[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

But just think how much money the NHS would save if they denied care to any Briton that drank more than three pints a week! That would actually probably solve all the NHS' problems. Costs would go way down, there'd be no more waiting time for treatment. Everybody wins!

Apply the same rationale to the US's 300 million people and you get an easy explanation why a socialised healthcare system would quickly go bankrupt because a large proportion of Americans eat large portions of food, use drugs, own guns and are victims of gunshot wounds, practice extreme sports, enjoy using strong medication, and so on. Such lifestyles are difficult for any non-private healthcare system to put up with. Michael Moore's support for gun ownership and large dinners disqualifies him from this debate.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Apply the same rationale to the US's 300 million people and you get an easy explanation why a socialised healthcare system would quickly go bankrupt because a large proportion of Americans eat large portions of food, use drugs, own guns and are victims of gunshot wounds, practice extreme sports, enjoy using strong medication, and so on. Such lifestyles are difficult for any non-private healthcare system to put up with. Michael Moore's support for gun ownership and large dinners disqualifies him from this debate.

He was joking - show me the math that makes you think it's difficult to support that.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by peeb 

He was joking - show me the math that makes you think it's difficult to support that.

Britain has 60 million people, far less lifestyle related health problems and injuries than Americans, and its healthcare system is £800 million in debt even after 10 years of Blair pumping billions into it. The French have an even healthier lifestyle (smoking is their only famous vice) and are also heavily in debt. Take a population of 300 million people with a precarious lifestyle and the debt is hugely exacerbated.

One more bit on Moore twisting facts. He enters a British pharmacist and marvels at how it is run (big overacting on his part). He tries to make American viewers believe all that medicine is for free. Well, it is if you are jobless, disabled or a pensioner, which isn't too different for many Americans on welfare, but you have to pay for your medication otherwise. The doctor gives you a prescription, you take it to the chemist and pay the bill. Same in France too. Moore wouldn't go into that at all. He was acting like it's all scot free or dirt cheap.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

He was acting like it's all scot free or dirt cheap.

Well clearly no one would support the NHS if they allowed Scots in their pharmacies...

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Britain has 60 million people, far less lifestyle related health problems and injuries than Americans, and its healthcare system is £800 million in debt even after 10 years of Blair pumping billions into it. The French have an even healthier lifestyle (smoking is their only famous vice) and are also heavily in debt. Take a population of 300 million people with a precarious lifestyle and the debt is hugely exacerbated.

So help me out here.
The US couldn't afford the UK's health system? And yet the United States spends $5274 per person, per year, on health care and the United Kingdom spends $2164. Clearly, adopting the UK system would bankrupt the US. Oh, wait a minute, it's the other way around.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by WSJ

Who's Really 'Sicko'
By DAVID GRATZER
June 28, 2007; Page A13

Toronto

'I haven't seen 'Sicko,'" says Avril Allen about the new Michael Moore documentary, which advocates socialized medicine for the United States. The film, which has been widely viewed on the Internet, and which will officially open in the U.S. and Canada on Friday, has been getting rave reviews. But Ms. Allen, a lawyer, has no plans to watch it. She's just too busy preparing to file suit against Ontario's provincial government about its health-care system next month.

Her client, Lindsay McCreith, would have had to wait for four months just to get an MRI, and then months more to see a neurologist for his malignant brain tumor. Instead, frustrated and ill, the retired auto-body shop owner traveled to Buffalo, N.Y., for a lifesaving surgery. Now he's suing for the right to opt out of Canada's government-run health care, which he considers dangerous.


Ms. Allen figures the lawsuit has a fighting chance: In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "access to wait lists is not access to health care," striking down key Quebec laws that prohibited private medicine and private health insurance.

In the U.S., 83 House Democrats voted for a bill in 1993 calling for single-payer health care. That idea collapsed with HillaryCare and since then has existed on the fringes of the debate -- winning praise from academics and pressure groups, but remaining largely out of the political discussion. Mr. Moore's documentary intends to change that, exposing millions to his argument that American health care is sick and socialized medicine is the cure.

It's not simply that Mr. Moore is wrong. His grand tour of public health care systems misses the big story: While he prescribes socialism, market-oriented reforms are percolating in cities from Stockholm to Saskatoon.

Mr. Moore goes to London, Ontario, where he notes that not a single patient has waited in the hospital emergency room more than 45 minutes. "It's a fabulous system," a woman explains. In Britain, he tours a hospital where patients marvel at their free care. A patient's husband explains: "It's not America." Humorously, Mr. Moore finds a cashier dispensing money to patients (for transportation). In France, a doctor explains the success of the health-care system with the old Marxist axiom: "You pay according to your means, and you receive according to your needs."

It's compelling material -- I know because, born and raised in Canada, I used to believe in government-run health care. Then I was mugged by reality.

Consider, for instance, Mr. Moore's claim that ERs don't overcrowd in Canada. A Canadian government study recently found that only about half of patients are treated in a timely manner, as defined by local medical and hospital associations. "The research merely confirms anecdotal reports of interminable waits," reported a national newspaper. While people in rural areas seem to fare better, Toronto patients receive care in four hours on average; one in 10 patients waits more than a dozen hours.

This problem hit close to home last year: A relative, living in Winnipeg, nearly died of a strangulated bowel while lying on a stretcher for five hours, writhing in pain. To get the needed ultrasound, he was sent by ambulance to another hospital.

In Britain, the Department of Health recently acknowledged that one in eight patients wait more than a year for surgery. Around the time Mr. Moore was putting the finishing touches on his documentary, a hospital in Sutton Coldfield announced its new money-saving linen policy: Housekeeping will no longer change the bed sheets between patients, just turn them over. France's system failed so spectacularly in the summer heat of 2003 that 13,000 people died, largely of dehydration. Hospitals stopped answering the phones and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves.

With such problems, it's not surprising that people are looking for alternatives. Private clinics -- some operating in a "gray zone" of the law -- are now opening in Canada at a rate of about one per week.

Canadian doctors, once quiet on the issue of private health care, elected Brian Day as president of their national association. Dr. Day is a leading critic of Canadian medicare; he opened a private surgery hospital and then challenged the government to shut it down. "This is a country," Dr. Day said by way of explanation, "in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."

Market reforms are catching on in Britain, too. For six decades, its socialist Labour Party scoffed at the very idea of private medicine, dismissing it as "Americanization." Today Labour favors privatization, promising to triple the number of private-sector surgical procedures provided within two years. The Labour government aspires to give patients a choice of four providers for surgeries, at least one of them private, and recently considered the contracting out of some primary-care services -- perhaps even to American companies.

Other European countries follow this same path. In Sweden, after the latest privatizations, the government will contract out some 80% of Stockholm's primary care and 40% of total health services, including Stockholm's largest hospital. Beginning before the election of the new conservative chancellor, Germany enhanced insurance competition and turned state enterprises over to the private sector (including the majority of public hospitals). Even in Slovakia, a former Marxist country, privatizations are actively debated.

Under the weight of demographic shifts and strained by the limits of command-and-control economics, government-run health systems have turned out to be less than utopian. The stories are the same: dirty hospitals, poor standards and difficulty accessing modern drugs and tests.

Admittedly, the recent market reforms are gradual and controversial. But facts are facts, the reforms are real, and they represent a major trend in health care. What does Mr. Moore's documentary say about that? Nothing.

There ya go.

-t

[peeb]

But you didn't address the issue of cost, you just told anecdotes. When faced with the facts, you have nothing to say. I'll ask again. We're told that adopting the UK style system would bankrupt the States, and yet the United States spends $5274 per person, per year, on health care and the United Kingdom spends $2164. Clearly, adopting the UK system would bankrupt the US. Oh, wait a minute, it's the other way around. If the UK can't afford healthcare right now (of course, it can) then how can it afford it to double in price under an American style system?

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by peeb 

But you didn't address the issue of cost, you just told anecdotes. When faced with the facts, you have nothing to say. I'll ask again. We're told that adopting the UK style system would bankrupt the States, and yet the United States spends $5274 per person, per year, on health care and the United Kingdom spends $2164. Clearly, adopting the UK system would bankrupt the US. Oh, wait a minute, it's the other way around. If the UK can't afford healthcare right now (of course, it can) then how can it afford it to double in price under an American style system?

Peeb, there are a lot of causes for our high cost of health care:

1. We innovate here in this country. There is a lot of cutting edge technology that is used in our country that is often not used in others or at lest to the same extent. That cutting edge technology costs big bucks but for the people who it gives an extra year to live--they don't care how exorbitant it is. Our society has a very high expectation for health care services.

2. We have a huge number (and growing) of elderly patient populations. Generally more than most countries. All the baby-boomers need health care and are willing to use that cutting edge technology in #1. Elderly populations require a LOT of care to maintain their health.

3. Many of these elderly and other groups depend on Medicare/Medicaid, which only reimburses the hospitals and clinics a small fraction of the actual cost of care. That has to be made up somehow and it gets passed to those with health insurance. Additionally, those without health insurance add to the overall cost for those that do.

4. Overuse of Emergency Rooms!

5. Malpractice and related insurance costs for providers. This is an expensive deal for providers. They have to maintain this insurance, but with every ridiculously high court ruling of "$186 million" paid to the patient whose wrong leg was operated on, costs rise tremendously. (I am not saying that patients who have had such an experience don't deserve some sort of compensation, but it is a significant factor in health care costs.)

There are many MANY more. The point is that drawing a comparison and saying this is a fallacy:

America has a high cost of health care. America has privatized health care. Privatized health care increases health care costs. In English 101, this is what they call a non sequitur. It ignores the dozens, hundreds, or thousands of other factors that have potential involvement in the outcome of high health care costs.

[peeb]

You have some valid points and some bogus ones, but, you don't address the issue that the statement that the US cannot afford socialized healthcare is completely bogus. The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. We're going through the list of bogus statements one by one - the first one, that socialized health care is unaffordable, we can all agree is complete rubbish?

Even when you control for age, health, lifestyle etc, healthcare is much cheaper in the UK than it is in the US. Right now we're addressing the particular piece of misinformation that was claimed earlier that 'socialized healthcare would bankrupt the US'. Other things might bankrupt the US (we can deal with that next) but it wouldn't be socialized care.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You have some valid points and some bogus ones, but, you don't address the issue that the statement that the US cannot afford socialized healthcare is completely bogus. The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. We're going through the list of bogus statements one by one - the first one, that socialized health care is unaffordable, we can all agree is complete rubbish?

Even when you control for age, health, lifestyle etc, healthcare is much cheaper in the UK than it is in the US. Right now we're addressing the particular piece of misinformation that was claimed earlier that 'socialized healthcare would bankrupt the US'. Other things might bankrupt the US (we can deal with that next) but it wouldn't be socialized care.

What I want to point out is that (IMO) while it may not literally bankrupt us, it wouldn't fix our high health care costs either.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

What I want to point out is that (IMO) while it may not literally bankrupt us, it wouldn't fix our high health care costs either.

Well at least you'd have everyone putting into the system. Right now about half the population puts in but everybody takes out.

I don't think the government needs to 'own' hospitals and clinics either.

[el chupacabra]

greenG4
5. Malpractice and related insurance costs for providers. This is an expensive deal for providers. They have to maintain this insurance, but with every ridiculously high court ruling of "$186 million" paid to the patient whose wrong leg was operated on

This is not an expensive deal for providers.
I didn’t find anything about someone getting $186 million for a settlement when doing a search. All I found was this link about how the total cost in West Virginia is about
$186mil per/year in malpractice costs.

Public Citizen | Press Room - Medical Malpractice Insurance Crisis in West Virginia a Result of Economic Cycle, Doctors Who Err, Study Finds
Medical errors cause 283 to 630 preventable deaths in West Virginia each year. These errors cost families and communities $109 million to $186 million each year in lost wages, lost productivity and increased health care costs. In contrast, medical malpractice insurance costs West Virginia’s doctors less than $77 million annually

So if you divide that out to the whole population of WV (1,808,344) and made sure everyone was paying into the system that would raise costs to each individual only 28 cents/day…I think people can afford that. Obviously it is not that big a deal.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...p/index.htmlIn Congress, there is agreement about the increasing problem. Democrats argue, however, that caps will do little to combat rising premiums and will instead increase profits of the insurance industry.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, said the measure was "an insurance giveaway bill."
"This is not going to bring doctors into rural and urban America," she said
….."Health care professionals need to see through this sham," the Democrat said. "It's no help at all. Doctors are but pawns in what is clearly special interest legislation." …

Said so nicely
Looks like Dems are right on this one.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Originally Posted by WSJ
Who's Really 'Sicko'
By DAVID GRATZER
June 28, 2007; Page A13

There ya go.

-t

Moore smacked down all those comments on CNN

CNN must be ‘left’ because they were picking calls (to Moore) from really stupid people. This one guy who had no insurance called and said he wouldn't support Moore's plan because Moore was criticizing America, he said he wanted to support someone's plan who had the same plan as Moore but was pro American.

Talk about contradicting yourself and biting your nose to spite your face at the same time.

[greenG4]

High Cost Of Malpractice Insurance, Industry Blames Costly Lawsuits, But Investments Might Be To Blame - CBS News

This is from a couple years ago even. And I guarantee it hasn't gone down. Realizing of course, that there may be some blame on their investments. With te number of uge sttlements there are now as compared to 10-20 years ago, it can hardly be dismissed as easily as you would like.

Edit: Here are some statitstics: Doctor & Nurse Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Info: FREE Statistics
With 1/4 of our physicians being sued EVERY YEAR, you should expect malpractice insurance to skyrocket. The costs get passed on to their revenue stream (patients).

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Kurt Loder review makes Sicko's Michael Moore look sick in the head

In other news, Moore stands to earn $75 million personally if Sicko breaks $250 million box office. Moore Money, moore fat, moore greed, moore eyes on whatever other form of suffering he can profit out of.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

With 1/4 of our physicians being sued EVERY YEAR, you should expect malpractice insurance to skyrocket. The costs get passed on to their revenue stream (patients).

Note that this is a good thing.

No malpractice suits = medical staff not paying as much attention as you'd perhaps like them to be = greater chance of dying.

Of course, there's always a good bunch of staff out there who would do their best regardless, but it keeps the would be slackers on their toes.

[typoon]

Everyone seems to forget one major component of the entire Healthcare issue. THE LAWYERS! Because of them Many doctors have STOPPED performing many procedures because their insurance is way too high and because they are afraid of getting sued.

[Big Mac]

Yeah, that's a great point - trial lawyers like Edwards have also done more than enough to drive up costs.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by typoon 

Everyone seems to forget one major component of the entire Healthcare issue. THE LAWYERS! Because of them Many doctors have STOPPED performing many procedures because their insurance is way too high and because they are afraid of getting sued.

Maybe they ought to practice more competent medicine, and they wouldn't have to worry about getting sued.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Maybe they ought to practice more competent medicine, and they wouldn't have to worry about getting sued.

Many of them do practice competent medicine. It's the frivolous lawsuits brought on by lawyers that cause problems for everyone.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That's why 10s of thousands die in hospitals annually, from preventable errors. Stop drinking the corporate sponsored Kool-Aid.

And you are saying that the frivolous lawsuits don't happen? Yes if a preventable error happens then they should get sued.

[OldManMac]

That's why 10s of thousands die in hospitals annually, from preventable errors. Stop drinking the corporate sponsored Kool-Aid.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Maybe they ought to practice more competent medicine, and they wouldn't have to worry about getting sued.

That's a glib statement. Are you a doctor? If you are, can you guarantee flawless performance? Can you guarantee that you'll be able to totally satisfy your patients? If not, you may get sued even if you did a competent job.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Maybe they ought to practice more competent medicine, and they wouldn't have to worry about getting sued.

That's just a really ignorant statement, and a classic example of why your side of this debate comes off as unreasonable, and irrational. You're just never willing to even aknowledge problems that actually exist (let alone address or help solve them).

It's a very well known fact that lawsuits and the high cost of insurance for them force a lot of good doctors to take their skills elsewhere. Doctors are people, not robots. They are generally highly skilled. If private industry will pay you just as well (and better) and provide a better work environment than practicing medicine where you've got huge costs associated with frivolous lawsuits that could also ruin your career- many people -being just that, people, not robots- will choose the path other than practicing medicine.

I doubt very seriously that highly skilled doctors leaving the profession for other industries is helping raise any standards of preventable errors in the remaining pool.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Kurt Loder review makes Sicko's Michael Moore look sick in the head

In other news, Moore stands to earn $75 million personally if Sicko breaks $250 million box office. Moore Money, moore fat, moore greed, moore eyes on whatever other form of suffering he can profit out of.

I thought you were pro capitalism? If you like socialism so much, why don't you move to a socialist country?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's a very well known fact that lawsuits and the high cost of insurance for them force a lot of good doctors to take their skills elsewhere.

No, it's a bogus myth. How about some statistics to back this claim up? How many doctors are leaving the profession or the US? Not anecdotes please, numbers.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by typoon 

Everyone seems to forget one major component of the entire Healthcare issue. THE LAWYERS! Because of them Many doctors have STOPPED performing many procedures because their insurance is way too high and because they are afraid of getting sued.

This is a bogus myth. Please provide some statistics on what proportion of healthcare premiums litigation represents. It is not a major part of the cost.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I thought you were pro capitalism? If you like socialism so much, why don't you move to a socialist country?

If you were capable of reading all the discussions you take part in you would have noticed I said at least ten times that Michael Moore is exploiting a subject for his own capital gain and personal glory. If he truly was this great supporter of socialised services he would have made this documentary with BBC Film who could distribute the documentary on BBC 2, BBC World and BBC America. That's more coverage than Sicko can get in the cinema.

But no, Moore doesn't give a **** about society. He's a leech. A fat leech who can't get his facts right and can't think of a decent solution because he doesn't care about that. I support capitalism and free talking consumer based society. I also use my free speech to criticise fat two faced bastards like Michael Moore.

If Kurt Loder can get the facts right then Moore should be laughed off this planet by any person capable of firing off a synapse in their head.

If you like socialism so much, why don't you move to a socialist country?

Shouldn't that be directed at Moore?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Kurt Loder review makes Sicko's Michael Moore look sick in the head

In other news, Moore stands to earn $75 million personally if Sicko breaks $250 million box office. Moore Money, moore fat, moore greed, moore eyes on whatever other form of suffering he can profit out of.

I don't agree with Moore's position on health care. But this is ridiculous. Documentarians shouldn't make money? Smells like socialism to me, too.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by tie 

I don't agree with Moore's position on health care. But this is ridiculous. Documentarians shouldn't make money? Smells like socialism to me, too.

Oh come on. I'm pointing out his exploitation and hypocrisy. Doctors shouldn't make money? Smells like socialism to me. Ah, that's when it's fine with Moore. It's also fine with him to skew subject matters, don't report anything that disagrees with him, and flat out lie about the quality of healthcare in Britain, France, Canada and Cuba.

Here's something else. When Moore says 50 millions Americans don't have healthcare insurance, he should subtract the 30 million 18-25 year olds from that figure who haven't bothered getting insurance yet because they are young, naive and healthy, therefore don't think about insurance.

And how many people over 25 can afford insurance but don't have it because they can't be bothered (like many car and home owners)? Take that into account too.

Now you're left with less than 20 million people out of a population of almost 300 million and I can bet quite a percentage of that 20 million are new immigrants who also haven't bothered with insurance yet because they're busy doing other things like looking for work and trying to fit in. I can also bet many of those immigrants came from countries with socialised healthcare.

The number should be cut to 15 million without insurance or 5% of the country's population. That number could be cut with appropriate overhauling of the healthcare system and legislation without socialising healthcare. It's an easier job than Moore tries to make it look.

[greenG4]

Assemblyman Herbert Conaway Jr. (D-7), who is a doctor, said, "There is a healthcare crisis coming very rapidly. Doctors are leaving the profession in droves.

Physicians protest cost of malpractice insurance Rising fees have doctors calling for legislative reforms By linda denicola Staff Writer
An older article, but still applies. Little has changed since then, other than getting worse.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

If you were capable of reading all the discussions you take part in you would have noticed I said at least ten times that Michael Moore is exploiting a subject for his own capital gain and personal glory. If he truly was this great supporter of socialised services he would have made this documentary with BBC Film who could distribute the documentary on BBC 2, BBC World and BBC America. That's more coverage than Sicko can get in the cinema.

But no, Moore doesn't give a **** about society. He's a leech. A fat leech who can't get his facts right and can't think of a decent solution because he doesn't care about that. I support capitalism and free talking consumer based society. I also use my free speech to criticise fat two faced bastards like Michael Moore.

If Kurt Loder can get the facts right then Moore should be laughed off this planet by any person capable of firing off a synapse in their head.

I hear that Michael Moore eats babies too.

Do you not see how dumb all of this Obi Wan? Do the cigarette companies give a damn about society? Are they all bastards too, leeching from society?

If you were really pro capitalist, you'd understand that you vote with your dollar. If you don't like Michael Moore, don't go see his films. If you don't want to support the cigarette companies, don't buy cigarettes. It's as simple as that.

Let's just cut to the chase here though... The only reason you are spewing all of this is because you don't agree with his opinions. Fine, but point your vitriol somewhere else. He's not doing a single thing wrong, nor is he the only one that holds these opinions that you despise.

Perhaps you should move to a communist or socialist country? I thought you loved America?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Physicians protest cost of malpractice insurance Rising fees have doctors calling for legislative reforms By linda denicola Staff Writer
An older article, but still applies. Little has changed since then, other than getting worse.

And little will change with these sorts of conversations so long as we go back and forth pointing out the weaknesses of either system. We could literally do this all day, but what would it accomplish or prove? Do you really think that those who would prefer that government manage our health care are under the illusion that such a system would be some sort of utopian paradise?

Speaking only for myself, I think that government managed health care is about the only option that makes sense, so I prefer it. If somebody can come up with something better, great, but until then I simply see it as the best of two evils, nothing more, nothing less.

However, I'm not definite that health care should be managed by the federal government. This may be a great task for state governments. We are already seeing this in some states.

[besson3c]

I think the words of Mr. Colbert describe many Republicans in here... they "think at you". All heart and vitriol, little subtlety, nuance, and well-reasoned, restrained response.

Maybe our next great energy source is not bio fuels, hydrogen, or electricity, but MacNN Republican knee jerks? If only this could be harnessed...

[peeb]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Physicians protest cost of malpractice insurance Rising fees have doctors calling for legislative reforms By linda denicola Staff Writer
An older article, but still applies. Little has changed since then, other than getting worse.

I'm afraid that's a fail. Anecdotes, but no stats on how much of health premiums is litigation.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I'm afraid that's a fail. Anecdotes, but no stats on how much of health premiums is litigation.

Let's use some logic. Malpractice insurance has soared in recent years. Awards have also skyrocketed. Both sides need lawyers. Usually they take about 25-30% for a win. I don't have statistics in my back pocket, but I can still use my brain. Of course, you've managed to get us way off course into a nitpick area of the entire conversation. Do you finally agree that malpractice insurance/lawsuites do in fact affect health care costs?

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

He's not doing a single thing wrong, nor is he the only one that holds these opinions that you despise.

First of all **** you for trying to agitate me on purpose and telling me I should move to a communist state two times. Second, Moore is doing something wrong. He is a liar and distorter of facts as pointed out by myself and others and in articles linked to in this discussion. He's a charlatan and therefore will have a third asshole ripped into his fat butt for being such a conman. He needs every outlet he can for the amount of food he eats.

The fat bastard has even been listed numerous times on the "sh!tty tipper" blog as one who orders tons of food and doesn't leave a tip... in Californian restaurants where it is common courtesy to leave 10% and where waiters pay a fixed tax on tips. So much for caring for low paid workers.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

First of all **** you for trying to agitate me on purpose

It's a damn shame that happened to someone as polite and courteous as you.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Let's use some logic. Malpractice insurance has soared in recent years. Awards have also skyrocketed. Both sides need lawyers. Usually they take about 25-30% for a win. I don't have statistics in my back pocket, but I can still use my brain. Of course, you've managed to get us way off course into a nitpick area of the entire conversation. Do you finally agree that malpractice insurance/lawsuites do in fact affect health care costs?

Well of course the affect health care costs, but, unlike you, I do have the statistics in my back pocket. They make up less that half a percent of US health insurance costs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

First of all **** you for trying to agitate me on purpose and telling me I should move to a communist state two times. Second, Moore is doing something wrong. He is a liar and distorter of facts as pointed out by myself and others and in articles linked to in this discussion. He's a charlatan and therefore will have a third asshole ripped into his fat butt for being such a conman. He needs every outlet he can for the amount of food he eats.

The fat bastard has even been listed numerous times on the "sh!tty tipper" blog as one who orders tons of food and doesn't leave a tip... in Californian restaurants where it is common courtesy to leave 10% and where waiters pay a fixed tax on tips. So much for caring for low paid workers.

My thought about you moving to a communist state is a valid point based on what you were saying.

What I think you really mean is that because of Moore's stature and huge public presence, he has a greater responsibility to the public to present unbiased, balanced, and factually correct information than a group like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists or PETA who will do the exact same thing on a smaller scale (I don't see you ranting and raving about them). The USA itself also has a greater responsibility to the world to be environmentally conscious, to be a guiding light of ethics and moral behavior, and an admirable economic partner. Have you ever ranted and raved about the USA and its responsibilities here?

The ironic part is that the people who seem to have the greatest problem with him are Republicans, and Republicans are supposed to be about free speech (at least constitutionalists) and voting with your dollar. So, why don't you vote with your dollar? What he is doing may be unethical to some extent, but so are KKK rallies. Yet, the KKK is allowed to say what they want and even hold peaceful rallies. Should they be stifled?

Unfortunately, most Americans (and probably humans in general) need an issue beat into their heads before they even start to think about it, and even then it sometimes isn't enough. While Moore's movies are unbalanced, they do generate a huge splash, and in doing so get people talking about these issues. They also make him a ton of money, which is probably one of his motivations for making the movies in the first place. Here in America, we are allowed to make money however we want so long as it isn't illegal, and it is up to us to decide whether or not we choose to buy the product.

This is what I mean by Michael Moore is doing nothing wrong. If you want to rant and rave about how he is abusing his responsibilities and how his movies are biased, you need to start saying exactly that. Otherwise, people will take issue with you attacking his character.

More to the point, you attacking his character is pretty much counter productive anyway. Are we supposed to debate whether he is or isn't a fat piece of ****? Great, what fun!

[besson3c]

Also, if you do intend to bash Michael Moore for abating his responsibilities, realize that you will be labeled a hypocrite when you give somebody in the Republican party a free pass for abating theirs.

[besson3c]

I would also like to figure out why there is so much reactionary crap about Communism and Socialist. I understand that there was this Cold War in the US, but wasn't that some time ago? Why does this fear still permeate our most recent generations of civilian population who weren't even born in the Cold War era?


*cue the accusations of me liking Communism/Socialism and thinking they are desirable for this country*

[besson3c]

I asked this in the other health thread, but since I'm certain it won't be answered, here it is again:

what is the Republican solution here, period? What needs to happen with our health care? Surely you recognize the severe and crippling problems it faces now? What do we do?

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

The main problem is cost: Patient with no health insurance gets seen and can't pay > cost gets passed on to those WITH health insurance > premiums rise >fewer people can afford health insurance >repeat. Another factor to inreased cost is poor preventative medicine. This is the patient's fault for not getting annual checkups.

1. Mandate health insurance just like car insurance (just wait, I'm not done yet)
2. New Law: All health insurance companies must charge a flat rate and cannot deny coverage based on previous health problems, with the possible exception of poor lifestyle choices (sorry, smokers)
3. You must have annual physical health accessments or you lose health insurance coverage
4. Everyone now has health insurance. Get rid of medicare and medicaid.
5. Profit.

Besson3c, I answered on the first page...

[Dakarʒ]

It gets the point where people yell socialism/communism, as you would compare people to Hitler/Nazis.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I would also like to figure out why there is so much reactionary crap about Communism and Socialist. I understand that there was this Cold War in the US, but wasn't that some time ago? Why does this fear still permeate our most recent generations of civilian population who weren't even born in the Cold War era?


*cue the accusations of me liking Communism/Socialism and thinking they are desirable for this country*

It's very strange - especially given that americans are so willing to accept some things being socialized, but enormously reactionary about others. I think it stems from having very little real education about government process and comparative politics.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Sorry. There are simply areas where we don't want or need government control. There's no need to start insulting my level of education either. I realize this was a generalized statement, but come on. Since we don't want some things socialized it means we're uneducated?

I notice that you haven't responded to the facts on litigation expenses, but, moving on, I was not insulting your education level, but commenting on the lack of knowledge most Americans show when discussing these things. The point is not whether or not some things should be socialized, but the fact that Americans don't seem to know that many things are socialized, or be able to intelligently explain why they think some things should and others should not. Their arguments boil down to what you just said - "I want some things to be, and other things not to be, but I don't know why." That's why I think it is an issue with education.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It's very strange - especially given that americans are so willing to accept some things being socialized, but enormously reactionary about others. I think it stems from having very little real education about government process and comparative politics.

Sorry. There are simply areas where we don't want or need government control. There's no need to start insulting my level of education either. I realize this was a generalized statement, but come on. Since we don't want some things socialized it means we're uneducated?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Oh come on. I'm pointing out his exploitation and hypocrisy. Doctors shouldn't make money? Smells like socialism to me. Ah, that's when it's fine with Moore. It's also fine with him to skew subject matters, don't report anything that disagrees with him, and flat out lie about the quality of healthcare in Britain, France, Canada and Cuba.
...

I'm not arguing with you on the health care issue. But your position on Moore himself is hypocritical. Even though I don't agree with him, I have no problem with him making money from his documentaries. And I don't care how well he tips, or allegedly tips according to some stupid internet site that is probably full of his political opponents.

Calling him the "fat bastard" and getting outraged at the amount of money he is making -- there should be a law against documentarians making money, shouldn't there! -- is looney.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Sorry. There are simply areas where we don't want or need government control. There's no need to start insulting my level of education either. I realize this was a generalized statement, but come on. Since we don't want some things socialized it means we're uneducated?

I notice that you haven't responded to the facts on litigation expenses, but, moving on, I was not insulting your education level, but commenting on the lack of knowledge most Americans show when discussing these things. The point is not whether or not some things should be socialized, but the fact that Americans don't seem to know that many things are socialized, or be able to intelligently explain why they think some things should and others should not. Their arguments boil down to what you just said - "I want some things to be, and other things not to be, but I don't know why." That's why I think it is an issue with education.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by tie 

I'm not arguing with you on the health care issue. But your position on Moore himself is hypocritical. Even though I don't agree with him, I have no problem with him making money from his documentaries. And I don't care how well he tips, or allegedly tips according to some stupid internet site that is probably full of his political opponents.

Calling him the "fat bastard" and getting outraged at the amount of money he is making -- there should be a law against documentarians making money, shouldn't there! -- is looney.

Agreed - Michael Moore's weight, income, tipping habits etc are just more irrelevant distractions to hide the fact that the data is clear - US healthcare is broken, and in need of urgent intervention.