those are govt studies. well fine, they can go thru life learning things thru slanted documentaries. christ people already follow youtube shit as the bible.Uzique wrote:
Not being funny or anything, but people calling the foul-sources cry are hardly going to be convinced by a list of health-links from health insurance companies and all-American institutions.
No, intelligent people hate Moore because his propaganda movies are taken as truth in other parts of the world, witness Freke1's posting hereDilbert_X wrote:
Neo-cons like to ridicule Michael Moore because what he does exposes their agenda.
LOL at the rest of that, yes republicans HATE health care...and if you come here and get in an accident, better have some insurance or we leave ya bleeding on the side of the road.Dilbert_X wrote:
Don't understand why the Republicans are so rabidly opposed to basic healthcare TBH.
PS Don't even think about travelling to the US without cast-iron insurance, I'd take a few litres of blood too.
Sicko premiered on May 19, 2007 at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival, receiving a 15-minute standing ovation from 2,000 people at the Grand Theatre Lumiere.
The film was nominated for an Academy Award for Documentary Feature. Sicko was commended in the Australian Film Critics Association 2007 Film Award for Best Documentary.
"I'm not a big supporter of copyright laws in this country…I don't understand bands or filmmakers…who oppose sharing, hav[ing] their work being shared by people, because it only increases your fanbase."
The guy even likes piracy, what's there not to like?
The film was nominated for an Academy Award for Documentary Feature. Sicko was commended in the Australian Film Critics Association 2007 Film Award for Best Documentary.
"I'm not a big supporter of copyright laws in this country…I don't understand bands or filmmakers…who oppose sharing, hav[ing] their work being shared by people, because it only increases your fanbase."
The guy even likes piracy, what's there not to like?
he owned stock in haliburton for starters.Freke1 wrote:
what's there not to like?
ya what a shock. out of touch rich celebs applauding false info. lolFreke1 wrote:
Sicko premiered on May 19, 2007 at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival, receiving a 15-minute standing ovation from 2,000 people at the Grand Theatre Lumiere.
Not exactly... He just mostly promotes half-truths.SgtHeihn wrote:
You are going to try and say a Micheal Moore movie give good points? HE MAKES HIS FACTS UP!Freke1 wrote:
Cubans live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate.
I think all americans should watch "Sicko" at least 10 times until they get it.
Remember high school and university education is also free here in Europe.
"Sicko" really nails my thoughts perfectly.
Remember if You US citizens get sick and don't have insurence - GO TO CUBA
The good people of US deserve better than what is shown in Sicko FFS.
For example, Moore was correct in that healthcare is socialized in Cuba. What he didn't mention is that the WHO ranks them below us as a system. Also, Canada is ranked higher than us, but only by a little bit.
The strongest parts of Sicko involved how he showed how good France's system is (ranked #1 by the WHO) and how we're willing to subsidize the healthcare of suspected terrorists in Gitmo but don't do nearly as much for our own law-abiding citizens.
So the fact that a bunch of people applauded something that the vast majority of them likely had zero insight into is a zeal of quality to you? Jesus.Freke1 wrote:
Sicko premiered on May 19, 2007 at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival, receiving a 15-minute standing ovation from 2,000 people at the Grand Theatre Lumiere.
The film was nominated for an Academy Award for Documentary Feature. Sicko was commended in the Australian Film Critics Association 2007 Film Award for Best Documentary.
Let me guess, when a bunch of Americans support things they know nothing about, they're idiots, but when a bunch of people support something critical of the US that they know nothing about, they're just fine?
thats the rules dear.Turquoise wrote:
how we're willing to subsidize the healthcare of suspected terrorists in Gitmo but don't do nearly as much for our own law-abiding citizens.
yup. and that also shows people in aussie are apparently sheep since he won that award there.mikkel wrote:
Let me guess, when a bunch of Americans support things they know nothing about, they're idiots, but when a bunch of people support something critical of the US that they know nothing about, they're just fine?
More like... US>UK>EU>AUDrunkFace wrote:
IMRSgtHeihn wrote:
You are going to try and say a Micheal Moore movie give good points? HE MAKES HIS FACTS UP!Freke1 wrote:
Cubans live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate.
I think all americans should watch "Sicko" at least 10 times until they get it.
Remember high school and university education is also free here in Europe.
"Sicko" really nails my thoughts perfectly.
Remember if You US citizens get sick and don't have insurence - GO TO CUBA
The good people of US deserve better than what is shown in Sicko FFS.
United States 6.30
Cuba 5.93
United Kingdom 4.93
European Union 5.84
Australia 4.51
Life expectancy:
United States 78.06
Cuba 75.08
United Kingdom 78.7
European Union 78.7
Australia 80.62
Hmmm he got one right...
Well at least we can all agree AU>UK>EU>US
Spoiler (highlight to read):
And our health system is shocking
Although, you could put Norway ahead of us...
No, I agree.usmarine wrote:
those are govt studies. well fine, they can go thru life learning things thru slanted documentaries. christ people already follow youtube shit as the bible.Uzique wrote:
Not being funny or anything, but people calling the foul-sources cry are hardly going to be convinced by a list of health-links from health insurance companies and all-American institutions.
My point is that skepticism can be used pretty irrationally by both sides. I'm some there are laughable points in Moore's documentary making but I don't think everything he spouts is false and misconstrued... the presentation of European healthcare in Sicko was pretty on the mark as I said before- I didn't find anything to disagree with it. Arguing against the source rather than the actual content can be extended back to the 'defense' links that Kmarion posted, one could say the US government and their studies may not be entirely impartial or resolute in attempting to find solutions/improvements to the profit-driven medical sector etc.etc...
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Pretty crazy if you ask me...usmarine wrote:
thats the rules dear.Turquoise wrote:
how we're willing to subsidize the healthcare of suspected terrorists in Gitmo but don't do nearly as much for our own law-abiding citizens.
yes but even the infidels get medical treatment when we are captured. although its pointless since they are just going to take your head off, but still.Turquoise wrote:
Pretty crazy if you ask me...usmarine wrote:
thats the rules dear.Turquoise wrote:
how we're willing to subsidize the healthcare of suspected terrorists in Gitmo but don't do nearly as much for our own law-abiding citizens.
*shrugs* I just don't understand how a country that is willing to spend $700 billion at Wall Street and even more than that at privatized healthcare is so against socialized care.usmarine wrote:
yes but even the infidels get medical treatment when we are captured. although its pointless since they are just going to take your head off, but still.Turquoise wrote:
Pretty crazy if you ask me...usmarine wrote:
thats the rules dear.
Most of the reasons for why we pay so much for healthcare involve inflated pharmaceutical costs, corporate bureaucracy, lawsuits, and illegal immigrants.
All we need to do is to start government negotiations with pharmaceutical companies, socialize the bureaucracy side of things, implement tort reform, and come up with a viable illegal immigrant solution. I know none of that is easy, but surely, it's better than just continuing down this same dysfunctional road.
my friend pays 4 bucks for a 30 day prescrip (generic). that aint bad if you ask me. people pay more for one pack of smokes.
Last edited by usmarine (2009-01-03 13:04:12)
If the prescription he had didn't have a generic version, he'd pay a lot more.usmarine wrote:
my friend pays 4 bucks for a 30 day prescrip (generic). that aint bad if you ask me. people pay more for one pack of smokes.
well with our plan, he would pay 10 bucks for a 30 day suppply instead of 4. so two packs of smokes. or some chipotle. again, not bad.Turquoise wrote:
If the prescription he had didn't have a generic version, he'd pay a lot more.usmarine wrote:
my friend pays 4 bucks for a 30 day prescrip (generic). that aint bad if you ask me. people pay more for one pack of smokes.
Right, but again, if you're dependent on a new medication without a generic, then you pay a shitload more.usmarine wrote:
well with our plan, he would pay 10 bucks for a 30 day suppply instead of 4. so two packs of smokes. or some chipotle. again, not bad.Turquoise wrote:
If the prescription he had didn't have a generic version, he'd pay a lot more.usmarine wrote:
my friend pays 4 bucks for a 30 day prescrip (generic). that aint bad if you ask me. people pay more for one pack of smokes.
Also, company plans keep healthcare costs more reasonable than individual plans, but because companies are generally more responsible for providing care in the form of some sort of benefits plan as opposed to the government providing it, it makes payroll costs higher per person in America than in many other countries.
One of the most extreme examples involves GM. A lot of the reason why they are having trouble staying profitable is because of the big benefits plans they provide. Nowadays, there's a push for companies to either minimize benefits or minimize permanent hiring. Either way, this leaves most Americans holding the bag when it comes to medical costs.
Socialization would moderate this effect much better than leaving it up to the private sector.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-01-03 13:23:01)
Who do you think is spending a shit load of money on re-election campaigns and giving comps like its cool.Turquoise wrote:
*shrugs* I just don't understand how a country that is willing to spend $700 billion at Wall Street and even more than that at privatized healthcare is so against socialized care.usmarine wrote:
yes but even the infidels get medical treatment when we are captured. although its pointless since they are just going to take your head off, but still.Turquoise wrote:
Pretty crazy if you ask me...
Most of the reasons for why we pay so much for healthcare involve inflated pharmaceutical costs, corporate bureaucracy, lawsuits, and illegal immigrants.
All we need to do is to start government negotiations with pharmaceutical companies, socialize the bureaucracy side of things, implement tort reform, and come up with a viable illegal immigrant solution. I know none of that is easy, but surely, it's better than just continuing down this same dysfunctional road.
For those who don't know:
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Health Insurance Companies!!
Absolutely. HMOs are pretty powerful as far as lobbyists go. So are pharmaceutical companies. Right now, I think Hillary Clinton is the 2nd biggest recipient of pharmaceutical lobbyist funds.SgtHeihn wrote:
Who do you think is spending a shit load of money on re-election campaigns and giving comps like its cool.Turquoise wrote:
*shrugs* I just don't understand how a country that is willing to spend $700 billion at Wall Street and even more than that at privatized healthcare is so against socialized care.usmarine wrote:
yes but even the infidels get medical treatment when we are captured. although its pointless since they are just going to take your head off, but still.
Most of the reasons for why we pay so much for healthcare involve inflated pharmaceutical costs, corporate bureaucracy, lawsuits, and illegal immigrants.
All we need to do is to start government negotiations with pharmaceutical companies, socialize the bureaucracy side of things, implement tort reform, and come up with a viable illegal immigrant solution. I know none of that is easy, but surely, it's better than just continuing down this same dysfunctional road.
For those who don't know:
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Health Insurance Companies!!
She went from being a major advocate of socialized healthcare to being a huge lobbyist recipient.
It's quite clear that corporations have bought the system.
Gotta love it, get the Government to stomp out any of your competition. Nothing like controling the ones who control the rules.Turquoise wrote:
Absolutely. HMOs are pretty powerful as far as lobbyists go. So are pharmaceutical companies. Right now, I think Hillary Clinton is the 2nd biggest recipient of pharmaceutical lobbyist funds.SgtHeihn wrote:
Who do you think is spending a shit load of money on re-election campaigns and giving comps like its cool.Turquoise wrote:
*shrugs* I just don't understand how a country that is willing to spend $700 billion at Wall Street and even more than that at privatized healthcare is so against socialized care.
Most of the reasons for why we pay so much for healthcare involve inflated pharmaceutical costs, corporate bureaucracy, lawsuits, and illegal immigrants.
All we need to do is to start government negotiations with pharmaceutical companies, socialize the bureaucracy side of things, implement tort reform, and come up with a viable illegal immigrant solution. I know none of that is easy, but surely, it's better than just continuing down this same dysfunctional road.
For those who don't know:
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Health Insurance Companies!!
She went from being a major advocate of socialized healthcare to being a huge lobbyist recipient.
It's quite clear that corporations have bought the system.
I guess not all of Michael Moore's work is bad then, eh?SgtHeihn wrote:
Gotta love it, get the Government to stomp out any of your competition. Nothing like controling the ones who control the rules.Turquoise wrote:
Absolutely. HMOs are pretty powerful as far as lobbyists go. So are pharmaceutical companies. Right now, I think Hillary Clinton is the 2nd biggest recipient of pharmaceutical lobbyist funds.SgtHeihn wrote:
Who do you think is spending a shit load of money on re-election campaigns and giving comps like its cool.
For those who don't know:
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Health Insurance Companies!!
She went from being a major advocate of socialized healthcare to being a huge lobbyist recipient.
It's quite clear that corporations have bought the system.
.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Indeed... Hillary's conflicts of interest were pointed out quite well by Moore in Sicko.Uzique wrote:
I guess not all of Michael Moore's work is bad then, eh?SgtHeihn wrote:
Gotta love it, get the Government to stomp out any of your competition. Nothing like controling the ones who control the rules.Turquoise wrote:
Absolutely. HMOs are pretty powerful as far as lobbyists go. So are pharmaceutical companies. Right now, I think Hillary Clinton is the 2nd biggest recipient of pharmaceutical lobbyist funds.
She went from being a major advocate of socialized healthcare to being a huge lobbyist recipient.
It's quite clear that corporations have bought the system.
.
It's not that Moore is a bad person or even crazy. He's just very slanted.
I agree with a lot of Moore's views, but I think he leans too far in the socialist direction. The only reason why I even support socialized healthcare is because of how we have to compete with other countries that have it. In the long run, it makes more sense to socialize healthcare if all of your major trading partners and competitors for skilled labor have. Otherwise, healthcare becomes too much of a burden to your own companies in the form of benefits plans.
It's ironic, but it's basically a matter of competition that apparently many free market types don't understand.
I'm not reading through all this topic because I only have 17 minutes of battery life left on this laptop and the nearest plug is just a bit too far away for the power cable to reach from the outlet to the laptop where I'm sitting.
US healthcare is great if you've got insurance. Otherwise, good luck.
US healthcare is great if you've got insurance. Otherwise, good luck.
no no no. our plan is ten bucks per prescrip unless the cost is less than ten obviously.Turquoise wrote:
Right, but again, if you're dependent on a new medication without a generic, then you pay a shitload more.