[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Seeing as how the earlier posts were designed to show you that the poor can and do receive health care, the uninsured do receive health care and how the system (not just the medicaid piece) is in fact geared toward creating a dependency class- I don't see where I advocated the absolute denial of coverage. Can you indicate where I advocated the denial of future young people the very safetey net that allowed me to weather the difficult times? No?


Then I'd fully expect to see your submission in the next post. Ass.

You asked me what I had against "self-empowerment" and clearly came out against all "entitlement" programs. You're criticizing the very system that helped you for creating a dependency class. You can quibble all you want that you never explicitly said it, but we heard you loud and clear.

And what am I submitting again? Brownie recipes to the bake off? I'd like to submit to a lit mag, can I do that?

[besson3c]

Helmling,

I would like to see your brownie recipes actually, if you don't mind...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You asked me what I had against "self-empowerment" and clearly came out against all "entitlement" programs. You're criticizing the very system that helped you for creating a dependency class. You can quibble all you want that you never explicitly said it, but we heard you loud and clear.

I railed against what becomes a cycle. I clearly explained how the cycle works. I mentioned that most who enter the cycle statistically do not break it. I explained that you cannot attain prosperity without breaking out of the cycle. It really doesn't matter if I'm quibbling or not, you're not reading the posts anyway. You have a preconceived notion and you're running amuck with it.

And what am I submitting again? Brownie recipes to the bake off? I'd like to submit to a lit mag, can I do that?

Any one of the above would contribute more to this thread than what you've offered so far.

[robshoy]

Well, our government certainly can't. We might as well rely on the mighty warlocks of the East...

[tie]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Moore is a total brainless idiot. I listened to an interview between him and Bill Oriley. Moore kept spewing out the same stupid dribble over and over. He's an idiot with a big inheritance.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Oh I have a solution. What I don't have is a putrid personality, a 200+ pound obesity problem and the wealth to peddle my message (in his case propaganda) nationally. And you'll have to excuse me, but I take great offense when someone assaults my country.

It looks to me like you have no points to make against him, but dislike him very much personally because he's fat (and wealthy). Grow up.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The things governments do well are essential services - police, fire, courts, military, roads and infrastructure. These are things that government excels at.

Who decides what 'essential services' are?

The real question is whether you believe health care is an essential service. Or, more accurately, whether most Americans think health care is an essential services. It seems the majority of populations of all other industrialized nations do. I guess in the US, the belief is that some people should be able to profit off the sickness of others.

Maybe we should privatize all those things! I mean, wouldn't they run more efficiently? I'm sure you'd be really happy when the private fire department decides it'd be more efficient (and better for the stockholders) to have one fire station per county, instead of the ones spread about your town. Or the private police decide it's more profitable to ticket speeders than to enforce murder laws.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

The real question is whether you believe health care is an essential service. Or, more accurately, whether most Americans think health care is an essential services. It seems the majority of populations of all other industrialized nations do.

I agree with you here and I'm guessing that most Americans consider health care an essential service as well. Interestingly, while spending 10% of their net pay on eating out and entertainment and 5% on health care, they want the Federal government to pick up their health care tab. Health care may be an essential service, but for whatever reason, the movies and restaurants are twice as important. Not to mention the millions eligible for medicare/medicaid and are not enrolled.

The conundrum here is how to meet the needs of all. The other industrialized nations of which you speak are having a difficult time keeping up with the cost of the collective health care needs and are courting privatization.

I guess in the US, the belief is that some people should be able to profit off the sickness of others.

You mean like Michael Moore? You could be right. After all, he is arguably an American.

Maybe we should privatize all those things! I mean, wouldn't they run more efficiently? I'm sure you'd be really happy when the private fire department decides it'd be more efficient (and better for the stockholders) to have one fire station per county, instead of the ones spread about your town. Or the private police decide it's more profitable to ticket speeders than to enforce murder laws.

You bring up an interesting point here. Seeing as how we're being taxed for things like Social Security (which has been raided time and again for special interests leaving the pool at risk of bankruptcy) and public education (for which we spend more per student yet rank 18th among other industrialized nations), by eliminating those bloated bureaucracies that tax dollar would remain in our pocket. We could then afford to outfit our homes with sprinkler systems and better fire-suppressant apparatus. With regard to police deciding whether it's more profitable to ticket speeders over enforcing murder laws, they seem to be doing a good job collecting for seat belt violations. They also seem to be doing a good job of collecting for speeding violations at double the penalty through construction zones when the only apparent work being done is putting up a few orange sand buckets, cones, and saw-horses.

Either way, it comes down to an ideological discussion between smaller government and larger government. Not ALL government or NO government. Attempts to frame the discussion in this way are disingenuous IMO.

BTW, where have all the "ask not" Democrats gone?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You mean like Michael Moore? You could be right. After all, he is arguably an American.

Seeing as how we're being taxed for things like Social Security (which has been raided time and again for special interests leaving the pool at risk of bankruptcy) and public education (for which we spend more per student yet rank 18th among other industrialized nations), by eliminating those bloated bureaucracies that tax dollar would remain in our pocket. We could then afford to outfit our homes with sprinkler systems and better fire-suppressant apparatus.

Either way, it comes down to an ideological discussion between smaller government and larger government. Not ALL government or NO government. Attempts to frame the discussion in this way are disingenuous IMO.

Don't really care to get into a discussion about Moore. I applaud his asking questions that need to be asked in a way that gets attention. However - it's clear that he selectively uses information to his benefit. I do agree with him on the underlying premise of 'Sicko' - we can (and should) do better.

If we cut Social Security and public education, we wouldn't be able to afford sprinklers. We'd have to use those funds to save for retirement (hopefully for most, although lots of data says otherwise, save MORE for retirement) and to pay for school tuition (for those with children). I'm guessing that would eat up those funds.

To me, the discussion isn't necessarily about more or less (or zero or all) government. It's about whether profit should be in the equation when decisions get made about who gets certain kinds of care.

The government does set the rules for how the health care system runs today, so they're involved in this no matter what. They could restructure laws such that responsibility and accountability for medical decisions fall where they belong - with DOCTORS providing care. Obviously the doctors would need checks and balances, and oversight, but just shifting the 'burden of proof' for medical necessity would be a step in the right direction.

Or - a system could be a public/private mix - a minimum standard of care for everyone, with the ability to buy private insurance/care for those who want and can afford it.

I agree there's lots of different possibilities here - and universal public care is no panacea. The part of Moore's point I agree with is that the current system is not working and we need to do SOMETHING.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

The part of Moore's point I agree with is that the current system is not working and we need to do SOMETHING.

Pretty much no one disagrees with this.

But it's folly when people keep trying to act as if Moore deserves undue credit just for making his blatant propaganda films. This has long been a subject of debate, Moore doesn't deserve an ounce of credit for asking any questions, all have been asked and hashed over a million times, and in fact, he hasn't asked ANY questions of the systems he espouses and that he clearly doesn't know the first thing about.

I keep seeing the tact of people trying to take Moore out of the conversation in threads ABOUT Moore, and have to wonder what it is people are afraid to discuss. Blatant one-sided propaganda is not the best way of presenting this debate, and so long as Moore does that, his films, and the man himself will get criticized by people that see past the propaganda.

I actually witnessed Moore claim on CNN that the heath care systems in France and the UK were free (!!!) and of course had to be corrected that they were paid for with taxes, and in the case of France, supplemented by a private system that fills in the gaps. After that, all he could do was mutter under his breath and make faces, but he couldn't answer a single question put to him, or refute a single fact. The man simply doesn't know what he's talking about, and doesn't even make an attempt to learn about the very systems he's espousing.

Unfortunately, the same holds true of many of his supporters who just want to wax over all those pesky details, and pretend socialized heath care is a cure-all based on little more than the same propaganda and disinformation that Moore has obviously bought into.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Pretty much no one disagrees with this.

But it's folly when people keep trying to act as if Moore deserves undue credit just for making his blatant propaganda films. This has long been a subject of debate, Moore doesn't deserve an ounce of credit for asking any questions, all have been asked and hashed over a million times, and in fact, he hasn't asked ANY questions of the systems he espouses and that he clearly doesn't know the first thing about.

I keep seeing the tact of people trying to take Moore out of the conversation in threads ABOUT Moore, and have to wonder what it is people are afraid to discuss. Blatant one-sided propaganda is not the best way of presenting this debate, and so long as Moore does that, his films, and the man himself will get criticized by people that see past the propaganda.

I actually witnessed Moore claim on CNN that the heath care systems in France and the UK were free (!!!) and of course had to be corrected that they were paid for with taxes, and in the case of France, supplemented by a private system that fills in the gaps. After that, all he could do was mutter under his breath and make faces, but he couldn't answer a single question put to him, or refute a single fact. The man simply doesn't know what he's talking about, and doesn't even make an attempt to learn about the very systems he's espousing.

Unfortunately, the same holds true of many of his supporters who just want to wax over all those pesky details, and pretend socialized heath care is a cure-all based on little more than the same propaganda and disinformation that Moore has obviously bought into.

All of the questions Moore has asked have been asked before, but in the same prominent public spotlight?

If you were to ask the questions in a balance and non-controversial way, this would probably be about as far reaching as a PBS documentary. It certainly wouldn't air in major theaters across the country.

This is unfortunate, but true.

[Spliffdaddy]

True, likely
Unfortunate? nah

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

True, likely
Unfortunate? nah

So if it isn't unfortunate, I'd imagine that you'd have no problem with Michael Moore drawing attention to this issue via the means he chose?

[Spliffdaddy]

He can do whatever he wants. It's a free country.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I keep seeing the tact of people trying to take Moore out of the conversation in threads ABOUT Moore, and have to wonder what it is people are afraid to discuss. Blatant one-sided propaganda is not the best way of presenting this debate, and so long as Moore does that, his films, and the man himself will get criticized by people that see past the propaganda.

Point taken - it's easy to forget this in particular IS a thread about Moore. That's his biggest downside - he's so polarizing that he often clouds the issue, and people ignore the point in favor of discrediting him. He brings it on himself.

I do applaud his ability to get the tough questions asked in front of a broader audience. I just wish he'd do more to get people focused on the issue and not on him.

I think that's why you see lots of people try to take the focus off him, and that is unfortunate. I agree with the crux of his questions (as stated above), and do not think socialized healthcare is inherently evil, but it's clearly not the paradise Moore seems to make it out to be either.