Your thoughts on Micheal Moore's "Sicko"?

[Friday on my mind]

Re: Your thoughts on Michael Moore's "Sicko"?

If that were true, then would you actually believe that he would have the means to produce any type of film?

Contrarious reply, I deem yours to be.

:ban:

You were the one that was infering that since he made money off these things that somehow that made them invalid.But then you say if he had no money he would not be able to produce them which of course is true.You are putting him in a catch-22 situation which is unreasonable and does not address his films message.

Ban yourself :1orglaugh

 

[DrMotorcity]

Re: Your thoughts on Michael Moore's "Sicko"?

You were the one that was infering that since he made money off these things that somehow that made them invalid.But then you say if he had no money he would not be able to produce them which of course is true.You are putting him in a catch-22 situation which is unreasonable and does not address his films message.

Ban yourself :1orglaugh

Welcome to my '"ignore list."

Again,
:ban:

 

[alexios]

I don't get it....he wants a debate...we ask for an intelligent debate...but when someone points out the flaws in his argument, he brings out the ignore button. :dunno:

 

[Friday on my mind]

I don't get it....he wants a debate...we ask for an intelligent debate...but when someone points out the flaws in his argument, he brings out the ignore button. :dunno:

Michael Moore has challenged the power/money structure with all his films. And a lot of money has been spent on propaganda to demonize him, to the point where there is a good portion of people who just react to him now and dismiss his messages.You don't take on GM,George Bush and now the Health care industry without some push back.And beleive me these people are not playing,Moore should have bodyguards lol.As to the member and the ignore list,that is his choice but as you said if he wants to get back to the topic of America's Health care system as the thread was intended for and offer something constructive perhaps we could have a debate.

 

[juballs]

saw it tonight, was quite impressed, but you have to take these kind of movies with a grain of salt.

one of the stories within had to do with a anti-michael moore website which had to be closed down for cost reasons. anyone have a link to this site, it is still up and running. (once you see the film you will understand why) a link would be greatly appreciated.
thanks

 

[cbravnmls01]

The truth haven't seen it. Probably won't cuz the only "good" Moore movie was Roger & Me, period end of story.

 

[juballs]

saw it tonight, was quite impressed, but you have to take these kind of movies with a grain of salt.

one of the stories within had to do with a anti-michael moore website which had to be closed down for cost reasons. anyone have a link to this site, it is still up and running. (once you see the film you will understand why) a link would be greatly appreciated.
thanks

please anyone witha link please share.
this was the last post on the first page and i really think it will be overlooked.... im really interested in this

 

[juballs]

bump

 

[juballs]

someone pleaseeeeee help me. link? anything?

 

[meesterperfect]

Sorry juballs I have no link. I hav'nt seen the movie nor will I.
Apparently is about the state of the healthcare system in the U.S.
I don't have the answers, nor do I know the root of the problem. I know everything is very expensive and insurance is way too high, but I don't know why.
I know many politicians are touting socialized medicine.
I believe thats when the GOV. controls the Medical system. Decides who gets what and who needs what and everything in between.
I don't like the sound of that at all.
Maybe some members here who are from Europe or Canada know about this type of system first hand. If so I would like to hear some educated opinions or experiences if possible.

 

[alexios]

Sorry juballs I have no link. I hav'nt seen the movie nor will I.
Apparently is about the state of the healthcare system in the U.S.
I don't have the answers, nor do I know the root of the problem. I know everything is very expensive and insurance is way too high, but I don't know why.
I know many politicians are touting socialized medicine.
I believe thats when the GOV. controls the Medical system. Decides who gets what and who needs what and everything in between.
I don't like the sound of that at all.
Maybe some members here who are from Europe or Canada know about this type of system first hand. If so I would like to hear some educated opinions or experiences if possible.

I believe a large part of the problem is, quite simply, the American psyche.

For starters, those who are in favor of American socialized medicine are trying (wrongfully) to automatically create the best healthcare system in the world, instead of worrying about becoming incrementally better. Neither the free-market nor the socialized system is perfect or has all the answers, so simply changing one for the other overnight won't work: the key to achieving the benefits of both lies in having a mix of them both. The problem with this is that it takes time and patience to perfect, and many Americans are unwilling to wait.

Secondly, Americans are ALWAYS skeptical about the government controlling anything. While certain amounts of skepticism towards the government are healthy, Americans do sometimes seem to take it to extremes. While many Europeans view their governments as a safeguard of their overall well-being, Americans tend to be untrusting of their government and wanting to limit government's involvement as much as possible; therefore, the idea of the government controlling such a vital service is a cause for many to worry.

That being said, I'm not attacking American-style medicine, nor am I glorifying socialized medicine. We've all heard of people that can't afford healthcare in the USA as well as the horrors of socialized healthcare, both of which go to prove that neither system is perfect. The answer lies in the middle.

 

[Briznad47]

handing healthcare over to the US gov't is just asking for it be to corrupted even more. Can you imagine the lobbying that will occur by the pharmaceutical companies? "Medical practice" in America has already been compromised by our addiction to pills, the quick fix. Medicine will very rarely diagnose, discover cures, look at the root of the symptoms. Just wait and see, our healthcare goes universal, and we start seeing new conditions/diagnosis being created every day as a means to medicate a population. If paid for by taxes, medicine will take the cheap route, give you a "band-aid" pill and only treat your symptoms. Had enough of the "restless leg syndrome" and other "disorders"?, just wait, we'll have 'twitchy finger syndrome", "itchy scalp syndrome", "personality deficiency syndrome", "my farts smell syndrome" and more.

 

[AFA]

This is very true and has been a big part of advertising in the drug industry. Virtually every little ache and pain has a drug cure.

Another unfortunate tactic is to heavily advertise a new drug for treating some illnesses or symptoms to recoup investments, when an older and cheaper drug is passed over that might actually be a better treatment.

 

[Friday on my mind]

I would trust govt far more than for profit Insurance companies and HMOs.Even those with health insurance find that when they get seriously ill these organizations have teams of doctors and lawyers who do their best to deny treatments.Rationing will occur with any system but it should be as fair system as possible that is not just based on maximizing profits,this will never occur as long as private enterprise is making those decisions IMO.But again I say the biggest issue for me is the costs and the drag on our economy the current system is producing.We spend more than any other Industrial country and yet we rank 37th in the world for health care outcomes.With a single payer system we could spend much less and get much better results,sounds like a win-win to me.I am including a paragraph from the "wikepedia" story on american health care that illustrates the savings we could have from a single payer system,with a link to the full story to follow.

"The health care system in the U.S. has a vast number of players — there are hundreds, if not thousands, of insurance companies in the U.S.[26][27] This system has considerable administrative overhead, far greater than in nationalized, single-payer systems, such as Canada's. An oft-cited study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 31 percent of U.S. health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs, nearly double the administrative overhead in Canada, on a percentage basis.[28]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

 

[pathfinder]

Friday[/URL][/B] on my mi, post: 1528466, member: 44516"]I would trust govt

That's where this whole argument is lost. When has giving the government control over anything ever ended well?

 

[Friday on my mind]

That's where this whole argument is lost. When has giving the government control over anything ever ended well?

Well I would say yes look at the other countries that have govt run systems as in the link I posted.They spend way less on overhead without Insurance companies who are out for profits so have a bad motivation inherently.You beleive those commercials like from ALLSTATE saying "your in good hands"? Cause I don't.And let me ask you this if our govt is different than those and can't be trusted as you say to do anything correctly.Shouldn't we let eveybody in jail out and never be able to execute anyone again?I mean if they can't do health care they certainly can't be trusted with freedom much less life and death.The govt isn't perfect but they are the only one who can do some things to where they are done correctly.

 

[AFA]

I find the suggestion from FDA officials concerning protecting seniors from buying Canadian drugs over the border to be of a low standard to be appallling. If there's one thing I will never question out of Canada, it's quality, so the credibility of the FDA is non existant in my mind.

I also know the US allows dumping of medical equipment and drugs in Africa. Poor hospitals buy that crap and it doesn't work or the parts are too expensive. There is always someone on the take in the US. Drug companies cut their losses by dumping drugs not allowed in the US and even do tests on the unwitting.

 

[Friday on my mind]

I find the suggestion from FDA officials concerning protecting seniors from buying Canadian drugs over the border to be of a low standard to be appallling. If there's one thing I will never question out of Canada, it's quality, so the credibility of the FDA is non existant in my mind.

I also know the US allows dumping of medical equipment and drugs in Africa. Poor hospitals buy that crap and it doesn't work or the parts are too expensive. There is always someone on the take in the US. Drug companies cut their losses by dumping drugs not allowed in the US and even do tests on the unwitting.

Well again we know whose bidding that stand by the FDA is the result of.Drug company lobbyists who see their bottom lines being effected.We have reached a point of such pervasive influence by organized monied interest groups that our democratatic system seems to have failed to be able to contend with.

 

[Roughneck]

In creating “Sicko,” Moore must have overlooked some of the major news stories about the NHS from recent years. Stories such as one from the BBC stating that in September 2006 more than 6,000 patients in eastern England had to wait more than 20 weeks to begin treatment already prescribed by their doctors. Or a BBC story, also from 2006, noting that over 40,000 patients in Wales had to wait more than six months between being referred for, and actually having, an outpatient appointment. Or the recent London Times story regarding an admission, by Britain's Department of Health, that some patients will have to wait more than a year for treatment, and that 52 percent of hospital inpatients are currently waiting more than 18 weeks to receive treatment.

Or stories such as those widely publicized in 2006 and 2007 about cancer patients who were denied access to life-saving cancer drugs by the NHS, which had refused to make them available because they were not “cost-effective” (i.e., cheap).

Ultimately, we can have the debate about whether it is better to have a health system that prioritizes something basic, and quite poor, for everyone, or something good for the vast majority. But Moore is wrong to pretend that socialized medicine delivers real quality of care over and above what we see in America today. And he is wrong to portray Britain's National Health Service as an entity where quality of care, as opposed to budgets, always comes first.

Full Story

Why am I not surprised that there is a boondoggle involved?

Like I said before: "Moore wants to compare the worst in America with the best abroad".

Hardly an apt comparison.

cheers,

 

[Friday on my mind]

Full Story

Why am I not surprised that there is a boondoggle involved?

Like I said before: "Moore wants to compare the worst in America with the best abroad".

Hardly an apt comparison.

cheers,

First lets point out who the author of this story is.A right wing/republican lobbyist named Liz Fair.
http://lizmairconsulting.com/default.aspx
http://www.gopprogress.com/

Now lets looks at some of what she says:
"Ultimately, we can have the debate about whether it is better to have a health system that prioritizes something basic, and quite poor, for everyone, or something good for the vast majority. But Moore is wrong to pretend that socialized medicine delivers real quality of care over and above what we see in America today. And he is wrong to portray Britain's National Health Service as an entity where quality of care, as opposed to budgets, always comes first."

If the British system is providing such a low quality of care why did it rank 18th in the world while the the US ranked 37th in world health orginizations rankings in 2000.And at great less expenditure per capitia then the US.We spend the most and rank 37th what a great system.And that is the real problem we face not that the health care system is inadequet and broken which obviously it is but thats going to cripple our economy if we don't reform it.We are being made very uncompetetive as compared to other countries allowing so much of our resources be wasted on the current private insurance based system.No one else has a system like ours and maybe if we were #1 after spending all this money it would debateable whether theirs or ours were better systems.But at 37th I can't see how it is not proven they have the better way.
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hssick115288670jul11,0,5058849.story?coll=ny-health-print