Sicko Revisited
 

I just saw Sicko. And I just read about 1/2 of the 2+2 sicko thread. Oddly enough, other then the OP, no one talked about the film. It would appear that most of the people in the thread hadn't seen the film (which is somewhat expected.)

There was a flurry of the typical responses (it will cost too much, I don't want to pay for others, the doctors won't make any money, the quality will suck, It's Michael Moore so it must be a lie, The Govt. MUST ruin everything, etc.)

ALL of these are addressed in the film. (and the DVD extras even more.)

I'm just curious now that some time has passed (and its on DVD), have any of the people active in the previous thread now seen the movie and revised at all thoughts on Universal Healthcare?

I'm also curious to all the people against the concept; of the countries featured on the DVD (Canada, Cuba, France, Norway (#1 for Healthcare) and even many 3rd world countries)... many of these countries supply universal healthcare and there people have better health standards then the US. How do you explain this?

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

I found the movie flat out insulting to sit through. How can anyone take Moore seriously when he so obviously cherrypicks examples of failures in the US and then chooses to only focus on France's Magical Fairy Doctors who speed around door to door to help whoever needs it.

Any movie or argument that involves stuff like that is not something that has much value to me, by definition.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

Yes, of course there should be universal health care in the US. The majority of citizens want it so if you have any regard for democracy thats good enough reason (google is your friend if you think my claim is false). HOWEVER, the Moore film is horrible and depremental to the desired result. Firstly, any English person watching it such as myself were LOL'ing at the stupidity of Moore using an overpaid GP as a a great example of why the UK health care is a prime example. Firstly, there was huge unrest amongst unpaid nurses getting [censored] over at the time and a huge reconsideration of GP wages going on which are seen as disproportionatly high.

On an emotional level and entertainment level its a good film. The 9/11 workers meeting the Cuban firefighters was a great scene. But on an intelligent level it has no regard for truth and is therefore not to be taken seriously despite its positive message.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

Yes, a 1.5 hour propaganda film is going to change my understanding of society and economics so I will advocate socalism over laissez-faire capitalism. That's just how I roll.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, a 1.5 hour propaganda film is going to change my understanding of society and economics so I will advocate socalism over laissez-faire capitalism. That's just how I roll.

[/ QUOTE ]

No that would be stupid.

You know what would change your mind? Do some research.
Your understanding of society and economics is wrong.

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

"You know what would change your mind? Do some research.
Your understanding of society and economics is wrong."

Ok, what should I research? The 2 years it takes someone in Kingston to get a hip replacement?

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

I'm one of the people who preemptively disagreed with the film. I still haven't seen it.

The arguments for universal health care have been debated so much, it doesn't really matter if you've seen the movie. We all know the arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
it will cost too much

[/ QUOTE ]

The US govt does not exactly have a good track record when it comes to efficient spending of tax dollars. Why will that suddenly change with money taken for the purpose of health care? Who holds them accountable? No one. Governments can waste all the money thery want and no one can stop them. No one can choose not to keep giving them money if they feel it's being wasted.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to pay for others

[/ QUOTE ]

That's NOT the argument. The argument is that I don't want the govt to force me at gunpoint to pay for others in whatever way they see fit. I want to be able to choose who I help and in what system of charity to do it in.

[ QUOTE ]
the doctors won't make any money

[/ QUOTE ]

The doctors will make less money. That's what happens with competition. The AMA has created a cartel for the specific purpose of artificially raising doctors' incomes through various means. Universal health care won't change this, in fact it will make it worse if anything.

[ QUOTE ]
the quality will suck

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny to hear liberals rail against large corporations for fear of monopolies, because they feel that monopolies are so bad for consumers. But when it comes to health care, a monopoly will magically be great for the consumer. The failings of the UK system are well documented.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also curious to all the people against the concept; of the countries featured on the DVD (Canada, Cuba, France, Norway (#1 for Healthcare) and even many 3rd world countries)... many of these countries supply universal healthcare and there people have better health standards then the US. How do you explain this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the explanation: The statistics that Moore uses are from the WHO, which is a socialist organization that attempts to glorify countries with socialist health care systems. They use life expectancy and infant mortality rates to judge the health care systems. This is completely inaccurate because life span has much more to do with the homocide rate than anything. Infant mortality rate is an even less accurate stat because the definition of an infant mortality is different in every country.

Do you honestly believe that you would recieve better treatment in a Cuban hospital than an American one?

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
"You know what would change your mind? Do some research.
Your understanding of society and economics is wrong."

Ok, what should I research? The 2 years it takes someone in Kingston to get a hip replacement?

[/ QUOTE ]

buuuuurrrrrnnnnnnneeeedddd

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

I saw the movie. Didnt change my views.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also curious to all the people against the concept; of the countries featured on the DVD (Canada, Cuba, France, Norway (#1 for Healthcare) and even many 3rd world countries)... many of these countries supply universal healthcare and there people have better health standards then the US. How do you explain

[/ QUOTE ]

For starters the idea the America has a free market in health is the biggest mistake of the film.

For two you forget those countries free ride of American techonlogy, innovation and price systems.

For three, i dont know of any poor countries that provide a successful universal system and aren't going broke. This rich ones are sacrificing their growth and producitivity potential too.

For four, your idea that the stats look better for those countries ignores many hidden costs. Many people die due to lack of diagnosis or awaiting treatment in these countries. Everyone being covered tells you nothing about the oveall quality of care. There is many examples in this category as to how these stats appear to look good in some places but are very deceptive as to what's happening on the ground.

Another thing is these countries also suffer from brain drains. Many of the best and brightest get exported to countries that reward their work the best.

Lastly is the countries aren't offering universal health care. They only offer insurance to those in their nation. This causes them to tighten immigration standards and be restrictive to access to these types of benefits. If you were to ask why dont they supply health to the world, they would say they can't afford it. I dare you to look at America's wealth versus obligations and conlcude that they can afford to fully cover their nation's population.

much more to say. just a start

Re: Sicko Revisited
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also curious to all the people against the concept; of the countries featured on the DVD (Canada, Cuba, France, Norway (#1 for Healthcare) and even many 3rd world countries)... many of these countries supply universal healthcare and there people have better health standards then the US. How do you explain this?

[/ QUOTE ]

One reason is that the rest of the world severely underinvests in healthcare research and just lets the US pay for it all. A huge chunk of the money that Americans spend on healthcare is invested in R&D, and a correspondingly huge percentage of healthcare innovations are made in the US.