# Sicko...



## Cruentus (Nov 10, 2007)

Just thought I'd start a thread on this now that Micheal Moore's new film, "Sicko,"  is out on  DVD.

I saw it last night.

Thoughts on the movie?


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 10, 2007)

I've never seen any of his movies, so I cannot comment on them, but, I would like to comment on him, the man.  I once heard a soundbite where Moore outright *owned* some media guy who was interviewing him.

The media guy somehow got smart with Moore.  Moore then outright told him, "Look, when my first movie came out, all of you people dismissed it as being foolish.  I had three points to the movie, 1) That there would be no weapons of mass destruction found, 2) that there would be big problems with medical care for the soldiers.  3) that we would be bogged down in a quagmire.  So, what do we have?  

No weapons of mass destruction.
Congressional hearings over Walter Reed hospital.
No realistic end in sight.

Then, haha, Moore told the guy, "So why don't you first apologize for calling me foolish over the first movie before we speak about this one, or better yet, let's just cut to a commercial right now so that we can see what pharmaceutical companies are sponsoring this show."


So, in my mind, this guy Michael Moore knows how to go toe-to-toe with these media pundits and do what we call around here a *knock-out-punch*!


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2007)

I saw the movie and I think it is Michael Moore's best film.  I haven't agree with some of Moore's films in the past, but this one, I am behind nearly 100%.  The only parts that I disagreed with were his bits about Cuba...they got the Red Carpet rolled out for them by Castro and the part about bullhorning Gitmo.  What was he really trying to accomplish there other then making a point?  I felt that he put the soldiers who were there in a bind.  What could they really do for the boatload of people he had?  There was probably a better way to make that point...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 10, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I saw the movie and I think it is Michael Moore's best film. I haven't agree with some of Moore's films in the past, but this one, I am behind nearly 100%. The only parts that I disagreed with were his bits about Cuba...they got the Red Carpet rolled out for them by Castro and the part about bullhorning Gitmo. What was he really trying to accomplish there other then making a point? I felt that he put the soldiers who were there in a bind. What could they really do for the boatload of people he had? There was probably a better way to make that point...




I would have shot the bull horn.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 10, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> I've never seen any of his movies, so I cannot comment on them, but, I would like to comment on him, the man.



I'd almost rather not discuss "the man" because I find that he is so polarizing for some people that talking about him as a person ruins any logical discussion about the points he makes. But, that will not stop people from talking about him here I am sure. [that was a good story about him, though, newguy; I am just making the point]

I'll start with my opinions about the movie, because it is a Saturday and no one else is really online to comment. 

First, I recommend, as always, to see the film. I feel that he does a good job with his documentary/commentaries; even if you do not agree with his position, they seem well done to me.

That said, before everyone throws down a link to all the "anti-Moore" sites to educate me on the fine details of misused data and embellishments that some feel he permeates his work with, please understand that I take all documentaries with a grain of salt. Whether it's on the Davinci Code, UFO's,  9-11, or healthcare as in this film, I do realize that all documentaries are always going to be from the point of view of the film maker, and data will be presented accordingly. Like most of these film-makers, I feel that Moore is presenting a point of view; not to be taken as Gospel, but just to be respected as any other and looked at with the same scrutiny as any other.

That said, let's talk about the film Sicko. 

Although I think that there may be some fine details that were presented with bias, overall I think that the film adequately highlights the problems with our healthcare system. I happen to believe that we are in a healthcare crisis, and something serious needs to be done about it.

I do question the accuracy of how other countries systems were presented (France, Canada, England, and Cuba to be specific). They are presented as Utopian, relatively problem free systems that is not cumbersome on taxes and where everyone gets the best care and is taken care of well under the system. I have to question the accuracy of this presentation because here in the U.S., I get all sorts of other data that would say the contrary. So, what I am hoping for is that some people who live in these countries with universal systems will have seen the movie, and will be able to comment on the accuracy of the presentation here.

Another thing that was highlighted was "time off" and vacation time as it is viewed in other countries. Although this is not specific to healthcare, it was tied in well because of the overall health implications for people who are overworked. The presentation was that people in many countries like Europe are garaunteed 5 weeks minimal paid vacation, and 35 hour work weeks. If you work "overtime," then those hours tack on as additional vacation days. The idea that was presented was that productivity is actually higher with these systems because people are required to maximize their time and actually work more efficiently when they are on the clock. I tend to agree with this presentation, though I need to look into some more data. But it is my experience that too many hours leads to less productivity. I think that we here in the US are far behind some of these other countries in terms of our viewpoints on 'time-off' and vacation time, and I think that this reality was presented well in the film.

One thing that was completely overlooked, though was the research development side of healthcare. I have been under the impression that we here in the US basically pioneer the latest in healthcare technology and equiptment. This occurs because we have the capital to do this with our 'paying' system. Other countries that are able to offer universal healthcare tend to benefit from our research and development that our paying system provides.  This point was overlooked, but I think it is a significant one in regards to looking at  revolutionizing our system. We would not want to  loose the technology and discoveries of new methodologies that our paying system provides, as that may be detrimental to the entire world.

Well, these are my impressions, anyhow, and what I thought were the highlights. I personally liked this film better then any of his other films.
The overall conclusion seems self-evident; that our system is 'broken,' and we need to come up with some serious solutions here in the US to fix it.

I would certainly like to hear other opinions from those who have seen the film...

C.


----------



## Jai (Nov 10, 2007)

I do not like him much myself, or agree with his views on alot of things, but I think his movies are pur together pretty well for what they are. I may have to give this one a peek for the heck of it.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 10, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I'd almost rather not discuss "the man" because I find that he is so polarizing for some people that talking about him as a person ruins any logical discussion about the points he makes. But, that will not stop people from talking about him here I am sure. [that was a good story about him, though, newguy; I am just making the point]
> 
> Another thing that was highlighted was "time off" and vacation time as it is viewed in other countries. Although this is not specific to healthcare, it was tied in well because of the overall health implications for people who are overworked. The presentation was that people in many countries like Europe are garaunteed 5 weeks minimal paid vacation, and 35 hour work weeks. If you work "overtime," then those hours tack on as additional vacation days. The idea that was presented was that productivity is actually higher with these systems because people are required to maximize their time and actually work more efficiently when they are on the clock. I tend to agree with this presentation, though I need to look into some more data. But it is my experience that too many hours leads to less productivity. I think that we here in the US are far behind some of these other countries in terms of our viewpoints on 'time-off' and vacation time, and I think that this reality was presented well in the film.
> 
> C.




Actually, if you look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the hourly output of the American worker is higher than any European country, with the exception of Sweden.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ForeignLabor/prodsuppt01.txt

Just a blurb before I go out on a Saturday night.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 10, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Actually, if you look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the hourly output of the American worker is higher than any European country, with the exception of Sweden.
> 
> ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ForeignLabor/prodsuppt01.txt
> 
> Just a blurb before I go out on a Saturday night.



Right, but what does that mean in terms of efficency; I mean, how does that translate to amount of work done within a time frame?

I am not saying that the assertion that productivity is higher in other countries is true; I really don't know. If I were to guess, I would guess that American productivity is higher overall due to more hours worked, but that on a per hour basis, European countries with limited work weeks are more productive. I know anecdotally that efficiency experts often find on a per company basis that having  a limited time  to work  generally translates to more work done within that given time frame, but I don't know how this pans out on a larger scale like looking at a whole country.

But that is just a guess. I need to see more data (starting with your link... thanks btw).


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 10, 2007)

Here is a good article that seems to explain a few things well on the issue of work hours:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/american_worker_productivity.html



> U.S. productivity               is No. 1 in the world when productivity is measured as gross domestic               product per worker, but our lead vanishes when productivity is               measured as GDP per hour worked, according to the Organization               for Economic Cooperation and Development, whose members are the               world's 30 most developed nations.



The article is actually from the LA times (not that familiar with the site on which it was reprinted).


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 10, 2007)

However.... I may stand corrected here on my initial guess  :

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070902/un_labor_productivity.html?.v=4



> American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and *they produce more per person over the year.**They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians*, according to a U.N. report released Monday, which said the United States "leads the world in labor productivity."



Damn!  I guess we're just hard workers! 

I still think we are behind as far as the way we treat "time-off" in this country, but it would appear that we are more productive per-hour then I thought.

Well, there would be one assertion that would be wrong in the film (that being that american workers are less efficient due to long hours). Although, I still agree with the point that we do need to allow for more "time-off" as a whole.


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 10, 2007)

If the US workers produce more per unit time than others, that is amazing!  I know that measurements like these can be hard to get right, and can be skewed, but if its true, that's really something.

I know that in my field, there is a lot of waiting around, with not a whole lot of work to do, and it comes in bursts (sometimes it can be a big burst).  But I suppose its different for different jobs.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 10, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> If the US workers produce more per unit time than others, that is amazing!  I know that measurements like these can be hard to get right, and can be skewed, but if its true, that's really something.
> 
> I know that in my field, there is a lot of waiting around, with not a whole lot of work to do, and it comes in bursts (sometimes it can be a big burst).  But I suppose its different for different jobs.





> America's increased productivity "has to do with the ICT (information and communication technologies) revolution, with the way the U.S. organizes companies, with the high level of competition in the country, with the extension of trade and investment abroad," said Jose Manuel Salazar, the ILO's head of employment.



I think it is different in different industries and jobs, as you said.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 10, 2007)

Smart. On Moores site, he includes a "fact-check list."

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/

It appears that for a long time (1993-2003) and in 2005, France had beaten us in per hour productivity. However, we beat then in 06' and 04.' We also consistently beat England and other countries with more vacation time. So, at the vary least, we are not vastly under-productive due to too many hours worked, as the movie would seem to imply.

But, I still say we should be wary of this, and try to impove our situation to where we have more "free" time. Things like working remotely and better use of technology rather then the traditional office/cubical setting would offer more time and more productivity, for example.


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 10, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Things like working remotely and better use of technology rather then the traditional office/cubical setting would offer more time and more productivity, for example.



As soon as the "Old Guard" passes the torch to the next generation, or whenever the _real_ petroleum crunch starts, which ever happens first, this will certainly happen.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 11, 2007)

Although I would agree that much needs to be done with our healthcare system, I think that going to a socialized system is the wrong thing to do.  

Now, I am speaking from a position of not having had the opportunity to see the movie, but having ready Michael Moore's "Factual Backup".

If one were to look at medical procedures where individual's pay the cost themselves, such as breast augmentation and laser eye surgery, the costs are continually going down.  In my recollection, about 15 years ago, the cost of laser eye surgery was over $10,000.  Now, the surgery can be had safer, for under $1,000.  

Why is it that we look for the government to make things more affordable with health care, when if we look to the free market, it will make a correction itself?  Here is an article by John Stossel:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/10/10/medical_competition_works_for_patients

In fact, John Stossel has several articles relating to health care at townhall.com.  It is interesting reading, and I would suggest as a counterpoint that people read them.

*SiCKO:* In a study of older Americans and Brits, the Brits had less of almost every major disease. Even the poorest Brit can expect to live longer than the richest American.

*SiCKO:* Canadians live three years longer than we do.

John Stossel also did an article relating to this issues as well:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...hy_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_health-care_study
This discusses the lifestyle habits of Americans versus those of other countries.  No health care system can make Americans change whether they choose to eat heathier, not smoke, etc.  These are issues that directly affect the lifespan of individuals, and therefore the average lifespan in a country.


Although not a medical expert and just an investigative journalist, John Stossel makes some very interesting arguments in favor of a more free-market health care system, rather than either what we have now, or what the rest of the world has.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 11, 2007)

I have a libertarian friend who runs his wife's pediatrician practice as her business manager and here is how he puts the argument for a free market system of health care.

If we took government out of the game.  If we made all of the rules the same between every state by eliminating the rules.  If we stopped subsidizing health care and giving to "preferred" insurance companies.  If we had a cash only system where everyone, no matter who you were, payed up front for the costs of health care, then health care costs would go down drastically...down to a point where you pay a penny for an aspirin instead of 50 bucks.

The reason is because the government is corrupt.  They have been bought off by the major health insurance and drug companies, so they have changed all of the rules to stifle competition and prevent people from having any real choice when it comes to insurance.  You get to either pick the bad guys or the bad guys.  This regulation has allowed the health care companies jack the prices of health care up to a point where nobody can afford not to be insured.  

Basically, with the corrupt government's help, the health care industry has destroyed ANY market forces in our system.  Through a mixture of fear, extortion and tyranny, the government and private enterprise has conspired to completely take away any freedom the consumer might have had.  A certain number of people NEED to fall through the cracks in this system so that the rest of us are so terrified that we willingly put our heads in this noose.

I don't know about you, but that is a convincing argument for me.  At the very least, before we can even talk about "universal health care" the people need to revolt and wreck the system of government we have now?  

Can you imagine if Hillary got elected and forced everybody under the umbrella of this system?  That's why the health care companies love her so much now, because that is basically her solution.  There would be absolutely nothing that anybody could do to stop the health care companies from charging whatever they pleased.  And the taxes this system would generate would go right through the roof.  It would be the perfect scam.  Billions of dollars (more) of our tax money would now be placed directly in the pockets of these companies.  

I think this is wrong.  In fact, this makes me so angry when I think about it that I can completely understand why so many elite have gotten lynched in popular rebellions in the past.  People need to wake up and realize that this truly is tyrannical.  They put a pretty face on it and wrap it in the American flag, but the truth is that we are all just to terrified to look behind those curtains to see the wizard.

As you can see, I think that Michael Moore's film was right on in many respects and I think that his inclusion of criticism for Hellery was brilliant.  But I think that his solution is too simplistic and would ultimately lead to more tyranny.  We, as a people, have got a lot of work to do before we even think about expanding the role government to provide health care.  Our government is a corporatist cancer that is feeding off of the livihood of the people.  Kill the cancer, then lets talk about health care.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 11, 2007)

I would suggest that it is not 'government' involvement, but rather two other parties involvment that causes the cost crisis.

Insurance Companies
Pharmaceutical Companies

I believe that involvement by the government would drastically reduce costs ... see medicare, it is an incredibly efficient system of delivering health care. 

I work in an insurance related field (auto insurance, not health insurance), and this is my opinion and experience from personal observation.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 11, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I believe that involvement by the government would drastically reduce costs ... see medicare, it is an incredibly efficient system of delivering health care.


 
But how can we ensure that this doesn't just become another handout to the two major players?  Right now, I would say that the system is just too corrupt.  The two other parties (dems and reps) are bought and paid for.


----------



## Yeti (Nov 11, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I have a libertarian friend who runs his wife's pediatrician practice as her business manager and here is how he puts the argument for a free market system of health care.



I think your friend is pretty much spot on. You actually don't need to look farther than NH for anecdotal evidence. Back a few governors ago, NH had 30+ different health care companies in operation. Costs for insurance were among the lowest in the company on a per capita basis and the number of insured was among the highest in the country. The governor came in, involved the government and the whole thing went south. By the end of that governor's term, only a scant few companies were left operating in NH - everyone else pulled or was forced out. Insurance prices skyrocketed due to this governmental control. The end result was a state that ranked among the lowest in the country in terms of number of insured and among the top in terms of highest cost per capita. A complete reversal.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 11, 2007)

Yeti, 

It is unclear to whom you are refering? What do you mean by 'NH'?

Then, if you could put some actual facts to your claims, it would also be helpful. Please tell us who the Insurance companies were before your suggested proximate cause, and which of those companies left. It would also be helpful if you could point to actual statements by those companies that left as to their reasons for leaving. 

Also, if you could put some number to the phrase 'skyrocketed'. 

You also mention, 'ranking's, could you share with us who was doing the rankings, and maybe actual links to their research. That would be good.


Lastly, your anecdote is a causation/correllation issue. You claim that all these drastic changes are in place because of a 'governor'. Does the legislature play a part? Federal Regulation? Changes in Demographics? It looks like you are trying to ascribe everything on a 'governor'. While the two events may have occured together, or in sequence, you have not established a correllation from event a to event b. 


This post may have wandered too far afield for a thread on 'Sicko...' - much like the posts that focus on Mr. Moore, himself, rather than his work. My apologies. I believe that clear thinking is mandated in each instance.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 11, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I would suggest that it is not 'government' involvement, but rather two other parties involvment that causes the cost crisis.
> 
> Insurance Companies
> Pharmaceutical Companies
> ...



I would have to agree with this. The simple fact, as it seems to me, is that a paying system is not working. It has gotten pretty ridicules in our country, at this point. However, we look at countries with less money then we have, and they can make a universal system work. So, this isn't a speculative idea where we can make predictions like "if we move to a universal system, people will go broke from taxes" or "if we do that, we will be further enslaved by our government," and so forth, because that hasn't been the end result in other countries. This is being done, and it seems to be working.

Further, we do this in the military. The military is like one huge universal HC system. So I know that we could make this work on a larger scale.

I am all for a limited Government, and I definitaly want the power to be in the hands of the  people. I am very libritarian and an individualist. But, individualism only goes so far, and that is why we have governments and not an anarchical system. I believe that Governments serve 2 very related purposes: to keep us safe and to keep us free. I think that "free-market" ideals are out the window when it comes to safety or protecting our rights and freedoms. I wouldn't, for example, want healthy competition in the market place with the fire dept. or police dept. where it is all privatized and I pay one group or another, or none at all nad I don't get service. That is ridicules, and we know it, so we have government run fire and police dept. because these are safety issues. Well, I think that healthcare is a safety issue as well, and that it shouldn't be limited to only those who can afford it. Add that to the fact that it is working in other countries, and that people in other countries pay far less per person (including taxes to run the system) then we do in our current system, that seals the deal for me.

Plus, keep in mind that you need healthy competition for a free market system to work. In our system, we do not have this, and big pharma and insurance has run a monopoly on our healthcare system, and have driven the prices far higher rather then lower.

I do think that we need to do a system that would be uniquely ours, and that would take into consideration research and development. But I think that it should be nationalized to at least some degree. I think that we have the wealth and the creativity to do this in a better way then it is being done even in Europe.


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 11, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> But, individualism only goes so far, and that is why we have governments and not an anarchical system. I believe that Governments serve 2 very related purposes: to keep us safe and to keep us free. I think that "free-market" ideals are out the window when it comes to safety or protecting our rights and freedoms.



If I may try to make a point...

See, this is where the "free market" talk fails.  To have a truly free market, you would have no FDA.  You would have no patents on any medicine.  A student at Stanford, say, could get some Zoloft, analyze the compound, synthesize it, and then replicate it in any laboratory he could come by.  He could then sell it, without a license, at whatever price the market would bear.

Furthermore, doctors would not be licensed, the buyer would beware.

Sometimes it tires me to hear so much about "free markets" when we really have nothing of the kind at all.


----------



## Yeti (Nov 11, 2007)

It seems I've hit a hot button with you michaeledward...not my intent. I am not sure how long you have been a resident of NH, but if it has been longer than 10 years, you should know well what happened to the health care industry in the state and under who's administration. That should answer at least a portion of the questions you asked.

I'm not exactly sure why you are trying so hard to discredit me as my intent was not to anger you. I don't think your questions alone make me feel that way, but the aggression with which you asked them. However, I will try to answer at least some of your questions. 

I do not recall the exact companies that left - I'm sorry, it has been too long, and quite honestly, I never listed them all - just looked at the numbers.  Honestly though, I really do not know what purpose that would serve since I did not quote exact numbers of companies that started and left. I only spoke in generalities.  I do know that Anthem (Blue Cross) and I think Celtic were two of the companies that remained. I believe they are both still in NH today. Do I have quotes from those firms that left?...of course not - I don't really keep such records nor do I think do you. I did not have direct dealing with these firms, only remember reading about the industry. As for the rankings, I believe they were obtained by the HCIA but I may be mistaken. 

My post was vague - perhaps too vague - on purpose as I am speaking from memory from many years ago. I have not followed the affairs in the state since I moved out of it several years ago. Perhaps I should have saved comment only for those areas of which I still have direct knowledge.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 11, 2007)

Other countries are not the US.  Other countries have publically funded elections.  They control the amount of lobbying that goes on.  They limit the amount of corporate interest in their governments.  In the US, we do nothing of the sort.  In fact, our politicians BEG for money from these guys and they get what they want...despite what the people want.  It's happened time and time again, why can we expect it to be any different with a Universal Health Care system?  

In theory, I agree that we need to have a system in place that would take care of everybody fairly.  As it stands now, I think that would impossible though.  There are too many fundamental systematic problems with the way that corporations influence and shape policy for their own interests that I think it would be a nightmare for the common person.  

Lets face it people, from our financial system, to our environmental policy, to health care, to transportation and infractructure, our government has made policies that favor the special interests and serve benefit a select group of corporations.  The gains we made in the past are being rolled back and new policies are being set in place that basically take the money we pay in taxes and place it directly into the hands of the special interests.  

Until this trend is reversed, I don't think we can even address this issue.  Expanding government in times like this is like expanding cancer throughout an organism.    

We need massive reform everywhere.  Not just in health care.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 11, 2007)

Yeti said:


> It seems I've hit a hot button with you michaeledward...not my intent. I am not sure how long you have been a resident of NH, but if it has been longer than 10 years, you should know well what happened to the health care industry in the state and under who's administration. That should answer at least a portion of the questions you asked.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure why you are trying so hard to discredit me as my intent was not to anger you. I don't think your questions alone make me feel that way, but the aggression with which you asked them. However, I will try to answer at least some of your questions.
> 
> ...


 
Yeti, from your post, it was unclear if you were referring to New Hampshire, or somewhere else. 

I make no attempt to discredit you. And you did not anger me. You did, however, put forth an argument that was very poorly supported. 

You stated in your first post, you were speaking only of 'generalities', but were quite specific about those 'generalities' have been caused by a 'governor'. 

In this post, you offer a bit of support for your argument that Health Care Companies consolidated. But, that has been going on completely independently from who was governor, and it has been going on in far more places than just New Hampshire. 

The same types of consoldations have been taking place in banking, do we ascribe those consolidations and business acquisitions to the governor? Bank of New Hampshire was purchased by a Canadian company. But, we don't hear that acquisition being blamed on 'government'. Probably because no one is worried about 'socialized banking'. 

Yeti, I welcome well made arguments from all points of view. I mean no attack on you. But, if you are going to make an argument that government invovlement is bad for healthcare, I am going to ask you, or anyone, to support their argument credibly.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 11, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> If I may try to make a point...
> 
> See, this is where the "free market" talk fails.  To have a truly free market, you would have no FDA.  You would have no patents on any medicine.  A student at Stanford, say, could get some Zoloft, analyze the compound, synthesize it, and then replicate it in any laboratory he could come by.  He could then sell it, without a license, at whatever price the market would bear.
> 
> ...



Those are really good points, man. I think that the free market ideal is a good one, but certain elements have to be in place for it to work (like fair competition); and those elements are not in place within our healthcare system.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 11, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Other countries are not the US.  Other countries have publically funded elections.  They control the amount of lobbying that goes on.  They limit the amount of corporate interest in their governments.  In the US, we do nothing of the sort.  In fact, our politicians BEG for money from these guys and they get what they want...despite what the people want.  It's happened time and time again, why can we expect it to be any different with a Universal Health Care system?
> 
> ...
> 
> We need massive reform everywhere.  Not just in health care.



Wow. Well, you make a valid point that I haven't yet thought of. 

I can't disagree that our real problems seem to stem from an overrunning of corporate interest in our government. It never occured to me that these interests might infect a nationalized plan. On the one hand, we could make a nationalized plan that far superceedes what we have no; on the other hand, if it is done wrongly and for the purpose of filtering our tax money into coffers, it could make what we have now seem like glory days. It's like, we could have the ability to make a good idea better, or take a good idea and screw it all up. 

So, maybe you are right. Maybe we need to first remove the stranglehold that lobbiest and campaign finance has on our government 1st, before we can trust that a nationalized plan would actually serve the people rather then big government and corporate interests.

I don't know the answers, and I certainly need to do more of my own research and hear some other opinions. But I have to say that you make a great point here that I can't argue with at the moment.

I do know, though that we are in what I would consider a crisis at this point, and something really needs to be done about this soon. Too many hard working people suffer and are bankrupted and screwed over by our current system as it is, not to mention the generalized serfdom that occurs for almost everyone regarding HC.

Side Note: In relationship to a nationalized plan gone wrong, the blurbs I have heard from Hilary Clinton scare the crap out of me. When I heard her say somethng along the lines of "people won't be able to get employed unless they can show proof of health insurance, just like buying a car" I  stopped what I was doing in horror  and was like WTF!?  I don't know the details of her plan, but what I have heard her talk about in principle is frightening as  hell.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 11, 2007)

Here is Hillary's plan:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx

The part that I don't like is that it appears that people will be forced to pay "low cost premiums," whatever that means. This seems to be like an invitation to further burden us with costs rather then help reduce our costs. Plus, I don't clearly see how the plan will keep cost of care down. It could potentially be an invitation to fliter more of our money into coffers, and lead to imprisoning us with a manditory system of coverage. 

The only good thing is that I do see how the plan could prevent unfair discrimination.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 11, 2007)

An article with some links to sites that present both sides:

http://jmchar.people.wm.edu/Kin493/socmed.html


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 12, 2007)

As I stated before, I believe that our health care "system" needs to be changed.  I believe that a truly free market system would accomplish that.

But for all the talk of a federally run governmental health care system has anyone asked one fundamental question as it relates to the U.S.: Where in the United States Constitution, from which all power of the federal government arises, does it give the power to the Feds to do so?

I have read the Constitution, and I don't believe such a health care system is specifically enumerated for the Feds, as is required by the 10th Amendment.

And I know that some will say that the Feds are into a lot of sectors not listed in the Constitution. That's not what I'm interested in hearing.  I want to know where the Feds believe they can derive this power.


----------



## Sorros (Nov 12, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Other countries are not the US. Other countries have publically funded elections. They control the amount of lobbying that goes on. They limit the amount of corporate interest in their governments. In the US, we do nothing of the sort. In fact, our politicians BEG for money from these guys and they get what they want...despite what the people want. It's happened time and time again, why can we expect it to be any different with a Universal Health Care system?
> 
> In theory, I agree that we need to have a system in place that would take care of everybody fairly. As it stands now, I think that would impossible though. There are too many fundamental systematic problems with the way that corporations influence and shape policy for their own interests that I think it would be a nightmare for the common person.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what other countrys your talking about. I have lived over seas three times and, the amount of graft and corruption is not only prevelent but accepted by the public to a certain exstent. 
In most of the G8 countrys supposively modern, the good old boy system is alive and well. The third world countries are ripe with corruption, its all who you know. what family you belong to. I heard it said say in Mexico, 65 families controle 90% of the wealth.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2007)

Some of this may be true, but I think that we probably could agree that in the scope of monetary amounts, the US probably is number one.  I would wager dollars to doughnuts that we spend more on lobbying and PACs then any other country.


----------



## Sorros (Nov 12, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> I've never seen any of his movies, so I cannot comment on them, but, I would like to comment on him, the man. I once heard a soundbite where Moore outright *owned* some media guy who was interviewing him.
> 
> The media guy somehow got smart with Moore. Moore then outright told him, "Look, when my first movie came out, all of you people dismissed it as being foolish. I had three points to the movie, 1) That there would be no weapons of mass destruction found, 2) that there would be big problems with medical care for the soldiers. 3) that we would be bogged down in a quagmire. So, what do we have?
> 
> ...


Micheal More is a hypocrite and a propogandist. He screams about Halliburton and the corparate machine, while owning thousands of shares of there stock. More than half of farenghite 9/11 was cut and pasted and disproved. John Stocell on 20/20 did the same to Sicko. You never can believe any thing in a  Micheal Moore film.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 12, 2007)

Sorros said:


> Micheal More is a hypocrite and a propogandist. He screams about Halliburton and the corparate machine, while owning thousands of shares of there stock. More than half of farenghite 9/11 was cut and pasted and disproved. John Stocell on 20/20 did the same to Sicko. You never can believe any thing in a  Micheal Moore film.



What point from the movie did you find most glaringly wrong?


----------



## AceHBK (Nov 12, 2007)

Sorros said:


> Micheal More is a hypocrite and a propogandist. He screams about Halliburton and the corparate machine, while owning thousands of shares of there stock.


 

I see nothing wrong with this.  I call it a smart business move.  It would be one thing if he didn't put them "on blast" b/c he owns stock but he did.


----------

