Michael Moore's new film: Sicko

[Eihli]

Michael Moore has a new film coming out in a couple weeks that talks about National Health Care systems. The film is already all over the internet - http://openflv.com/watch?v=NDE5OTQ4Nw==&p=0 it's down atm - and for those of you that have seen it, I figure this forum would have the best discussion for or against what Moore presents in this film.

I haven't formed an opinion yet. I want to hear more from each side before deciding which system is best. One of the many things I don't like about the film though is it seems more like an advertisement trying to get people to move to other countries, rather than a documentary explaining the economic benefits and consequences of each system.
For example, he's constantly using the word "free".

Moore: So, how much did you have to pay for the surgery?
Patient: It was free.

Moore: So, you got your fingers re-attached completely free of charge?
Patient: Yeah, anyone would.

He also said that the birth mortality rate was lower in
El Salvador than in the U.S., which a quick look at gapminder shows is false. http://tools.google.com/gapminder/#$majo....2$inds=USA_tHy,,,,;SLV_tHy,,,,

There are many other things in the film that make me want to hear from someone more intelligent than Moore explain the benefits of a national system.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
There are many other things in the film that make me want to hear from someone more intelligent than Moore explain the benefits of a national system.

[/ QUOTE ]

A national system defends special interests and makes welfare style health care feel less like receiving charity for the poor.

[Eihli]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are many other things in the film that make me want to hear from someone more intelligent than Moore explain the benefits of a national system.

[/ QUOTE ]

A national system defends special interests and makes welfare style health care feel less like receiving charity for the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

What special interests does it defend and how does it defend them?

And I don't understand what you mean when you say it "makes welfare style health care feel less like receiving charity for the poor".

Are you saying the poor who receive charity feel bad that they are receiving it? And are you blaming that bad feeling on a privatized health system?

[Gamblor]

As someone who has grown up in two different fully National Health Care systems I am proud to say the thought of anyone paying a single cent for health care makes me sick.

I dont care if its inefficient or my taxes are higher. Someone is legitimately sick, they should be fixed. That's the most basic reason as to why government exists in the first place: to pool people's resources for the continued health and wealth of the people who inhabit the state. By definition, that would require ensuring every citizen of the state receives health care, period. Cosmetic surgery, some perscriptions, obviously don't apply.

Mechanisms for determining whether a particular procedure would benefit the state and its citizens (on an individual basis) still to this day need fine-tuning, but still, the point remains.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
As someone who has grown up in two different fully National Health Care systems I am proud to say the thought of anyone paying a single cent for health care makes me sick.

[/ QUOTE ]
Too bad a system like that doesn't exist by a long shot.
[ QUOTE ]
That's the most basic reason as to why government exists in the first place: to pool people's resources for the continued health and wealth of the people who inhabit the state.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you think this? Are rich power hungry people running government or do philantropists (sorry, 6am, not going to be able to spell that right) run government?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone is legitimately sick, they should be fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]


So let's say I know someone who is sick. Can I steal your money in order to help them?

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone is legitimately sick, they should be fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]


So let's say I know someone who is sick. Can I steal your money in order to help them?

[/ QUOTE ]


So I was talking about my dad, who is a doctor who has practiced medicine in Greece, England, Canada and here in the US for around 40 years, basically what he said was this,

"When I was in England, they said people were dying in the streets because they can't get treatments. When I came here to the states, they say the doctors in England are terrible and it takes forever to be treated. Neither is true."

His point was, it's all [censored]. People aren't dying in the streets here. If you can't afford treatment, and you don't have insurance, you go to a city hospital and you are treated for free, if you are "legitemately" sick. There, when you are "legitemately" sick you are treated right away, but if you have a procedure that can wait, you will wait.

Either way, if you are legitemately sick you are getting treated right away.

[MaxWeiss]

I haven't seen the movie yet but I'm happy to throw my thoughts about health care. I understand a lot of the concerns people who oppose national health care have, which include:

--higher taxes
--abuse by addicts, "abuse" by people who are often ill or require lots of treatment
--gov. paid health care means lower wages for doctors, hence high paid doctors leave and quality of care goes down


And I think those are valid concerns, but I think they could be overcome by having a government run care facilities everywhere and is free, but with some record keeping and restrictions and such, or possibly a list of treatments and how many of them which all care facilities are required to give free of charge. Obviously that doesn't completely satisfy all the concerns, but I think an effort should be made to do it, and I think most of the concerns can be dealt with in a suitable manner. Like somebody below said, in a rich country like this, it should be true that if you need medical care you can get it, no matter what. To me that seems like it ought to be a basic human right (in a First World country).

[Nielsio]

Didn't the Americans supposedly fight national socialism in WWII and didn't the Americans supposedly fight communism in South East Asia, and/or against the Russians?

Howcome all the love for socialism and communism now?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
it should be true that if you need medical care you can get it, no matter what. To me that seems like it ought to be a basic human right (in a First World country).

[/ QUOTE ]

No. No, no, no, no, no. Even if one believes in universal health care as an ideal, the concept should be universal access to health care. Granting top of the line universal health care to everybody regardless of their personal choices is far more destructive than a completely private system. Thinking that everybody in a country should be able to walk into a government facility and get elite health care at the government's expense is like saying that everyone should be able to walk into a grocery store and pick up filet mignon and champagne at the government's expense. While it may be true that having no access to basic medicine (or food) for the poorest people in a society is bad (for everyone) giving them all universal coverage at the expense of others is disastrous.