Michael Moore "sicko"

[jaker29902]

Am I pro? or am I con? Turns out Im con. If you havent seen or heard about it "Sicko" is Moore's new movie that blasts our system of healthcare and says that a socialized system would be INFINATELY BETTER. However I tend to disagree IMMENSELY!!!! Moore's movie is soooo obviously "doctored" its sicking (nice turn of phrase eh?). this website pretty much says exactly why I disagree with socialized medicine. http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml good stuff imho. I think the idea we attempt to implement (that is government insurance for those who cant qualify otherwise) is the way to go, granted Medicaid needs some work. Anyways Ive stated my opinion now post yours!!!

[Phork]

Would you suggest seeing the movie? Any entertainment quality? I was quite curious about it myself. (I understand you disagree with their views and what not) Edited July 2, 2007 by Phork

[jaker29902]

Would you suggest seeing the movie? Any entertainment quality? I was quite curious about it myself. (I understand you disagree with their views and what not)

Hmm honestly unless you agree with him already probably not, his stuff is so biased

[Phork]

Cool, thanks for the review!

[MechAnt]

Putting healthcare into government control is suicide.

Government is bureaucratic and inefficient. ALWAYS IN EVERY CASE!

If you look at the world, as the US heads towards socialism, the rest of the world is moving away from it.

Always a step behind are we Americans Edited July 2, 2007 by MechAnt

[Jamal]

I feel very sorry for the not so well off in America, they get ill and can't afford do f'all. Where here in the U.K, we treat a millionaire and a hobo the same with regards to national healthcare.

[Skarredmind]

I feel very sorry for the not so well off in America, they get ill and can't afford do f'all. Where here in the U.K, we treat a millionaire and a hobo the same with regards to national healthcare.

It's not an easy topic, because I too feel sorry for people that can't afford their health care... unfortunately people feeling good or bad really isn't a sound basis for legislation. I feel bad that puppies are entuanized at shelters, but if we made a law stating that they couldn't do it, those places would be way way overpopulated. Now I am not really putting a puppy and a sick child in the same boat, but still law is supposed to be blind, and based on reason, not feelings.

National health care brings with it a whole bag of problems that we don't want to get into... My sister in law is Dutch, her father was sick, and almost died because of the lackadaisical attitude taken by the Dutch medical system (another brilliant socialized medicine state). In America the $$ makes the doctor's motivated, additionally, malpractice lawsuits would also cost the government money, you don't want the lawmaking body, which is worried about money, to be the ones to decide whether or not they have to pay for something like that.

That is completely not considering the fact that socialized medicine will shoot our taxes through the roof, and help the government push a ban on smoking through (like is happening in GB as we speak).

No, the less the government has a hand in my wallet, and the less control over and power that they have the better for all involved...

[MechAnt]

People respond to incentive not disincentive. It's called self-interest. Not greed, self-interest. There is a fine line between the two that I can't get into otherwise it'll spin off another debate.

The best medicine is prevention. Not treatment.

Again, I can't say this enough, government is bureaucratic and inefficient.

[Scalliwag]

Government has it's faults but for the most part the movie is correct. The HMO's are literally getting away with murder. When they have qoutas to deny people surgeries etc. that end up costing people their lives I think someone needs to go to jail.
To simplify this as though the only solution is government healthcare is either being disigenuous or ignorant. Trust me there is an in between solution and that is making corrupt HMO's pay dearly and not monetarily.
We need to get out of the mode of thinking people can pay fines and get off the hook. There needs to be mandatory jail time. Monetary fines get passed down. Prison time makes people think.

At least from the posts I have seen so far some people seem to be overlooking some criminal activity. Where government needs to step in is the laws and prosecution.
Too many HMO hired doctors were found to be on the take. Put their asses in prison.

[PerznPerversion]

The healthcare industry is fraudulant and attrocious. He makes some good points but of course its biased, as everything on this earth is. We need to revamp the healthcare system and honestly medicaid or w/e is horrible.. I know i cant afford regular insurance and i dont qualify for low income. so what am i supposed to do?

Even doctors and nurses laugh at our system, its just messed up.

[Scalliwag]

Right. Like I said there is an in between. My philosophy goes beyond just the problems and looks into the criminality.
I have a big problem with affirmative action. But mine is a little different than what most peoples first tazke is on that term. I think affirmative action in the white collar crime world is a huge problem.
Just like GW letting Libby get off with a 250k fine today is an example. 250k is not shit to this guy. But spending time in prison was horrifying to his candyass.
To me the federal prisons should be as bad an environment as the worst state prisons. Do the crime do the time and no guarantee your cell mate is not going to bust you up in bad ways as with a common prisoner.
When Jeff Dahmer came out of prison with a toe tag after thinking committing his crime in a state without the death penalty to me was a good thing. Anyone that thinks that the guards did not know that leaving him and the other guy alone might end up with his ass being killed did not read enough of all three of thems behaviour.
The guards, maybe even the warden wanted him dead. I have no problem with that. Him getting beat to death with a broom handle was still more humane than what he did with his victims.

The bitch that went before congress in 1996 and testified that she gave bad medical advice that denied a man surgery and later regretted he died is just not quite good enough to me. Murder does not have a statute of limitations in the U.S. Let her feel bad in the pen. Make it to where just because your HMO employer tells you to do something that it is not enough to escape the law.
If that bitch was in the pen for the next 40 years the nect doc on the payroll might think twice about signing off. If the next Jeffrey Skilling had to worry about being a cell mate to a mass murderer, he may think a little more before pulling a scam that cost employees their retirements and futures.

Sure that sounds harsh but I guarantee you that Scooter Libby is at piece tonight knowing he escaped justice. Maybe somebody will take a broom handle to him like Dahmer.... and again I would lose no sleep for the wicked.

[Skarredmind]

You know Scalli, I couldn't agree with you more in many ways. My wife works in healthcare ([sarcasm]oh yeah she is totally enamoured with my hookah[/sarcasm] lol) and she's dealt with the insurance companies on a one to one basis. No doubt, they are bastards, but the problem is on both sides of the fence and its a viscious cycle, the docs over charge, the insurance with holds payment, the doctors charge more to cover losses, the insurance backs off more... at this point its a chicken or egg problem.

Like you say, handing it over to those retards in suits to legislate the problem away will only make things worse. Perhaps real meaningful punishment for deliberate negligence and dishonesty will solve the issue... maybe it will only make the issues worse. Honestly a big part of her problem is when medicare changes the rules, the bozos in government (MOST of them unelected paper pushers) can't even handle what they have now, how crazy would we need to be to say, "Yup, you guys have done a GREEEEEAAAAAAT job so far, here is more power, maybe you can relieve me of some more personal liberties while you are at it too"

Its really a difficult topic, and there is no simple solution like anyone out there campaigning would have you believe

[Scheetz]

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."


That should answer my view on it.

[Scalliwag]

to me more horrific words would be being told that my daughter had a a brain tumor but my insurance was not going to cover the surgery.
One of the funniest things I heard was when an ex-tobacco industry executive turned over documents proving the tobacco industry manipulated nicotine levels in tobacco and that they went as far as patenting a "super nicotine" plant written in Portagese and putting it into a patent office in Switzerland. The funny part of the story is the reason the exec came forward was because he had just been diagnosed terminally ill. Things were great as long as he was raking in the money... let a little thing like mortality kick in and things can change a person real fast.

See it is real easy for some to pretend the problems Moore addresses are not real or he is biased or whatever. It is a lot easier than addressing the facts. I heard the same "he's biased" shit when he made Farenheit 911. What I didn't hear was people explaining WTF was up that the only people allowed to travel by air immediately following 911 was Bin Laden's family as well as a lot of other points that were raised. Were there errors, sure. Was there facts that especially as time went on proved to be true. hell yes.
Does pushing your head ever so tightly up your ass make facts go away?

Kind of like the woman whose son got killed in Iraq that was so gung-ho in the beginning of the film.... the facts ended up catching up with her. It was great until her kid came back in a flag draped casket.

There are problems he brings out that need to be addressed. Whether agreeing or not to his recommended fixes are a whole other story. There is shit that needs to be fixed and asses in jail are a great start.

[Brownman18]

Pretty much spot on agree with Scalli


Also now a national health care system is so improbable, even after the social security disaster (which apparently the media forgot about, despite majority of the elderly and soon to be elderly being royally screwed).


A health care system isn't even financially feasible in the States now, unless someone starts acting responsibly, and cleaning up the deficit disaster. But nope they just keep letting the bills pile up, while those in power pick up massive dividends and off shore their companies to avoid taxes...


Too much corruption in this decade.

[jaker29902]

I feel I need to further elaborate my point of view, I am not for socialized medicine (obvious), however I am not opposed to Government assistance. I feel that its not the Gov erments job to so much provide for people as to provide a means to help themselves (teach a man to fish and what not) anyways I think that Medicaide should be revamped to provide some sort of low cost and low-medium coverage insurance availible to all, regardless of income level, but if you decide to get some other insurance you are automatically disqualified until you cancel your other insurance. The way I see it would be this would be like low low low coverage that way if you cant afford something else you can have atleast this and not be run out by the docs and such, and if you can afford something better you probably will get something better.

[manntis]

National health care brings with it a whole bag of problems that we don't want to get into... My sister in law is Dutch, her father was sick, and almost died because of the lackadaisical attitude taken by the Dutch medical system (another brilliant socialized medicine state).

Using one example to imply all of Holland's universal health care doesn't work (or, in larger scope, to use Holland's health care to say all universal health care doesn't work) presupposes that any universal health care in the US wouldn't work.

That's a fallacious argument.

You trust the government with national defense, security, K-12 education, etc. Surely the wealthiest industrialized nation, prizing itself on it's ingenuity, can both recognise that the current system is failing and find a way to apply functional universal health care. It is NOT a stepping stone to Communism, nor does it disallow you from selecting your own doctor, or hospital. in fact it could give you more choices without an insurance company dictating where you must go to get treatment, or how much treatment.

Deregulating power in the US has resulted in higher costs and less effective delivery of service - it's a good argument FOR government controls.

Prescription drugs in universal health care countries are measurably cheaper than in the US. And before someone says "the research is done in the US - we pay for it!" I remind you that a) many drugs are developed by companies in other nations and there was as much innovation by US based companies before the profit motive became prime as after - with the exception of dubious-need drugs like those for "restless leg syndrome"

"But it'll inflate costs!" nope. The US government spends as much per capita as the Canadian government on health care. That is, the same money that comes out of a Canadian wallet and is given to the crown in taxes toward funding health care comes out of a US taxpayers wallet and is given to the IRS to fund Medicare and Medicaid. The difference is ANY Canadian can access the care, without further charge, whereas in the US you must buy additional insurance to receive any benefit unless you're aged or extremely low income.

In short, US citizens have already bought the services of universal health care. They're just not receiving them. Edited November 15, 2007 by manntis

[gaia.plateau]

I liked this documentary. It was entertaining, enlightening, and enriching. The 3 important Es of cinema.

I really don't understand the American aversion to universal healthcare, especially by conservatives. The neo-conservative ultimate concern is that your government should do whatever it takes to provide you with security, even if that means creating a gargantuan monolith of a deficit and compromising of civil liberties. My question is, what is the difference between providing security from terrorists and homosexuals, and providing security from disease and injury? What is the difference between being free from communism, and being free from debt?

The film really made me realize that I probably take for granted how good I have it. This summer I had an extremely severe throat infection (strep and an absyss), had to get a CScan and everything. Oh and it was free. I had 14,400 mg of the most powerful antibiotics available, all free, administered at home through an IV machine that a nurse brought over, taught me how to use, and lent to me. I was able to return it at my convenience a week later. I also received 6 counseling sessions from doctors, all free of charge, and a long, elaborate letter which allowed me to drop my summer class without academic or financial penalty. So that saved me $900. Damn the evils of socialized medicine! It was probably all just so I wouldn't notice that communism was being injected into me.

That's all the input I have. I have to go now, I need to buy some tylenol without having to take out a mortgage. Edited November 16, 2007 by gaia.plateau

[Scalliwag]

the nearest I can tell is neoconservatives are pretty much just a bunch of uneducated morans that have zero regard for the obvious. Think about the for a moment. GW and the repubs just spent 3.5 trillion ( with a T) on a war with a third world country.
Now a lot of conservatives want to pretend they did not have anything to do with this but I feel if you voted for GW that even thru ignorance you are responsible gfor the state of the union today.
They need to accept responsibility for their party as a whole since for the last 6 years they had control of all branches of national government.
Republicans have always been failures from the McCarthy era, Watergate, and today and their best hope has always been that the masses short term memory will forget their utter pathetic failures and they can shift blame for their incompetence.
They are mental midgets that talk a big game but after all their years of power all we have to show is $3+ per gallon gas, two less towers on the NY skyline and the most corrupt president and vice since Nixon they do not have the decency to accept the fact they are evil and suck and the best thing they could do is put the barrel of a gun in their mouth, pull the trigger and put us out of the misery they have caused

[Geiseric]

I don't see any easy answer for our health problem. A lot of the statements that I have seen in this thread have been either along the lines of socialism=stagnation and government=bureaucratic-waste-of-time. The problem with this attitude is fairly natural to attitudes in themselves: This is pulling from only your experience. Some of us have seen the system work. Some have not. Some statistics state it does, while others point another direction. It is very easy to manipulate statistical relationships (Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics). But, the basic idea of true capitalism (which, despite falling out of line in some areas, such as regulating commerce, generally are) is that it is based on the idea that people are inherently greedy, and that this general umbrella of greed, if you will, will balance itself out, and provide the best situation for all.

The trouble is, it not only really doesn't work out that way (and since social theory involving capitalism has been around since Adam Smith, its been a long while). There needs to be checks on business. There needs to be boundaries in place to control the abuse that this ideology of self-over-society and individualism causes. Moral of the story? We simply cannot know whether or not new models will work or not. Social medicine is still young. True socialism has yet to be attempted on a large scale. Human nature is not concrete (refer to pre-agricultural society). Returning to my previous thought, it is hard to concretely say what is the best model of health. I do know that in my experience as a lower middle class citizen (I grew up with my father, my mother in lower the upper class, I am an unusual case) is that medicine was very difficult to come by. I know my dad is still in debt from some of my surgeries in my younger days. I have had to pay for several appointments in the last year out of pocket because I do not qualify for aid, but I cannot afford to pay for health insurance (and believe, me, while those appointments hurt my wallet, it was nothing compared to how much I would pay otherwise). That being said, I would be royaly fucked, if I were to become seriously ill.

Anyways, back on track. I do know that the general health of the lower class and working class is not only poor, it is horrid. What causes this? I would be inclined to say the economic system. I'm Marxist that way. But I cannot truly know that until we have tried several other alternatives, which we will not, because something that is intrinsic to a functionalist culture is they believe that the current way is best, always.

To Scalliwag: I agree with you to some degree, but you seem to be caught up in this idea that deviance requires punishment. Why? What good does it do? Does it make you feel better about life? It needs to be controlled, yes. But control of the general population by cruel example has been shown over time to be less than effective. I could go into the possible methods of dealing with white collar crime (which is an interesting topic in itself, a lot has changed since Sutherland coined that term), but I have written enough for now.

*Edit - grammatical errors, blocky text* Edited November 16, 2007 by Geiseric

[Scalliwag]

there was a little tongue-in-cheek dark humor in the gun-in-mouth remark But I would hope that some of the people that voted for Bush would honestly evaluate their own judgment and maybe consider doing everybody a favor and just not vote.
Seeing repubs try and separate and distance themselves this late in the game from Bush and his failures is pretty transparent. Like I said they controlled all levels of government and even if they don't accept their failures does not mean they should not be constantly reminded.

They have stood by and let the cost of this war spin insanely out of control yet with 3.5 trillion being spent here on healthcare there would be no healthcare issue for us to even be talking about. Republicans object to even having the money on the war accurately accounted for. Yet Bush wants to talk about how democrats like to waste money?
Hmmmm.... giving it all to his defense contractor friends and Cheney's former company while getting pissy about dems wanting to spend more on kids healthcare.
You either have to be awful rich or awfully stupid to support that ideaology. That mentality has really wrecked the country at every level. We did not pay for this war as we went so our kids/grandkids etc. will be stuck with the bill. Their oil buddies are raping us at the pumps.
Everytime you get into a discussion with one of the wackos inevitably they try to invoke the Clinton boogy-man or I guess woman now as though it somehow changes the fact they are failures.

[manntis]

there was a little tongue-in-cheek dark humor in the gun-in-mouth remark

Paging Mr. Dwyer... Paging Budd Dwyer...

[Scalliwag]

Good one Mantiss. I remember when that happened is what is really scary.

[Scalliwag]

Damn, I just went and found the video on Youtube. The only video I ever saw was the news video that stopped when he puts the gun in his mouth. DAMN!!! I did not even expect this. That was one of the most graphic and horrible things I ever watched. It does not change the fact that he was a guilty POS. Sure he was not the only person guilty.
I did not know one of them did time and came back to win an election in '99 though. So much for repubs knocking DC for supporting cokehead Berry. These people were convicted of incredible corruption and repubs put one of the fools back in office?
I would rather the guy pulled a Dwyer than see that happen. Warning: this is a closeup video of a person committing suicide with a 357 magnum. Even though he was a completely corrupt and worthless POS does not make it any less sickening. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaaKTJ2Z_FY

After seeing that snippit on the vid about his cohort doing time a getting elected I found this http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin he is the Pennsylvania chairman for Rudy Guiliani... real shocker there. Rudy has his top cop buddy facing like 200 years for corruption. I guess this shows the kind of people we could expect in a Rudy administration. But if they were not corrupt they would not want anything to do with him. So I guess he has to take what he can get. Edited November 16, 2007 by Scalliwag

[manntis]

It does not change the fact that he was a guilty POS.

If you're referring to Dwyer, there is actually strong evidence that he was innocent of the charges against him, and he was set up by John Torquato, Jr. and Republican Party Chairman William Smith to take the fall with a maximum sentence so that they could plea bargain and walk away. Edited November 17, 2007 by manntis