Just Saw Sicko, Now Have Question

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We can't afford it? National health care would almost certainly be much cheaper overall than the system we have now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it.

[ QUOTE ]
How does every other industrialized country, most of which as poorer than the US, afford it?

[/ QUOTE ]

for starters, they have much higher taxes than us. If our taxes were suddenly raised like that, people would be very pissed. they also have vastly different demographics, less obesity, just comparing the two like that is absurd. we would have to cover more than 200 million than germany does. And we have a much fatter and unhealthier population. Not incentivizing people to lose weight through higher premiums is economic suicide.

[ QUOTE ]
Most Americans would support national health care if they actually knew what it cost, because it would cost much less than they are paying now.

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously? I think you are just making this up, can you provide some sources for this?

[/ QUOTE ]

The lower cost is just based on the fact that costs are so much lower in countries that currently have government-financed health care. Have you seen Sicko? It make some very good points about why costs are so much lower when coverage is universal.

Taxes would obviously need to be increased, but the size of the increase would be much lower than the % of their income that people pay now. As mentioned earlier in the thread, taxes are not that much higher in Europe, and they have a much lower tax base (in terms of income per capita) than we do.

It is true that obesity is much higher in America. But if this had a real impact on health care costs, why hasn't the "market" for health care already created an incentive to reduce obesity? And why hasn't obesity soared in every other country where there is, according to you, no incentive not to be obese?

Finally, the argument that health care would be a greater financial burden because we would have to cover more people than Germany is completely without merit. The fact that you apparently cannot immediately see why makes all your other arguments weaker by association.

[Chump Change]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont see how healthcare is a basic human right. Taking from one group of people and giving to another is socialism. The USA was built on capitalism not socialism.

[/ QUOTE ]
All due respect, this is a really dumb opinion. One might say that the USA was built on the backs of African slaves, stolen from Native Americans, and layered over the corpses of immigrant laborers. Using reductio ad absurdum on your argument would leave us with a government that doesn't tax anyone for anything and does nothing. Hey, wait a minute...

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, well said.


Edit: I see it wasn't taken with a grain of salt.

[Chump Change]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont see how healthcare is a basic human right. Taking from one group of people and giving to another is socialism. The USA was built on capitalism not socialism.

[/ QUOTE ]
All due respect, this is a really dumb opinion. One might say that the USA was built on the backs of African slaves, stolen from Native Americans, and layered over the corpses of immigrant laborers. Using reductio ad absurdum on your argument would leave us with a government that doesn't tax anyone for anything and does nothing. Hey, wait a minute...

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is not a dumb opinion... every person in the US has a right to purchase healthcare... the best they can afford. Just as rich people can afford better food, homes and clothes... (all considered basic human needs) they can also afford better healthcare.

The govt supplies the poor with help in food and shelter, as they do in healthcare... but you get the basics, not the best.

And just to reply to the slave/indian comments.... Who are better off now... the descendents of slaves living in America or the people born in Africa? Even welfare recips likely have more than the average Ethiopian, Tanzanian, congoian, whatever. Yes the ancestors suffered.... but the descendents have gained. That is why there was not a mass exodus back to the motherland post slavery era.

The indians were given reservations, along with other benefits.... I know it really sucked for them, but do you really hink no one would have come here if we didnt? Do you think Hitler would have had moral issues with exterminating them? How about Stalin? Japan has very little realestate.... the indian land would have been a prime target. Therefore, it could be argued that we saved the indian bloodlines from extintion, because if it wasnt us... it would have been someone else. Again, not trying to justify the events, merely point out the other ways it could have turned out. (none of them being good for the indian population)

[/ QUOTE ]



God I hope somebody owned this ignorant bastard at some point during the thread, I stopped reading.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
The lower cost is just based on the fact that costs are so much lower in countries that currently have government-financed health care.

[/ QUOTE ]

c'mon man that is a lame answer and you know it. That line of reasoning is not convincing at all for soooo many reasons. We have vastly different demographics and just drawing a parallel like that is stupid.

[ QUOTE ]
Have you seen Sicko? It make some very good points about why costs are so much lower when coverage is universal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually haven't, the only theater near me doesn't have it and I don't have a car. but I plan on it. I've seen a lot of clips and a couple long interviews with Moore though.

[ QUOTE ]
Taxes would obviously need to be increased, but the size of the increase would be much lower than the % of their income that people pay now. As mentioned earlier in the thread, taxes are not that much higher in Europe, and they have a much lower tax base (in terms of income per capita) than we do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on man, you know how americans look at taxes, people are going to get real pissed off if their taxes go up. Look at how bush played to people with the stupid $600 check, look at anything. Even if (if) people would end up saving money by paying more taxes and none out of pocket, they wouldn't think about it that way.

[ QUOTE ]
And why hasn't obesity soared in every other country where there is, according to you, no incentive not to be obese?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to be joking.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, the argument that health care would be a greater financial burden because we would have to cover more people than Germany is completely without merit. The fact that you apparently cannot immediately see why makes all your other arguments weaker by association.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is providing healthcare for 300 million people not harder than providing it for 80? And Germany is the biggest euro country by a large margin. The scandinavian countries that are renowned for their social services are tiny. Sweden is 10 million, Norway is 5. Canada is a little under 1/10th the size of us at 33. How is giving healthcare to 300mm people going to be just as easy as giving to to 10 million, or 35 million? We are orders of magnitude bigger, and that means it will be much, much harder. A healthcare system that has to cover 8 times as many people as another is going to be waaaay harder to run. Period.

[Emperor]

One viewpoint

Ron Paul talks about Health Care

[John Spartan]

[ QUOTE ]
The people should, I dont understand how you can debate when you have such a lack of fundamental understanding of what our founding fathers intentioned for this country.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok, if we had something similar to a national election except instead of candidates, we had a national vote on whether to provide national health insurance or not, it would win easily, guids. polls show that. prob about 57/43 in favor of a single payer and about 80/20 in favor of some system of insuring everybody. so don't bring the people into this. they aren't on your side.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]

Ok, if we had something similar to a national election except instead of candidates, we had a national vote on whether to provide national health insurance or not, it would win easily, guids. polls show that. prob about 57/43 in favor of a single payer and about 80/20 in favor of some system of insuring everybody. so don't bring the people into this. they aren't on your side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that when it comes time to raise taxes in order to pay for it, the average person who thinks universal health care is a nice thing is going to be extremely pissed. You can talk about how people say they want to insure everyone in a poll or that healthcare should be a right but that doesnt make it feasible or practical.

[John Spartan]

[ QUOTE ]


Except that when it comes time to raise taxes in order to pay for it, the average person who thinks universal health care is a nice thing is going to be extremely pissed. You can talk about how people say they want to insure everyone in a poll or that healthcare should be a right but that doesnt make it feasible or practical.

[/ QUOTE ]

nice try owsley but you just can't win this:

From May 07:

http://pollingreport.com/health3.htm

Check out the first poll.


"Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?"

64% yes, 35% no. They put the taxes right in the poll question bud, and Americans still support it. I am sorry to disappoint some of you in here, but Americans are tired of Bush's policies and want universal health care and more government spending. They want less waste and they know what a sham the private insurance companies are. Almost every candidate on the trail is getting bitched at for the state of health care in this country. Sicko is taking in so much money even though it opened in a very low % of theaters.

[JacKnight21]

numbers don't lie pollsters do

[owsley]

That doesn't change the fact that when they have to give thousands more dollars to the government every year, they are going to be pissed. You can either be in denial about this or you can just accept what always happens to american politicians when they raise taxes. And I just watched sicko, it is a really flimsy movie. It is entirely based on anecdotal evidence, and moore never comes close to making an honest attempt at giving the other side's perspective.

The thing that annoyed me the most were the stories about people getting denied their claims on technicalities. Regardless of the dishonest example picking moore used, in a free market companies that ran around denying people legitimate care would go out of business.It blows my mind how Moore gets taken seriously with this crap, this is a complicated economic issue and he turns it into a giant guilt trip. If you want to say it is a good movie because it raises awareness about the problem, that is as far as you can go. The stuff where he goes to canada and france was a complete joke. Yes, wish upon a star and everyone will get a free pony. Too bad it won't ever work like that in the US. Comparing canada, a country 1/10th our size, to us, and just acting like they wave a wand and have a perfect system where everyone gets everything they could ever want for free and is all folksy about it? And the way he addresses the argument that canada has long wait times is to walk around some clinic he picked out and have a bunch of people say, "oh, i only had to wait 45 minutes, thats great eh?" Are you [censored] kidding me?