Sicko Revisited

[Case Closed]

I watched this video just this week and I was as disappointed as I thought I would be. No real statistical analysis of anything, just random interviews of people giving information that is not really relevant. I agree with the poster who laughed at his interview of the doctor. That whole point was beyond worthless. As usual chock full of half truths and mis-representations.

Oh yeah, when he had a segment of the movie about him giving money to the Anti-moore site was the most self serving things I have ever watched. Grade A tool.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
I watched this video just this week and I was as disappointed as I thought I would be. No real statistical analysis of anything, just random interviews of people giving information that is not really relevant. I agree with the poster who laughed at his interview of the doctor. That whole point was beyond worthless. As usual chock full of half truths and mis-representations.


Oh yeah, when he had a segment of the movie about him giving money to the Anti-moore site was the most self serving things I have ever watched. Grade A tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a blog entry by the guy who Moore gave the money to. I really don't think more can go more than 2 minutes without blatantly making [censored] up or lying about something to serve himself. His "documentaries" are completely pathetic.

http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/webl...moore_in_sicko/

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I watched this video just this week and I was as disappointed as I thought I would be. No real statistical analysis of anything, just random interviews of people giving information that is not really relevant. I agree with the poster who laughed at his interview of the doctor. That whole point was beyond worthless. As usual chock full of half truths and mis-representations.


Oh yeah, when he had a segment of the movie about him giving money to the Anti-moore site was the most self serving things I have ever watched. Grade A tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a blog entry by the guy who Moore gave the money to. I really don't think more can go more than 2 minutes without blatantly making [censored] up or lying about something to serve himself. His "documentaries" are completely pathetic.

http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/webl...moore_in_sicko/

[/ QUOTE ]
Yuck.

[kurto]

[ 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 ]

These are my favorite responses. They completely ignore the realities of different health care models and pretend that capitalism is the end all be all regardless of reality.

[Taso]

^not true, the response indicates a film by Michael Moore does not accurately present "the realities of different health care models."

[kurto]

[ 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 agree with this,... that is the US abyssmal govt record in efficiency. That being said, to me it is not a reason to think Universal healthcare is undoable. Its a reason for people to fix their govt.

I thought one of the more interesting quotes in the movie was an interview with someone in France. The gist of it was that the govt. was afraid of the people. People regularly challenged their govt and protested when they disagreed. Where I think the US population, for the most part, is very apathetic. Since no one holds our govt accountable, they quite often perform poorly.

[ 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 ]

Yet according to the US report quoted in the doc, the people of UK get better health care then Americans. Also, the US was, if I remember correctly, ranked 66th for healthcare.

[ 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? [/quote
Do you have studies which you think places the average American in better light?

Also - it is conceiveable that Cuba could deliver better healthcare to the avg. american... depending on their income.

[tame_deuces]

I don't like Michael Moore, and I also hear good things about the american model. In my country I don't think I have ever met anyone even remotely for a non-universal health care model, and I can easily flow with that. It is FAR from trouble free even though we are amongst the best in the world at it, but then again...when you leave the political ideology speeches behind stuff nothing is trouble free.

Stating that all the other countries are just piggybacking the US on medicinal research is also far too simplified. It is true the US is a world leader on medicinal research and there are many reasons for this. Size&prosperity in relation to a relatively uniform academic culture (since it is one nation) makes the US a natural world leader in many academic disciplines, this often makes US research groups a natural focal point for international cooperation.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

[ 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 ]

I would even say that that's not the argument and the real argument is that I don't want to be part of forcing other people to pay for something they may or may not want whether I want it or not.

[xorbie]

I don't want to get into AC, so I'm just not going to adress it. I think the issue is complex enough without that, and I wish I knew more about it. There are certainly a few things I see that are problematic:

1. Medical school costs, # of doctors, doctor pay... it seems to me that if you switch to universal health care, you'll be needing to worry a lot about how doctors are going to pay off med school. I'm not sure how 'efficient' the medical school market is at the moment.

2. What we pay for. This is the major issue, obviously we need to draw the line somewhere. I don't want to be paying for cosmetic surgery obviously. It becomes a tricky issue when talking about elective surgery done for health reason (say a gastric bypass or lypo), as well as extremely necessary but very expensive procedures (which at some point, we just don't have the resources to pay for).

3. What to do with insurance companies. If we wanted universal health care, it seems that just forcing people to go to various insurance companies has to be the worst way to go about it. There is so much beauracratic red tape at the moment that I'm not sure what would be the ideal solution. Clearly you need to have some way to ensure that people go to legitimate doctors, but if you have universal health care it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to force people to go to one place or another for insurance reasons.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Medical school costs, # of doctors, doctor pay... it seems to me that if you switch to universal health care, you'll be needing to worry a lot about how doctors are going to pay off med school. I'm not sure how 'efficient' the medical school market is at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is absolutely no effieciency in this market. The AMA controls how many doctors get licenses, and how many med schools exist. They do this to artificially increase doctors' income and eliminate competition.