Michael Moore - Sicko

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by identity-X, Jun 17, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Offbeat

    Offbeat New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    43,056
    i like this concept behind this movie

    poor people should not get healthcare

    weed em out of the population for a more productive society

    bush is a genius!
    test
  2. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Just a few of my thoughts on this flim.

    In all seriousness. I finally did get to watch this film. It's more from michael moores prespective than anything, but then again all his flims are. One place we can all agree on this issue is our Health-care isn't the best when it should be.

    Moore managed to leave me conflicted on two issues

    - our economical system going socialist. The state is already in our business enough. I think socialized health care just gives the government complete control.
    - coming up with a rational logical counter-argument to michael moores romantic logical argument.

    It seems reasonably improbable to argue humanity Vs economics unless healthcare only has to be affordable and not nessacairly free. Moore seems to want to pigeonhole us, by showcasing if the other socialist programs weren't doing so well one could make a argument, like canada and france, kind of stand out. Though Michael Moore did not showcase people in those countries who hate their healthcare system. (seemed one sided to me.) I've also read people in canada get tried of waiting so long for treatment they finally end up coming to america to recieve it. I've also been reading economist like Sheldon Richman who I agree with... who says socialist-health-care wouldn't work because our economy & weastern philosophies differ.

    For example, the demographics of the countries are different. A younger population, such as Canada's, would be expected to spend less on medical care than an older population, such as that in the United States. Moreover, the United States is the richest country in the world, and more affluent societies tend to spend more on health care than less affluent ones. Nevertheless, we can all say that Americans spend too much on health care in this sense: identifiable government interventions raise costs higher than they would otherwise be. They do that by artificially stimulating demand and artificially constricting supply. Limiting our government makes medical-care really open on a freer market giving us the consumers more choices that are realistically affordable. The undesirable aspects of the current system is not the result of the free market, but rather is the outcome of decades of governmental intervention in the health-care industry. Elimination of that intervention would shift power and responsibility from impersonal bureaucracies to consumers. The resulting free market, characterized by prudent consumers spending their own money, would control costs and let the American people have the kind of medical care they want.

    And honestly, If we weren't giving guantanamo bay prisoners proper healthcare michael moore would be making a mockumentary about those poor mistreated prisoners. However, he shined cleverly by taking the opposite side of sick 9/11 rescuers who weren't receiving their, I guess, promised healthcare.

    What I found strange about his romanticism for cuba was, yeah the healthcare is free, but earlier in the flim you can clearly see AMERICA is two countries ahead of cuba when it comes to healthcare treatment. Thus, Cuba has free-health care, but it's not working, it is complete shit. Which leads me to think socialist health-care doesn't work the same everywhere, especially in a place like america were the system is idealy different. FYI- That havana hospital is not for the poor/common cuban people. And I wasn't buying into any of that propaganda with the cuban fire-men feeling bad for america on 9/11.
    http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

    I absoultely agree with ronald reagan even though michael moore tried to down play reagans significance by refering to him as a mere actor. While at the same time living in his own fantasy land where he s.arcastically romanticizes his communist propagandist agenda by making Fallacious comparisons. I think Reagan was correct when he stated free-health-care will only lead to socialism/communism. And jesus christ at moores over the top Mrs. clinton infatuation, I think Michael moore would sell his children for one night of bless with her. And Once again he mostly citizes republicans, while romantizing corrupt democrats. Yes, Mrs. Clinton herself took the lobbyist health-care pay offs (seemed one sided again.) I'm sure she isn't the only democrat who took healthcare pay offs.

    I also think moores method of extremely jumping straight to universal-healthcare because Auditor-insurence-goons triple check HMO's to see if we didn't list something we have... inorder to save themselves some money is completely shameless on both parties. The easy solution to that problem would be making sure these Auditor-insurence-goons don't exists. Thus, Wealthy people who can afford healthcare won't have to worry about being denied it. As for the Poor peoples situation, This is why I have stated above that Health-care should be runned by a limit-government which would make a freer-market were more choice and competetion can come in and offer cheaper health-care plans, Thus... Making the once expensive health-care drop in price and therefore realistically affordable. (in other words, you can have all your fingers sewed back on and eat your cake too.)


    what the 90 percent want fixed. They don't want doctors fixed. They don't want nurses fixed. They don't want hospitals or clinics fixed. Americans want insurance companies to stop gouging consumers, hospitals to stop running up 10 gazillion tests costing thousands of dollars, lawyers to stop suing doctors over mistakes running all the prices up and these Rockefeller teaching colleges and boards to stop inflicting debt on dying people.

    That is what people want fixed and it has nothing really to do with "health care". It has to do with the profiteer system which the Kennedy clan passed into law back in the 1960's which set off this viscous cycle. "Health care" is as Ronald Reagan predicted in 1968 a scheme to get control over the last remaining part of the national economy, so people will be enslaved and be made permanent wards of the state. And Michael moore is all for that.


    If you wanna change, Limiting the gvoernments power over the free market is the only real way of stopping this beauractic gouging in this day and age for america. Other-wise, listen to michael moore, and remember no crying if it turns out you hate his aftermath.
    test
  3. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    actually this was the point of the film...he said so from the get go...

    his beef was with private insurance companies - companies that are fairly unfettered from government control - sticking it to their customers because there is no alternative. remember his "this isn't about them" speech at the beginning

    he probably wouldn't have a problem with private insurance companies competing. the problem is they're ALL fucking us, after taking our money. i know i know...it's a free market, you can just go to another insurance company if the one you're dealing with one that sucks...

    ...but why? so they can stick it to you as well?

    you set up a system where people have the CHOICE to enroll in a plan at a private insurance company OR go to the hospital and have their shit done for free, you can bet insurance company monopoly will crumble and they'll have to start treating their customers fairly if they want to stay in business.

    geez...at times you sound like the people who equate "single payer" or "universal health care" with a system where he government picks which doctor you go to and sets your appointment times...which isn't the case.



    out of curiosity...how would you feel about a two tiered health care system? something like our school system where there is "universal educatoin" and private education.
    test
  4. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935
    "how would you feel about a two tiered health care system? something like our school system where there is "universal educatoin" and private education."

    you mean, a lesser system for the poor and a superior system for the rich?
    test
  5. Konscious

    Konscious Resident Sage

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 1999
    Messages:
    10,508
    I'll wait to see "Sicko" before I comment on it and the healthcare system.

    As for "Fahrenheit 911," Moore offered 10 grand to anyone who could point any lies that were told in the movie. So far, nobody has met the challenge. Care to step up, menaz?
    test
  6. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    possibly, but it would beat not having the money to use the existing system at all...

    not that I support such things
    test
  7. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Thats just the thing those companies aren't without government control.
    We need a freer-market health care plan. I think michael moore would see my point that competing insurance companies would stop the huge gouge.

    You understand the free market, but you don't understand it on a feer-market. Though I explained how it would work.

    I'm not looking to live in political system guised by compete communism. The companies will crumble by placing competing medical-plans against one another. It's not hard to realize if a business loses customers the price will go down because their demand decresses.

    What i'm saying to you is, Free-insurence, isn't free, nor does the words Free-insurence make it any better.You're replacing one gouge which I think a freer-market could fix by replacing it with a Socialist gouge conducted by the state.
    Just like the state do to public schools, which I don't agree with either, we can see how piss poor the education is. I am a classical libertarian I believe in CHOICES. Public schools should be runned by a freer market not state. It works for the private schools which is why they're much more educated than public school children.



    there is no evidence that a government-run system is any more responsive to emergent needs than an HMO or a health insurer. When Canadians, for instance, get frustrated with excessive waits for treatment in their system, they come to the US.

    - It would also destroy the art of medicine. Don’t be fooled by the white lab coat: healthcare is more art than science. It varies by person. It varies by day. Diagnosis is a guess. Treatment is a guess. It may be an informed guess, but it’s never certain, and it gets less certain when the condition is severe. What does that have to do with government? Bureaucracies don’t guess. They cover their behinds. They follow the book. Bureaucracy would treat healthcare mechanically, and we’d lose the art of medicine. Medicine works alot better on a competeing feer-market, without a feer-market they lose innovation in medicine because noone is competeing.

    - Why should I pay taxes so that someone can get a nose job? Or liposuction? Or bigger breasts? (Or all three at the same time!) And then, if you limit your government support to only "essential" procedures, who decides that? And how then would we pay for electives? The price of electives would skyrocket, since government no longer covers it, and no insurers would offer liability insurance.


    - The biggest reason is also the most philosophical. The only way to affect a government system is through elections, and they only come once every two years. A market-driven system responds when the need changes. Who wants a medical establishment that only listens to consumers once every two years, and that’s only if the incumbent doesn’t win? And how can you tell if your local representative lost the election because of his healthcare stance? Like with any other program, once it "goes government," the public loses any control over it.

    - I think the biggest problem is psychological. This kind of medicine changes your views. Right now, if you see a fat person smoking a cigarette, you're able to think something like: "That person's behavior will have bad consequences for him/her, so I'm glad I'm not him/her!" In our socialist future, your thoughts will change to: "That person's behavior will have bad consequences for my wallet on tax day, and since there's no way socialism will ever be rolled-back I need to elect the most offensive possible control-freak politicians to keep this smoking fatass from costing me money!" IOW, a change in the law will create incentives that will inevitably turn formerly-nice people into control freaks. Oh, joy.

    I'm just giving my economical stance here. I'm not here to change your mind. Your mind can not be changed. I watched michael moores film with a objective mind. I don't buy everything I'm told, espeically something coming from michael moore. I was open minded enough to at least listen. I could have attacked michael moore like alot of people do, But I didn't, I went after him intelligently.

    There are plenty of problems with the healthcare system, and we all have stories. But going to a government solution is hardly my favorite option.
    test
  8. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

    Fuck him, pay me.
    test
  9. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    You want the incentive to help impart knowledge on others to be profit instead of the idea that our fellow citizens should be knowledgeable.

    You want the incentive to help other human beings be physically and mentally well to be profit and not the idea that your fellow citizens should be healthy.

    got it...

    did you watch the movie? [dunno]

    correction: when canadians who have the means, get frustrated.....

    [funny]

    Insurance companies aren't bureacratic? They don't "follow the book". All of them have one rule...work to save as much money as possible, even when the health of the customer suffers. I'm really thinking you skimmed the whole flick.

    You act like R&D departments don't already compete for millions and millions in government money.

    You shouldn't, unless "essential" (as you put it).

    Let the citizens decide. Yay democracy.

    Control every two years is more control than the average person has over it now.

    If I have to pay for "smoking fatasses" to get care just so millions of uninsured (or even insured) people who strive to be healthy can get care, so be it. One man's opinion...

    Ideally, I would like to see tons of companies and their workers get filthy freaking rich while tending to all of the needs of the customers and employees they serve.

    After decade upon decade of this not happening, I'm ready to push forward and try something else.
    test
  10. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Since you don't want to stop putting words in my mouth, how about I start twisting what you say? I guess if you can't attack what I'm saying you must make personal attacks. You think I'm not wise to this? lol! Where is the bipartisanship here? You're being a extremeist. You are just subjecting emotional appeal against my stance as if I'm not thinking like a humanist first and a economist second, you clearly haven't comprehended my stance. So keep relying on what it is you think i'm saying though you clearly don't understand. What i've been suggesting has been tried in other places, and where it has been tried it has worked. It just hasn't been tried with the insurence companies yet. further more, The House & Senate will fix healthcare? Now that is a nightmare scenario.

    That still doesn't make your point, Infact that hurts your point, according to michael moore's movie. Furthermore, there is no evidence that a government-run system is any more responsive to emergent needs than an HMO or a health insurer.


    And who set-up that policy? Nixon's Government. I think you skimmed
    the movie just like you selectively skim everything people say to you.

    This is the problem with you. You start shit then refuse to listen. And the Funny thing is your just unkowningly regurgitating what michael moore points out about the government involvement in the Insurance companies. Your michael moore talking points do not affect my stance because my stance is about breaking up the bureaucracies. To do that we must sever the government policies. You want to add more bureacratic lobbyism on taxes by turning everything over to OUR government.

    If OUR government said this or that would better the community you would sit there and buy into every word OUR government spoon feed you rendering all power and say so in the process. Fuck that, I won't do it. I will fight the government by applying the strategy I have laid out inorder to fix the problems moore points out, it will be like cutting the governments lobbyist fingers off before they can reach the economical cookie jar to take out insurance equity.


    Stop taking my words out of context.
    there is noway to stop such a rediculous plan if the insurence is totally free. Which means all situations will be deemed absolutely necessary.
    Hey bunnylove, heres some new tits on the house. Fuck that!


    Think how bad it's gonna be when OUR government gets a complete grip on us. That is why I am advocating this new direction. I'm not on moores side, But I see the problem, I'm not on the governments side, But I saw a realstic way to correct this without resorting to a state-runned-health-care.

    Funny thing is, You're a wealthy, lazy, fatass. And I don't want a nation of control freaks either. Keep your opinion and I will keep mine. See, You're the one with the problem here not me. You asked what people thought about the film. I gave my thoughts. You Didn't like the answer it's not my problem your getting all emotional over it. However, if we did start handing everything over to the Government like you and moore would perfer, soon we'll all start seeing the problems with a government-runned-health-care just like we all saw how fema helped-out in New Orleans.


    This is how the government gets people like you to give up their freedoms.
    You just don't know how to fight the system with the system. You're not thinking logically your running on emotional hysteria. I am not arguing to keep the nation at status quo. That is a stupid argument only you would advocate.

    The reason socialist are constantly protesting is because they fear their governments, because their government is all up in their business. The reason we are currently protesting the government is because they are currently all up in our business and in other countries business. We need to Keep them out of peoples business by not allowing them any positon of power over our business.
    test
  11. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    examples please

    the quote WAS my point. "when canadians who have the means, get frustrated....."

    it ain't poor people coming to the US...they're to busy enjoying their free health care

    and? relevance? I know this. [dunno]

    currently, medical bills are sent through all levels of an insurance company as they figure out which part of the bill they are willing to pay.

    with single-payer they would just pay for it.

    which seems more complicated?

    this is where I go into a rant about you "puting words in my mouth" right?

    :pus:

    there's a difference between making essential care free and all medical procedures free.

    That's how "bad" it's going to be? Having control every 2 years is worse than having no control at all?

    I have an instructorship that pays $1000 a month, 9 months a year

    neither do i [dunno]

    says the guy who's already responded with ad hominem attacks. That's two different threads in the last couple day's.

    Last I checked this is a public message board that exists for the exchange of ideas. [dunno]

    Nobody said anything about "government-run" healthcare. "Universal" is not the same as "government-run". "Single payer" is not the same as "government run".

    Start the movie again. Pay close attention to the 1hr4min to 1hr7min mark


    Who's the one falling back on talking points?

    The reason socialist are constantly protesting is because they fear their governments, because their government is all up in their business. The reason we are currently protesting the government is because they are currently all up in our business and in other countries business. We need to Keep them out of peoples business by not allowing them any positon of power over our business.[/QUOTE]

    um...there are millions who support some sort of universal health care. they're protesting nto because the government is up in our business, but because big business is up in our pockets.



    It scares me that some people use "health care" and "business" interchangeably. Humanis first, eh?
    test
  12. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    and please...

    explain how this government meddling makes an insurance company go "hmmmm...even though this person has been paying for their coverage and we've had record profits 6 quarters in a row we shouldn't offer to pay for this procedure"

    how did government meddling lead the insurance companies in the movie to not pay for the procedures the 9/11 victims needed?
    test
  13. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Eg. A former public school principal named Dr. ben chavis, who now runs the American Indian public charter school in Oakland, his school spends thousands less per-student than Oakand's government-run schools spend. Chavis saves this money by having the kids help take care of the school. These are Poor kids/students who have better scores than all public school kids/students in the district... You know, those government owned schools which spend more money on thier students yet never see results. Infact, Since a Innovative thinker like Chavis took over, His school has went from being the worst in Oakland to being the best. Infact: All over america there are dynamic schools like chavis's that spend little, but out perform government schools.

    That is how a feer-market without invovlement agencies of the government succeed.


    You're still missing my POINT... there is no evidence that an agency of the government is any more responsive to emergent needs than an HMO or a health insurer.

    This means every class in that country goes through the same bullshit
    we do. I wouldn't disagree the Poor probabally don't venture to america for healthcare, But if our health care insurance is such a pain in the ass to get why do their rich even venture here... especially when michael moore points out; there are simliar problems health-care-wise for the rich and the poor here? That is a huge contradiction to his onesided view. You and moore's logic is suggesting to me rich people don't deserve free-health-care in canada or in america for that matter if their not willing to make it state-runned and/or wait like everyone else. Where is the choices and fairness in taxing the rich but not the jobless poor, yet the rich must wait equally?

    Now I'm sure you'll respond with some bullshit like they are rich therefore don't need the free-health-care like the jobless poor people do, But That says alot about your agenda here. You want poor people who don't work living off wealthy people who do work. Either way I look at it your gouging the wealthy for their cruse of working hard to obtain money while at the sametime subjecting them to wait for their Status-quo free health-care or they can try their dumb luck with america's shitty healthcare system. Answer this question, why should only the Rich be taxed yet have to wait equally? Again Don't get me wrong, I know it's about humanity. And that doesn't even include the agency of government, the national, regional, and local involvment, which will tax-gouge our free-health-care to death. When the more reasonable choice is a freer-marker approache to fixing our health-care.

    When it comes to quality of health care.

    83.2% of Canadians are not satisfied
    86.9% of americans are very satisfied


    Exactly, you just admited your relying on defualt logic. You don't know how to FIX the problem so you just make it free, which might or might not change the current situation. While not figuring in that OUR economy is not socialist, OUR per-capita is not like canadas, OUR philosophy is not socialism. We can not function similar, Therefore the free-care will not work similar or not even at all.

    Less complicated doesn't equal quality care... Hence: cuba. canada.
    Especially in a place like America were the problem is Insurance-gouging due to Govenment involvment in the health-care-system. lets say we have two choices: single-payer or Tax code reform. However, Single-payer is attached to the agency of the government, While on the other hand Insurance companies due to a feer-market will have to actually compete with others. Thus, prices lower, agencies of the government are cut out, and buearcracy can nolonger gouge the market place.


    That's the thing though, you can't put a restriction on one and not the other, once you've opt to make all Insurance Free.


    Could have sworn it was you that said your wife's parents are Loaded and I could of sworn it was you that said ya'll lived off them. Seems like your m.o., I could be wrong. *Shrugs*

    Yet that is what you're unknowingly planning to create.
    I'm already told I can't smoke on the sidewalks.
    I'm already told I must be a vegetarian, and I'm evil for eating meat.
    (they lie about global warming) There is no choices with Ilk of this nature they are complete fucking control feaks. They spread nothing but lies to push their agenda. Think about the irony here, Michael moore makes millions off the poor. He gets richer while the poor stay poor. He's not teaching anything a person can't findout for themselves, he does it because he can bank off it. He is quite hypocrtical.


    Once was enough. I know how single-payer health actually works.

    - A single-payer system would create an enormous, inefficient government bureaucracy.at a time when the Medicare system is already unsustainable.


    - Converting to a single-payer system would be a radical change, creating administrative chaos.

    - Americans would find unacceptable the cost controls required for such a system to operate effectively, so the system might end up being more expensive than its advocates anticipate.


    It scares you i'm thinking about every human being of every class first?
    you don't even make sense.

    The government is involved with the insurence companies, that is the reason why they are constantly allowed to bank HUGE profits.

    I recall in the film OUR government stated some sort of TIME-LINE for rescuers who had been down on ground zero as in a certain length of time being the only way they could receive the government provided 9/11healthcare. Hence, why those people you saw didn't GET! either that or the government was just fucking them over as usual, That is the government involvment for you.

    I still say, The mere fact your leaving it up to the House & Senate to fix healthcare is the real nightmare scenario here.
    test
  14. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    I thought you were saying there were examples of complete free market healthcare tried in other countries. That's what I was asking about. My bad

    This is an entirely different thread, but as an undergrad I remember reading about how in the 90's some public schools in Maryland (Baltimore) were managed by some private company after the school district contracted them out. Test scores fell among other things...

    ...all while the company lied and said everything was doing better. Anything to please the investors I guess. I'll google this and try to find something on it for you. [teet]

    no. I get your point. I fundamentally disagree.

    Ask the people who got care in Cuba if no evidence exists. Ask the lady who went to Canada if no evidence exists.

    (not picking...do you mean "emergency" or "emergent"? if you meant to use "emergent", what do you mean??)

    um...because they can pay for it. that's just it. health insurance ISN'T a pain in the ass for rich people.

    "what...you're going to pay $1,000 for a $25,000 procedure? no problem, let me get out my checkbook"

    one answer may lie in the question you never responded to...


    you don't hear rich people in America complaining that their kids are forced to go to shitty public schools, do you?

    the rich SHOULD have the option of getting free healthcare [dunno]

    I don't support only having the rich pay taxes.

    Hell...you'd probably free up enough money to run the whole shebang if you added up all of the money given to corporations in the form of tax breaks. Shit, if they have rights as "individuals" they should contribute like individuals.

    [pus] source?

    Last I checked Britain isn't socialist. Canada isn't socialist. France isn't socialist.

    You're falling back on a "solution" that "might or might not change the current situation" as much as I am.

    Well...maybe not. I can look to models of health care throughout Scandanavia and Europe that are quite successful.

    Your basis for comparison is...??..?.?.

    still no specific examples of exactly HOW government involvement is causing insurance companies to rape their customers...

    I'd suggest opting to make all essential care free, not make all procedures free. Clear? cool.

    Um...the people who barely have enouh money to feed their families week to week will all of a sudden have the money to go to the doctor the health care industry was completely privatized?

    explain how THAT one will work

    This STILL is not an example of how government meddling leads insurance companies themselves to fuck over their customers and profit quarter after quarter. Your example is only tangentially related. FIRST the volunteers got fucked by their insurance companies who wouldn't cover their procedures and THEN looked for help from an underfunded government program, but there was no influence by the latter on the former.

    So again...how does government meddling lead to an insurance company saying "no, we will not pay for your liver transplant because it is 'experimental' "? Or "no, we will not pay for your ambulance ride to the hospital because it wasn't 'pre-approved' "?
    test
  15. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    Na. I stated she makes much more than me and she is the breadwinner. We're PAINFULLY middle-class.

    Wealthy married people don't have to worry about paying their bill during the summer when one of the individuals does not receive a paycheck. They don't have to worry about charging a light bill or a gas bill to a credit card until the second paycheck starts rolling in come September.

    We do.

    Of course it probably wouldn't be as hard if we didn't have thousands in medical bills that our insurance didn't pay for after my wife had our child.

    You're so evil for eating meat. And because you're made to feel this way it's physicaly impossible for you to put that piece of steak in your mouth and chew it.

    None of the above has anything to do with the current topic.

    You think the truly poor people are paying $8 to see a movie in the first place? [funny]

    - wouldn't have to

    - wouldn't have to be

    - wouldn't have to be

    meanwhile, insurance companies continue to fuck over their customers...

    Um...the people who barely have enouh money to feed their families week to week will all of a sudden have the money to go to the doctor the health care industry was completely privatized?

    explain how THAT one will work

    This STILL is not an example of how government meddling leads insurance companies themselves to fuck over their customers and profit quarter after quarter. Your example is only tangentially related. FIRST the volunteers got fucked by their insurance companies who wouldn't cover their procedures and THEN looked for help from an underfunded government program, but there was no influence by the latter on the former.

    So again...how does government meddling lead to an insurance company saying "no, we will not pay for your liver transplant because it is 'experimental' "? Or "no, we will not pay for your ambulance ride to the hospital because it wasn't 'pre-approved' "?
    test
  16. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    This will be my last reply to you, because I really don't have anything else to say on the subject at this point in time, that I haven't already redundantly stated.

    Correct, it is sort of hard to know what your talking about sometimes.Because you don't seem to express yourself clearly. Everytime I read one of your replys I feel like I'm talking to a teenager. Not being a prick, just stating you sometimes come off as unintelligible.


    You can disagree, but it doesn't mean your correct.
    Infact, You're not correct. And I don't care if you think you are.
    Because I know you're not.

    Actually according to michael moore it's a pain in the ass for people who are well off also. You're stance is nolonger michael moores stance. You're not even making sense any more.



    You never respond to shit anyway. You just spout incorherent talking points that have nothing to do with what i'm talking about.



    You can't have a option that way.one would be paying while the other isn't.
    I don't see the fairness in that. You might as well just tell people
    don't worry about working, The People who work will pay. [no]

    Thus, economy falls off. There is a reason why france, england, and canada, are below us economy wise.



    Who controls the tax breaks? Federal.


    They are. Labour Party of britain. Socialist Party of Canada. Socialist Party of france. Those countries are practically runned by those socialist parties.

    Only mines been proven to work in america. You want to irractically change our system to a socialist globalzation. President Clinton tried the same thing, but the american people said, NO. because it won't work.

    I don't want soicalism it won't work for america. If anything will fix our problem, it will be the solution I gave you, which has been proven effective for AMERICA when applied properly.


    Go do that, Still doesn't mean it will work for america.


    Clinton had a plan to socialize health-care...
    NEXT came his plan to socialize the free-market.

    Clinton called for the federal government to invest directly in the stock market, thereby becoming partial owner of nearly every major American corporation. I feel like I have to drawl you a picture or something. lol
    test
  17. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    They have this new procedure. Maybe you've heard of it, their using donor cells to grow healthy livers inside diseased mice in a therapy which could one day replace most liver transplants. The procedure involves infusing snap-frozen healthy liver cells into the diseased liver, where the infused cells grow. Nice job, screwing up your own plan. Now reply with something like Oh I would include that procedure.
    LOL! WOW!

    What do you mean Enouh? Did you mean to say enough?

    I've explained this a million times,you're just not reading it.

    First off, your suggesting people will be sick week to week. Which just isn't the case.Secondly, Feer-market cuts costs making the Bills affordable. Plus you're forgetting the customers will get to choose from various choices their own method of payment for the care treatment.



    UMMMM, it was an example.

    i'll explain this in few simple words as possible.

    Correct, they were indeed brashed off by their insurence companies. All insurance companies are following the Plan Nixon set-up to save corporate money. I'm not for this plan.

    First time, They tried their insurence companies, But those crafty auditors thanks to Nixon's Plan found away around not paying their for their treatment. Second time, The government was handing out 9/11 rescue worker free-bees, but they were denied. What does the insurence company and government free-bee have in common? Federal is invovled in both not a feer-market.

    WTF@ repeating yourself twice.

    Speaking of liver transplants, You opt to have new Liver procedures cost money instead of making them free.


    you're right, they don't have to worry about it. Because they made something of themselves so they wouldn't have to worry about it. The rich motivate me. *Shrugs*

    Sorry to hear, you didn't make something of yourself.
    Sorry to hear, you need a second job, but instead
    play on the internet. Sorry to hear, you live pay check
    to pay check because you decided playing grass hooper
    with your life, was better than being the ant. Really, i'm
    sorry you didn't amount to any for whatever the reason...
    but I shouldn't have to suffer because you are. I don't want your problems being my problems. I'll bet you don't even give to charity.

    Again, with a feer-market you wouldn't have any of those complaints.

    Should have keept you pecker in your pants. again, Not my fault you had a kid waaaaaaay to early in life. You made your bed now lie in it. Also can you prove this alleged statement? Yeah, I didn't think so.

    again, with a feer-market you wouldn't have any of those complaints.

    Actually it has everything to do with this subject. I'm pionting out the socialist agenda. people like you want to reverse industry back to Medieval envormentialism. Which is actually more harmful. But, your kind never listen.


    Correction, Federal-involvement in insurance companies continues to fuck over their customers.
    test
  18. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    How is this relevant...to anything...ever...

    sounds like a life-saving procedure. sounds essential to me. [dunno]

    no i'm not...[dunno]

    I said the people who don't have enough money to get food week to week which means at any given point in time they probably don't have enough spare money to pay for a procedure that's thousands or even hundreds of dollars.

    If I'm buying 10lbs of Ramen Noodles a week just so my family can eat, it's not going to matter that costs are "less" or that I can "choose my own payment plan"...I'm STILL not going to have the money to pay for it.

    "following the plan"? how does following a model or a strategy count as "government meddling"??

    Private enterprise LOOKED to the White House and LOOKED to the government to allow for a particular model of private enterprise to thrive.

    Nixon et. al. initially gave money (grants and the like) to HMO's so they could start or so they could expand their business and required that they be certified, but rules for business practices thereafter are fairly minimal.

    At no point while deciding whether a paying customer will have a procedure paid for does an HMO or insurance company say "hmmm...we'd be able to pay for this if it weren't for xyz government restrictions"

    [funny]

    You' haven't a clue about post-grad education do you. I'm gettin mine. In a few years I'll have a PhD and a nice salary and will play a part in determining whether people with your education level can get a degree so they can be at my level.

    We made a rational choice to have a child. We're surviving...we knew we'd be surviving. That doesn't change the fact that it would be easier if care was made easier to obtain and pay for

    I'm not worried about me. I'm worried about the millions who ARE working hard, who DO have two jobs and who STILL can't afford to go to the doctor even if for something little like a broken bone or a stomach virus. I'm worried about the millions of children who's parents DIDN'T think ahead when they decided to have them and, as a result, they aren't receiving the care they need.

    Though knowing you, you probably want to do away with child labor laws...you know, "too much meddling". That way 5 year olds can get jobs and won't have to complain about being sick, even if their parents are too poor to take them to the doctor. [funny]

    you bet...if you want I'll scan any of the next hospital bills we get. i'm serious. no joke. I'll keep the statement instead of shredding them.

    hell i can scan all of the bills for pre-natal care from my wife's physician if you want [funny]

    all I want is one example...

    ONE example?








    and you still haven't provided a source for this...

    "When it comes to quality of health care.

    83.2% of Canadians are not satisfied
    86.9% of americans are very satisfied"
    test
  19. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    test
  20. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    To bad it's labeled under Procedure. You know what a procedure is right?
    That little thing you opt not to make free. Clown shoes.

    Funny how you already opt procedures to cost money.
    You want to recant that statement? Thought so.


    How could you not in a perfect market? Again, you're looking at a government control over free market, What you're not looking at is a perfect market which has been shown to work in america when properly
    executed. Why anyone would trust OUR government with anything let alone their Health is beyond me. Obviously katrina didn't teach you anything.


    Don't misconsture.

    The government policy did what? They got involved, took control of the market, and approved. Those companies should have been denied. I clearly said their was federal involvement in that situation no reason to misconsture. I told you I don't agree with Nixon signing off on that, it's all apart of government controlling the market place.

    Again that is not a "perfect market" or "Perfect competition" when the government is trying to save money for big business. Big business has two options, Number one.) they succeed on the free market. Number two.) they can't compete nor meet costumers needs therefore go out of business.

    However, The government involvement and control over the market place makes sure that never happens. Thus, gouging and monoploies.

    Now imagine, if the government had complete control, holy shit!

    Wanting health-care from the government is like also providing encouragment to BIG BROTHER to keep on surveillancing us. Which I believe is against the Fourth Amendment. Do I need to drawl you a fucking picture?




    Actually I do. I'm just not jobless and living off my girl like you. I don't know it just wasn't hard for me to manage utility bills, food bills, or any other finaces while going for my bachelors. I guess I just didn't screw my life up like you did, or I was just street wise where as your clearly not. My student grant helped as well. I'm sorry, you're not street wise. I can also tell you lack alot of character.

    My education level? University of Drake, thank you, I also don't like to boost about it like you do. I have more class than that.

    You're not on any level. What you are doing here is being a demagogue. If michael moore isn't holding the strings your mouth/finger tips wouldn't move.


    Hello, feer-market, It seems to me, You think I'm for the government controlled market. I've told your learning disablity several times I'm not for that. Stop, being a misconstruer.

    Why should I have to pay for something they did to themselves? Why am I paying? WHY? It's not my fault you couldn't think with the right head? I'm sorry, your in that predicament. I'm sorry alot of people are in that predicament. But I did not put them or you in that situation. You all put yourselves in that sticky situation. It's not my job to work and reward your mess ups in life espeically when most of your ilk don't work. You are worried about yourself or else you wouldn't have brought yourself up in this conversation. It's ok man, You're human!

    Now Listen, I do want to help give them health care benefits only better than status quo care. See the Difference is a feer-market with tax credits or vouchers would be more plausible for all of american society.


    Please do. I want your real name. I want your address. I want your phone number. I want your doctors names and phone numbers. I want you to verfiy the bills belong to you. No forged documents. If you don't want to, you don't have to, infact I'll just ignore this part of the conversation.


    I probably missed this, But I will inform you, not even your hero (michael moore) tonight on larry king denied what I stated. Infact, he even stated his movie was biaslt slanted.

    It came from the Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health. Only reason I replyed is because I missed that last night. Figured as long as I'm replying one last time on this subjuct, I might as well clear up a few misconceptions you keep demagoguing.

    According to the Gallup Poll 2006

    Americans were asked if they would like to replace their health care system With what your suggesting.

    39% - Replace
    51% - Maintain

    As for me, pinko; the conversation ends here.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)