And, not knowing how much they'll need, not having a clue as to how astronomically expensive these procedures are, and not having the knowledge of how fast the prices on them go up, just how could they even make an educated guess on how much they'll need?

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,16:43)]Insurance should be purchased by the individual, always, not an employer. I don't expect my boss to pay my car insurance. Insurance companies should not be able to terminate due to illness.

Once again the car comparison. No, but unlike your car, your employer does need you. We are not machines, unlike your car, you will not see cancer coming like a worn out ball-joint, you will not see a stroke coming like a saggy shock absorber. Again, we are people not machines.

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,16:43)]Rates should be adjusted based upon certain risk behaviors, but not upon things that the insured has no control over. For example illness shoudl not increase it, but being overwieght, smokeing, drinking, drug use, etc should.

Do it like this and then insurance costs would drop, it would be much simpler, and people would be involved with thier own healthcare and managing costs.

Haven't you wondered why this hasn't been done? Because even with all the 'health' choices that have been made, cancer rates haven't gone down. Because even with all the healthy eating, strokes, high blood pressure and heart attacks are UP. Years ago, an insurance company gave a discount of 5% for having seatbelts in your car. This was after raising rates 10%. When they got what they wanted and all cars had seatbelts, they did the same thing with the 5 MPH bumper. And when they got that, they did the same thing with airbags. All the while people thought they were getting a discount, but in reality rates were going up with each increase and the company got what it wanted. Not comparing cars to people, just the insurance mentality and how they get what they want.

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,16:43)]In other words....auto insurance is not broken, life insurance is not broken, and if we model health insurance after them instead of the fiasco it has become we can fix it.

We aren't machines, so auto insurance has a totally different mechanism. As far as life insurance, the rates are so low that to compare them to health insurance is ludicrous.

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,16:43)]For routine healthcare now you have this big middleman in the insurance company that takes your money, then pays your doctor, while they skim off the top. We need to eliminate the middleman, not just make him a government employee instead of private.

But everyone wants a system that just "gives" where they don't have any responsibility.

No people want a system that doesn't bankrupt you, encourage procedures that are approved but will not help you, deny you procedures that will save your life, deny you basic equipment and supplies that will keep you alive, deny you access to doctors and facilities that will help you live. People want a system that will work with the people that it is supposed to serve.

Despite the fact that most of us do not have your resources to pay first and then submit the claim on such things as Open heart surgery, a broken leg, MRIs and CT scans, does not mean that we shouldn't have health care.

SiCKO! has made it's case with film and the a picture is worth a thousand words. OTOH, opinion without fact, comparing cars to people and dismissively declaring that if you ain't got it then too bad, die, is an interesting way of... stating opinion without facts. If this is true, well there's good money in it. Make A Movie.

Those of us who have been scarred by a system that Michael Moore has actually documented with proof, know that SiCKO! is far from an exaggeration.

It is the truth. And as we have seen, there are many who can't deal with that.

WTF sez about NH
Quote[/b] ]You equate those of us who say "government is not the answer" with someone who will "laugh and BS about the suffering".

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 05 2007,16:43)]Insurance should be for catastrophic illness only. However, insurance should not negotiate with, nor pay directly, the providers. The patient gets billed, and files the claim to get <span style='color:red'>repaid.</span> The patient, or their designated represenative, is involved at every level. This keeps them aware of, and concerned about, the costs.

If someone wants to talk about an attack, that was one. On those who don't have it and how they should just die.

If you weren't laughing when you typed that, then you are BSing all of us.

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (AK7V @ July 06 2007,09:54)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 05 2007,17:20)]I know - I'm in that boat myself. Very, very few places that offer insurance will hire a diabetic. Private insurers will not accept one, either.
Not hiring someone for being a diabetic is against the law, AFAIK. I'd suggest you get a lawyer if that's happening to you. Private insurance, yep, I know all about that. It's a real problem. Tough to be self-employed if you have a condition that renders you un-insurable. I think our system effectively reduces the numbers and quality of people doing innovative work in this country. It also probably reduces the number of people doing zero work.

The problem of supplying top-notch health care, which is getting better, more technological, and more expensive every year, to a growing and aging populace is huge. I can understand how looking to the state to solve huge problems is attractive to some people, but it isn't the answer. The French system has problems and makes pay and care cuts. As does every other system. One that involves competition is at least more flexible and can better respond to the market and reality.

I don't know that there is a solution. We can't all live forever, but I think we'll always be trying and feeling that we deserve it. Government control will be a runaway train. We do need to make some changes, and I think we can. But we need to be honest about it.

I also agree with al2i about public schooling.
Actually, I was just surprised to learn that you're correct - the Americans with Disabilities Act includes diabetes in its list of physical disabilities. Good luck proving that's why they didn't hire me, but it's nice to know, anyway!

What competition? MD's have a monopoly on practicing medicine. We're seeing a few Nurse Practicioners and PA's open up walk-in clinincs here, which are a blessing, but they are limited in what they can do.

Profits earned through hard work and investment are OK. Profits earned like the founder of Kaiser said they were - by denying care - are not OK.

There's no question the system is flexible. They can withdraw your coverage faster than you can say &quot;SICKO!&quot;.
Last weekend, I went through testing for Sleep Apnea. My snoring was waking the neighbors, so I had to do something. They found that I am almost successful in strangling myself completely every night.

I carry double health insurance - primary through my company and secondary through the wife's employer - Mayo clinic. I went to the Mayo store as my doctor suggested to get my CPAP machine this morning. Sorry - WE DON'T TAKE YOUR PRIMARY INSURANCE!

I work for the second largest employer in town - a company that employs about 10% of the city. But their insurance people can't handle a claim on an insurance company that covers 10,000 locals? I went to a different store - no problem.

If you eliminated the army of bookkeepers needed to handle this insurance mess, the system would half pay for itself! Like so many other inappropriate uses of accounting, it costs more to track it than it does to DO it.

My wife actually worked &quot;all three&quot; sides of the insurance scam at different times. She worked for private doctors collecting reimbursements from insurance companies, she worked for a 3-woman company that handled all of the insurance billing for a major hospital in Iowa, and she worked processing claims for an insurance company. She collected over $1 million in past due claims for one local doctor. In most cases, it just involved resubmitting the rejected claims multiple times, because some major insurance companies simply reject most claims on the first submission! She attended annual seminars for people in her profession to find out which claim codes the insurance companies were routinely rejecting this year! As they said in Moore's film - it's not a mistake, it's not an oversight, it's deliberate!

Short of a European-style system, I don't know what the answer is. The current Medicare prescription drug benefit is most definitely NOT the answer.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 06 2007,10:35)]
Quote[/b] ]
Maybe there should be a penalty for smokers, the grossly overweight and those who use drugs. #The French drink at least as much as we do. #Many have wine at every meal. #And as far as food, there is probably no food in the world that is as rich and decadent as French Cuisine. #I have never heard a doctor say anybody should switch to eating french food for their health.


French &quot;cuisine&quot; is not the same thing as the day to day diet of the average person. Not everyone is dining on the kind of food you find served at the resturant with thick lavish sauces, gravies, and at least a bottle of wine followed up with rich pastries. That is not the typical diet that most people eat on a day to day basis.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 06 2007,14:18)]
Quote[/b] ]
Maybe there should be a penalty for smokers, the grossly overweight and those who use drugs. The French drink at least as much as we do. Many have wine at every meal. And as far as food, there is probably no food in the world that is as rich and decadent as French Cuisine. I have never heard a doctor say anybody should switch to eating french food for their health.


French &quot;cuisine&quot; is not the same thing as the day to day diet of the average person. Not everyone is dining on the kind of food you find served at the resturant with thick lavish sauces, gravies, and at least a bottle of wine followed up with rich pastries. That is not the typical diet that most people eat on a day to day basis.
Oddly enough, I wouldn't know. I'm part French following American dietary standards and guess what? It ain't working. OTOH, you don't have to eat 'restaurant' food to eat rich French food. French cuisine is just rich.

As I mentioned before, I've yet to meet a doctor who recommends switching over to a 'French Diet' as opposed to a Mediterranean one.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ July 06 2007,01:30)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,14:52)]As far as Socialisation, where are all the complaints of socialised schooling and libraries? #Let's just dump those while we're at it.
I guess you don't know me as well as I thought John, because I view the government takeover of our education system to be the most fatal mistake America ever made. #

If it wasn't for that, we probably wouldn't have started our third millennium with calls for government to takeover the remaining half of health care.
How is a public school system bad ? I attended public schools and so did many others who I know. Most of us went on to college and then on to graduate school and became professionals in the fields we were interested in. How is that a bad thing ? Let's say that wasn't available and the only path to an education was private schooling. How many people would be shut out of formal schooling ? What about those who can't afford to send their kids to a private school, or hire a private tutor or governess ? What about parents who have to work and cannot manage the time to home school their children ?

In my case my parents probably could have afforded to send me to a private school. But I can name at least a dozen or more personal friends and collegues who owe their professional careers to public education and, had it not been for public education they would not be where they are today.

And what about public libraries ? facilities in which the poorest of the poor to the wealthiest of the wealthy can access books, periodicals, journals, newspapers, magazines, The Internet, films, audio, all sorts of media and learning resourses from the simples to the most advanced for free. At one time only the wealthy could aford to amass such a vast array of learning materials. Public libraries have put the knowledge and learning resources in the hands of all, rich and poor.


In my opinion things like public schools and libraries are among the finest and most important resources we have and are also the finest examples of government working for the people in the most positive ways. It amazes me to know that some Americans (some of which who benefitted directly from public education, libraries, etc) would like to see a return to the old days when things like books, education, higher learning and knowledge were available only to the wealthy nobleman and his family while the lower eschelons remained ignorant, uneducated, excluded and in positions of servitude.

[w4wtf]

NH, I think you missed my whole point.

Health insurance is busted.

It is busted because people want to have it cover everything, and have just created a middleman that of course is going to have an enourmous cost all its own.... and they want it for nothing.

It is busted because Americans are lazy and want to &quot;not be bothered&quot; with paying for health care.

We should simplify it. You crunch the numbers and buy a policy for $5,000,000 lifetime payout, $10,000,000 or whatever number you freely choose. Then, as you need it, it pays. But you are the middleman, and you manage costs. You choose what procedures you want done, not the insurance company. They just pay.

Rates for this insurance would be similar to rates for life insurance... in all, it is just a cash payout as you need it system. Since life insurance is an all or nothing payment, and in this case very, very few would reach that lifetime maximum, rates should be lower in line with it.

You would pay for routine care, like we used to in this country. Your insurance would cover any and all costs for catastrophic or expensive care, up to the max of your policy.

Rates, just like life insurance, would be higher for those who make poor choices.

I cannot think of a fairer system, or a better one to keep costs in line. Right now most people don't pay any attention to how much it costs so long as someone else is paying the bill, and there are dozens of people involved in the payment process for every bill, driving costs up. With this system the patients will care how much they pay, because they will have &quot;ownership&quot; of the costs.

This system would eliminate most of the red tape on both sides of the system and the billing proccess. Bill goes to patient, patient fowards to insurance, payment goes to patient, patient pays provider.

[w4wtf]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 06 2007,11:38)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ July 06 2007,01:30)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,14:52)]As far as Socialisation, where are all the complaints of socialised schooling and libraries? #Let's just dump those while we're at it.
I guess you don't know me as well as I thought John, because I view the government takeover of our education system to be the most fatal mistake America ever made. #

If it wasn't for that, we probably wouldn't have started our third millennium with calls for government to takeover the remaining half of health care.
How is a public school system bad ? I attended public schools and so did many others who I know. Most of us went on to college and then on to graduate school and became professionals in the fields we were interested in. How is that a bad thing ? Let's say that wasn't available and the only path to an education was private schooling. How many people would be shut out of formal schooling ? What about those who can't afford to send their kids to a private school, or hire a private tutor or governess ? What about parents who have to work and cannot manage the time to home school their children ?

In my case my parents probably could have afforded to send me to a private school. But I can name at least a dozen or more personal friends and collegues who owe their professional careers to public education and, had it not been for public education they would not be where they are today. #

And what about public libraries ? facilities in which the poorest of the poor to the wealthiest of the wealthy can access books, periodicals, journals, newspapers, magazines, The Internet, films, audio, all sorts of media and learning resourses from the simples to the most advanced for free. #At one time only the wealthy could aford to amass such a vast array of learning materials. Public libraries have put the knowledge and learning resources in the hands of all, rich and poor.


In my opinion things like public schools and libraries are among the finest and most important resources we have and are also the finest examples of government working for the people in the most positive ways. #It amazes me to know that some Americans (some of which who benefitted directly from public education, libraries, etc) would like to see a return to the old days when things like books, education, higher learning and knowledge were available only to the wealthy nobleman and his family while the lower eschelons remained ignorant, uneducated, excluded and in positions of servitude.
And yet, our schools are broken.

Where do we place in relation to the rest of the world in education?

We fail to attract our best and brightest to teach in our public schools.

We have many who go all the way through the system and are still functionally illiterate.

The teachers unions oppose payment based on performance as well as mandatory testing to ensure our kids are actually learning what they are supposed to.

Are they better than nothing? Yes.

Do I want my health care managed like our public schools?

Hell no.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 06 2007,12:04)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 06 2007,11:38)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ July 06 2007,01:30)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 05 2007,14:52)]As far as Socialisation, where are all the complaints of socialised schooling and libraries? #Let's just dump those while we're at it.
I guess you don't know me as well as I thought John, because I view the government takeover of our education system to be the most fatal mistake America ever made. #

If it wasn't for that, we probably wouldn't have started our third millennium with calls for government to takeover the remaining half of health care.
How is a public school system bad ? I attended public schools and so did many others who I know. Most of us went on to college and then on to graduate school and became professionals in the fields we were interested in. How is that a bad thing ? Let's say that wasn't available and the only path to an education was private schooling. How many people would be shut out of formal schooling ? What about those who can't afford to send their kids to a private school, or hire a private tutor or governess ? What about parents who have to work and cannot manage the time to home school their children ?

In my case my parents probably could have afforded to send me to a private school. But I can name at least a dozen or more personal friends and collegues who owe their professional careers to public education and, had it not been for public education they would not be where they are today. #

And what about public libraries ? facilities in which the poorest of the poor to the wealthiest of the wealthy can access books, periodicals, journals, newspapers, magazines, The Internet, films, audio, all sorts of media and learning resourses from the simples to the most advanced for free. #At one time only the wealthy could aford to amass such a vast array of learning materials. Public libraries have put the knowledge and learning resources in the hands of all, rich and poor.


In my opinion things like public schools and libraries are among the finest and most important resources we have and are also the finest examples of government working for the people in the most positive ways. #It amazes me to know that some Americans (some of which who benefitted directly from public education, libraries, etc) would like to see a return to the old days when things like books, education, higher learning and knowledge were available only to the wealthy nobleman and his family while the lower eschelons remained ignorant, uneducated, excluded and in positions of servitude.
And yet, our schools are broken.

Where do we place in relation to the rest of the world in education?

We fail to attract our best and brightest to teach in our public schools.

We have many who go all the way through the system and are still functionally illiterate.

The teachers unions oppose payment based on performance as well as mandatory testing to ensure our kids are actually learning what they are supposed to.

Are they better than nothing? Yes.

Do I want my health care managed like our public schools?

Hell no.
So in other words we should stay with a seriously flawed and broken health care system that drives people into bankruptcy,deby, run by an insurance industry which denies people cneeded care and procedures, a system that puts profit before health because the government is also broken and can't be fixed ? So in other words you are saying that America is a failure. Once again, france has a health care system that works but it is impossible for us to accomplish that here ?

realistically, our public school system does work and it works quite well. For every failure you can show there are also many success stories. There are so many people who wouldn;t have accomplished what they have had it not been for the public school system. Doesit need to be fixed and improved ?? Sure. let's find what's broken and fix it.

A health care system managed as todays public schools ?? well, at least that would be a start and for many better than what we have. But, why not create a better health care system ? If others can do it then so can we.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ July 06 2007,10:38)]How is a public school system bad ? I attended public schools and so did many others who I know. Most of us went on to college and then on to graduate school and became professionals in the fields we were interested in.
I find you to be one of the smartest guys in this forum, yet you repeatedly have shown to me an inability to think clearly about things that are of life and death importance to ourselves and our posterity. Public schooling has failed you and millions of other smart guys like you miserably.

Every time you make yet another call for, or defense of, brute force in human affairs, I see the mark of your failed education. I am hopeful that you will pull yourself out of your meager intellectual circumstances by your own bootstraps. I think you are that smart. GL OM.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 06 2007,14:59)]You would pay for routine care, like we used to in this country. Your insurance would cover any and all costs for catastrophic or expensive care, up to the max of your policy.

That sounds good on paper, but not in practice, so I must disagree. The charges for 'routine' healthcare have grown as the procedures have become more accurate and complex. The basic charges are extremely high, since in our post-Watergate sue happy society, doctors malpractice insurance has ballooned to the enormous liability it is now. Guess who's paying for that? Maybe in small towns this system would work, but for the majority of this country living in urban areas, this is not even remotely viable.

Quote[/b] (w4wtf @ July 06 2007,14:59)]Rates, just like life insurance, would be higher for those who make poor choices.

A laudable goal which as an ideal is unattainable. Why? Let's take two cases, both of which I am familiar with:

In one case a sick person goes to a hospital. In light of the symptoms of this very sick person, the doctor decides to treat with Steroids. For the symptoms, this would seem to be the right option. But in this case it wasn't. Still, the patient had the prophylactic effect of it working until released when the symptoms returned. Worse, thanks to the steroid treatment, and accepted treatment, the patient now gained (on average - I saw this in 4 cases) 100 pounds of weight. They were now borderline morbid obese. The patient was blamed for this. It was his lack of foresight to make the right life choices. He ate the wrong foods, didn't excercise and here he is paying for his Health Politically Correct sins.

In one case, I knew the person. Prior to getting si