Sicko

[Brian]

I'm the least political informed person on the site, but liked the way Moore made his movies and were presented, no matter how off I thought he was.

 

I am curious to hear opinions on his new movie, "SICKO", which opens June 29th.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2007 by Brian

[Cknolls]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/15/...in2933538.shtml

 

 

This couldn't happen to a bigger prick..

[GoSox05]

well health care in this country is a joke. So if it helps expose that, than it will be good.

[kapkomet]

I'll ask again... why is healthcare treated as a right?

 

I've said this before, and I still haven't gotten a good answer.

[Balta1701]

I'll ask again... why is healthcare treated as a right?

 

I've said this before, and I still haven't gotten a good answer.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

 

I hold it to be self-evident that humans have in fact a right to life and the pursuit of happiness, and that health care is absolutely a necessary part to both of those, and that therefore, men have the ability to request and demand that their government will take actions in that field to protect those rights.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'll ask again... why is healthcare treated as a right?

 

I've said this before, and I still haven't gotten a good answer.

 

 

Because people with power (i.e. people with more money than they know what to do with) feel guilty of their success and feel the need to tell the rest of the country how they should spend their money (or how their money should be spent). Because it does not effect them in the least bit, they feel like a socialist society would be best for everyone.

 

For examples see: George Clooney, Angelinia Jolie, Madonna, etc. etc.

[Gene Honda Civic]

I'll ask again... why is healthcare treated as a right?

 

I've said this before, and I still haven't gotten a good answer.

Human decency?

[kapkomet]

I hold it to be self-evident that humans have in fact a right to life and the pursuit of happiness, and that health care is absolutely a necessary part to both of those, and that therefore, men have the ability to request and demand that their government will take actions in that field to protect those rights.

That's as good of an answer as I've seen...

 

Nice!

 

I'll come back with some stuff later as the debate unfolds. But... why should the GOVERNMENT be the provider (which is a totally different direction then where I was thinking about this going)?

[Jenksismyhero]

I hold it to be self-evident that humans have in fact a right to life and the pursuit of happiness, and that health care is absolutely a necessary part to both of those, and that therefore, men have the ability to request and demand that their government will take actions in that field to protect those rights.

 

That's quite an interpretation there. Open up those gates and where does it stop? I have a right to life and pursuit of happiness, so I better get a nice home and 150k a year salary.

[Balta1701]

That's quite an interpretation there. Open up those gates and where does it stop? I have a right to life and pursuit of happiness, so I better get a nice home and 150k a year salary.

It stops at the point at which your right to those things begins to interfere with the right of others to those same things. The right of everyone to some sort of health care is a right that can be accomplished without significant interference in the right of the huge majority of people to any of those other things, IMO.

 

I'll come back with some stuff later as the debate unfolds. But... why should the GOVERNMENT be the provider (which is a totally different direction then where I was thinking about this going)?

So, that is a much more interesting question, and it's where this debate actually goes. Once you accept that it's a bad thing to have people randomly die somewhere because they don't have health care and no one will take care of them when an unexpected illness crops up, then the question becomes...what is the best way to achieve those ends.

 

I would argue that the reason the goverment is the provider is that the private sector has failed to be the provider that it needs to be, for all of the reasons that one can go on (costs 2x per person what any other country in the world spends, an enormously inefficient bureaucratic mess, 45 million or so uninsured, and outcomes that are at best on par with other nations in the world, but in many cases are severely lacking compared to the results of other system designs)

[kapkomet]

It stops at the point at which your right to those things begins to interfere with the right of others to those same things. The right of everyone to some sort of health care is a right that can be accomplished without significant interference in the right of the huge majority of people to any of those other things, IMO.

Really?

[Jenksismyhero]

It stops at the point at which your right to those things begins to interfere with the right of others to those same things. The right of everyone to some sort of health care is a right that can be accomplished without significant interference in the right of the huge majority of people to any of those other things, IMO.

 

So if you die in the ER because the system is so backed up and abused, would that be an interference of your right?

 

So, that is a much more interesting question, and it's where this debate actually goes. Once you accept that it's a bad thing to have people randomly die somewhere because they don't have health care and no one will take care of them when an unexpected illness crops up, then the question becomes...what is the best way to achieve those ends.

 

I think we're all in agreement that people dying is bad (mmkay). But that doesn't mean we should create a right to health care. My interpretation is that you have a right to life; not a right to a good life, a fair life or any other definition of life, just life. You have a right to be on the Earth. It stops there. Whether we, as an advanced civilized society, choose to make it a privilege is the debate. This right nonsense is why the Constitution has been used as legal tp for the last 200 years.

 

And I completely disagree that the Government is in the best position to manage such a system. Let Government create the boundaries, let the private sector put it in motion. Haven't we learned yet that Government makes everything worse? Public is just about always worse than private (in terms of management).

 

I look forward to watching Moore's movie. I can't wait to laugh at how he conveniently leaves out every problem with universal/national healthcare in countries like Canada. The insane tax increases that are needed, the insane waiting lines to see a doctor, etc. I'll bet he barely mentions those trivial facts.

[GoSox05]

So if you die in the ER because the system is so backed up and abused, would that be an interference of your right?

I think we're all in agreement that people dying is bad (mmkay). But that doesn't mean we should create a right to health care. My interpretation is that you have a right to life; not a right to a good life, a fair life or any other definition of life, just life. You have a right to be on the Earth. It stops there. Whether we, as an advanced civilized society, choose to make it a privilege is the debate. This right nonsense is why the Constitution has been used as legal tp for the last 200 years.

 

And I completely disagree that the Government is in the best position to manage such a system. Let Government create the boundaries, let the private sector put it in motion. Haven't we learned yet that Government makes everything worse? Public is just about always worse than private (in terms of management).

 

I look forward to watching Moore's movie. I can't wait to laugh at how he conveniently leaves out every problem with universal/national healthcare in countries like Canada. The insane tax increases that are needed, the insane waiting lines to see a doctor, etc. I'll bet he barely mentions those trivial facts.

 

 

So people don't have a right to health care, but the medical companies have a right to make billions of dollars and charge insane amounts for the things that people need to survive.

 

The whole "candians gotta wait a long time in line" speach is old. I dont know what fairy tale lines you wait in but in the America I live in you also have to wait in long lines.

[kapkomet]

So people don't have a right to health care, but the medical companies have a right to make billions of dollars and charge insane amounts for the things that people need to survive.

 

The whole "candians gotta wait a long time in line" speach is old. I dont know what fairy tale lines you wait in but in the America I live in you also have to wait in long lines.

 

No you don't, in comparison. Trust me. I've seen it from all sides.

[Balta1701]

And I completely disagree that the Government is in the best position to manage such a system. Let Government create the boundaries, let the private sector put it in motion. Haven't we learned yet that Government makes everything worse? Public is just about always worse than private (in terms of management).

And I totally disagree with this claim, and I think that the system we have now is the best possible example of that. Study after study has shown that the system where every single insurance provider is using different forms, there is no standardization across any system, and the biggest goal of insurance providers is to not find a reason to treat people, instead of actually treating people, is vastly more expensive than what happens in any government run system.

 

Study after study shows the same trend. Canada spends 1/3 as much on administration and paperwork as the U.S. health system (New England Journal of Medicine study). Medicare spends an order of magnitude less on paperwork than the private health care system. Paperwork in the U.S. is somewhere between 20 and 30% of health care costs. That is an absurd amount. Several hundred billion dollars are wasted on health care paperwork each year.

[GoSox05]

No you don't, in comparison. Trust me. I've seen it from all sides.

 

 

 

Well lets do ours better than.

 

Its gonna happen. The majority of people in this country want it. There are too many people who are tired of being sick and dying while rich companies get richer and richer.

 

It seems that Rich white republicans are the only ones who don't think we should have it. Wonder why.

[Balta1701]

So, on the actual subject of the movie, I thought this initial review, admittedly from a leftist site, was at least intriguing.

Contrary to its billing, Sicko is not a movie about health care policy. It does not spend time examining inefficiencies, or incentive structures, or public-private hybrids. It does not offer a methodologically rigorous cross-national comparison of health care systems. (Its portrayal of Cuba is, indeed, absurdly rosy.) That's not its point.

 

Its point, of course, is to arouse passion, to force debate, and on that, it succeeds. A few hours before, I'd been on Larry Kudlow's TV show, ostensibly to discuss health care and Moore's new movie. "I hate it," barked Kudlow. "Michael Moore's movie Sicko calls for socialized medicine." He hadn't seen it, of course, but felt perfectly comfortable assuming, and judging, its arguments.

 

The film is more radical, and more troubling, than he'd even imagined. Moore's movie is only superficially about health care. It uses the subject -- and also sick days, and vacations, and child care, and maternal support policies -- as a way to critique unthinking American exceptionalism, to challenge the tautology that states that the way we do things is the best way to do things because … it's the way we do things. The particulars of the account all add up to the larger question: Is the America we live in the America we think we live in, and the America we want to live in?

[GoSox05]

So, on the actual subject of the movie, I thought this initial review, admittedly from a leftist site, was at least intriguing.

 

 

 

I think another point of this movie, although I have not seen it. Michael Moore did talk about this in some interviews. Is that Americans need to start taking better care of themselves. He included himself in this too.

 

Americans eat like s***. Fast food is s***. Theres too many chemicals in our foods.

 

 

There called vegtables. there tasty.

[Jenksismyhero]

And I totally disagree with this claim, and I think that the system we have now is the best possible example of that. Study after study has shown that the system where every single insurance provider is using different forms, there is no standardization across any system, and the biggest goal of insurance providers is to not find a reason to treat people, instead of actually treating people, is vastly more expensive than what happens in any government run system.

 

Study after study shows the same trend. Canada spends 1/3 as much on administration and paperwork as the U.S. health system (New England Journal of Medicine study). Medicare spends an order of magnitude less on paperwork than the private health care system. Paperwork in the U.S. is somewhere between 20 and 30% of health care costs. That is an absurd amount. Several hundred billion dollars are wasted on health care paperwork each year.

 

 

This is why I said let the Government create the boundaries (rules) and let the private market run with it.

[jasonxctf]

so for those on the board who are against providing health-care for all, either paid by employers or the government...

 

who should be responsible for say a $13,000 bill for an ambulence trip to the ER, ER work for 15 minutes and the death of my father-in-law?

 

should it really cost $200 to get my teeth cleaned for 15 minutes? Should dentists really be charging $800 an hour?

 

the whole system is out of whack. Pull out insurance and we are in a world of hurt.

 

so if you pull out insurance, who can afford to get their teeth cleaned for $200? Then 1 of 2 things happen...

 

1) People don't clean their teeth. Huge medical issues arise

2) Government regulates the cost a dentist can charge for a teeth-cleaning.

 

which one do you prefer?

[GoSox05]

so for those on the board who are against providing health-care for all, either paid by employers or the government...

 

who should be responsible for say a $13,000 bill for an ambulence trip to the ER, ER work for 15 minutes and the death of my father-in-law?

 

should it really cost $200 to get my teeth cleaned for 15 minutes? Should dentists really be charging $800 an hour?

 

the whole system is out of whack. Pull out insurance and we are in a world of hurt.

 

so if you pull out insurance, who can afford to get their teeth cleaned for $200? Then 1 of 2 things happen...

 

1) People don't clean their teeth. Huge medical issues arise

2) Government regulates the cost a dentist can charge for a teeth-cleaning.

 

which one do you prefer?

 

I agree.

 

but acording to KapKomet, you don't have a right for health care and its your own problem.

 

People like him like to back rich medical companies over there own fellow citizens. Its sick. sicko.

Edited June 22, 2007 by GoSox05

[kapkomet]

I agree.

 

but acording to KapKomet, you don't have a right for health care and its your own problem.

 

People like him like to back rich medical companies over there own fellow citizens. Its sick. sicko.

There are ways to improve this, and why do we have to be dependent on our government to do so?

 

Also, tort reform is a HUGE part of this equation.

 

What about the R & D costs for medicine? Are they just supposed to be sucked up by the companies who make them just out of the goodness of their hearts?

 

If you really want to start throwing s***bomb hyperbole crap around, why even have a capitalistic society at all? Why shouldn't the government just set limits on the amount of money ANY of us make?

 

What's the initiative to be innovative, and make new things?

 

Why can't we all just be robots, all on the same, even, level playing field?

[GoSox05]

There are ways to improve this, and why do we have to be dependent on our government to do so?

 

Also, tort reform is a HUGE part of this equation.

 

What about the R & D costs for medicine? Are they just supposed to be sucked up by the companies who make them just out of the goodness of their hearts?

 

If you really want to start throwing s***bomb hyperbole crap around, why even have a capitalistic society at all? Why shouldn't the government just set limits on the amount of money ANY of us make?

 

What's the initiative to be innovative, and make new things?

 

Why can't we all just be robots, all on the same, even, level playing field?

 

 

companies don't do anything out of the goodness of their hearts and thats the problem. R and D costs are taken care of by corporate welfare.

 

 

 

I don't think a capitalistic society works, at least not this one.

 

Dont talk about being robots, repulicans and the right do nothing but follow George Bush like little robots.

Edited June 22, 2007 by GoSox05

[Jenksismyhero]

I agree.

 

but acording to Jenksismyb****, you don't have a right for health care and its your own problem.

 

People like him like to back rich medical companies over there own fellow citizens. Its sick. sicko.

 

There's a distinction in this argument. I've never said I'm against giving people health care, I'm against labeling it as a right. Once you label something a fundamental right it forever changes the nature of the beast.

 

Personally I was a big advocate of Henry Ford Jr. (guy from Tennessee) and his plan. He essentially said if you work hard society should reward you by helping out when you get in a bind. But it wasn't (a) forever and (B) for those who do not deserve it.

 

And I don't think I back rich medical companies anymore than you and I and the rest of the country backs rich automobile manufacturers, rich energy companies, rich communications companies, etc. I sure hope you don't own a cell phone. God knows you're stuffing money in the cofers of the devil.

 

 

so for those on the board who are against providing health-care for all, either paid by employers or the government...

 

who should be responsible for say a $13,000 bill for an ambulence trip to the ER, ER work for 15 minutes and the death of my father-in-law?

 

should it really cost $200 to get my teeth cleaned for 15 minutes? Should dentists really be charging $800 an hour?

 

the whole system is out of whack. Pull out insurance and we are in a world of hurt.

 

so if you pull out insurance, who can afford to get their teeth cleaned for $200? Then 1 of 2 things happen...

 

1) People don't clean their teeth. Huge medical issues arise

2) Government regulates the cost a dentist can charge for a teeth-cleaning.

 

which one do you prefer?

 

I agree costs have gotten out of control in some circumstances, and for this I have no problem with the government intervening and setting up some rules. I don't see how this relates to giving everyone health care though.

[kapkomet]

Jenks... right... EXACTLY...

 

It's not a RIGHT. People need healthcare, but that's not THE RIGHT to have health care provided for them.