Healthcare's War Against Sicko

[Dos Equis]

I might actually watch this one.  I'm not a fan of the insurance industry. 

Healthcare's War Against Sicko
Monday, Jun. 25, 2007 By KATHLEEN KINGSBURY 

Corporate America has long known that the best defense is a good offense. It's no wonder then that the healthcare industry has rallied the troops in recent weeks in anticipation of Michael Moore's newest documentary, Sicko, due out in theaters nationwide on Friday.

Though few people have actually seen Sicko yet, there's been wide-ranging speculation that the film and its maker could be the catalysts Americans need in order to demand reform of their ailing medical care system. With an emphasis on the 47 million uninsured in the U.S., Moore not only presents a chilling assessment of the status quo but goes on to advocate for the socialist approach of Canada, France and Cuba as a more effective alternative. "We're in a battle with these corporations who want to maintain their position," Moore said recently. "They don't want to give an inch on this, and we're out to upset the apple cart."

The healthcare industry is on red alert. Jeff McWaters, CEO of the HMO Amerigroup, has listed the film's June 29 release among the "headline risks" for the industry. Sicko has already sparked heated debate and more is certain to come. "People see Moore as uniquely honest and truthful in a corporate landscape," says Pat Aufderheide, a communications professor at American University. "He has a way of saying the things his audience has already been thinking to themselves and making them seriously consider acting on those thoughts." Both of Moore's first two major films — 1998's Roger & Me, about General Motors, and 2002's Bowling for Columbine. on the gun industry — brought unprecedented attention to their respective topics. And the director achieved a new level of success with his 2004 Bush-bashing hit Fahrenheit 9/11, which marked the tipping point of the popular resentment against the Iraq war.

Moore's current opponents have tried to launch pre-emptive strikes at the director and his moviemaking practices. On June 13, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which represents leading drugmakers such as Eli Lilly, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, issued a statement dismissing Moore as "a political activist with a track record for sensationalism." PhRMA went on to say "a review of America's health care system should be balanced, thoughtful and well-researched" before adding, "Unfortunately, you won't get that from Michael Moore." America's Health Insurance Plans, whose members include HMOs Aetna and Cigna, handed its own news releases last week emphasizing the need for "a uniquely American solution." Health Care America, a non-profit financed in part by pharmaceutical and hospital companies, held briefings to document the the long wait-times common to government-run healthcare, such as those run by France and Cuba, and posted videos on its Web site detailing horror stories from Canada's system. "Mr. Moore is not telling the whole story. He plays fast and loose with the facts," says the group's executive director Sarah Berk. "We're here to educate the public on what he has left out."

Moore, meanwhile, has built up vocal support in his corner as well. The director and his producers have hired a team of political operatives to respond to industry attacks, including Chris Lehane, best known for his role as a consultant on the Gore and Kerry presidential campaigns. Moore has held several well-attended press conferences in weeks leading up to the film's release, and publicity for Sicko has included private screening on both Capitol Hill and Wall Street.

The film has also gained the backing of many healthcare labor groups, such as the California Nurses Association (CAN), which aims to place a nurse in each of the 3,000 theaters across the country where Sicko is shown in a campaign called "Scrubs for Sicko." The film is "not just an indictment of an indefensible healthcare industry in the U.S.," says CAN's executive director Rose Ann DeMoro. "It's a rejoinder for those who think we can fix the soulless monster by tinkering with an unconscionable system that puts us further in thrall to those who created the crisis."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1636978,00.html?cnn=yes

[24KT]

I've seen it. It's actually very good. I was surprised to discover where all the BS about Canada's health care system came from. It's definitely worth seeing, ...and please don't be scared off by my recommendation. Moore is still Moore, however, in this one, he keeps the lid on his sarcastic nature for the most part, ...and doesn't launch any attacks against anyone. He allows their actions, their policies, and the evidence, to speak volumes without pointing any accusatory fingers. It's actually very good.

[Nordic Superman]

Ad hominem: Moore is a fat greasy repulsive piece of shit.

[Dos Equis]

I've seen it. It's actually very good. I was surprised to discover where all the BS about Canada's health care system came from. It's definitely worth seeing, ...and please don't be scared off by my recommendation. Moore is still Moore, however, in this one, he keeps the lid on his sarcastic nature for the most part, ...and doesn't launch any attacks against anyone. He allows their actions, their policies, and the evidence, to speak volumes without pointing any accusatory fingers. It's actually very good.

Uh oh.  One demerit. . . .

[24KT]

Ad hominem: Moore is a fat greasy repulsive piece of shit.

...who made a pretty good movie.

[Nordic Superman]

...who made a pretty good movie.

Would you have anal sex with him for £1Mil?

[Colossus_500]

Here's another great article on Michael Moore's movie:

'Sicko' Control of Health Care
This Op-Ed originally appeared in the June 27, 2007 edition of the The New York Sun.
by: Ken Blackwell

Michael Moore got slammed by Larry King tonight. The outlandish documentarian was bumped from the "The Larry King Show" by none other than an ex-con, Paris Hilton.

Mr. Moore's film "Sicko," though, is certainly abuzz among liberal pundits. Mr. Moore offers a solution to millions of Americans without health insurance -- government-run health care, just like Cuba.

Mr. Moore correctly identifies health care reform as a pivotal issue for this country, but he dives off the liberal deep-end by claiming the Cuban health care system is somehow superior to ours.

Let's put it this way. While Major League Baseball scouts may dream of free access to Cuban pitchers, shortstops, and clean-up hitters, few Americans would consider drafting a Cuban doctor for a critical surgery.

It's easy to discount Mr. Moore as just another half-baked Hollywood activist on a misinformed, politically fashionable tirade. That is, until you tune in to what the Democrat presidential candidates are saying. They, like Mr. Moore, believe a federal government-run health care system is the solution to our health care challenges.

While they may vary on specifics, all of them call for the federal government to take over medicine, controlling what doctor you can see and for what reason you can see them, and dictating what treatment you'll receive.

Republicans strongly disagree with this approach. All 11 Republicans running for president, now that we can include Fred Thompson, believe whenever government takes over a program, it gets more expensive, leads to terrible waste, declines in quality of service, and endures countless delays and mistakes.

Think of the hassles you face at the department of motor vehicles. Now picture dealing with those hassles when you take a child to the doctor: Take a number to wait in line for countless hours, or days, for the wrong test, or to correct a prescription for the wrong medicine. Stand in one line for x-rays, then another for medication.

At each stage the person you're dealing with has to consult thick rulebooks written by bureaucrats hundreds of miles away. As mistakes are inevitably made, the nurse will be unable to get through to someone with the authority to fix the record or authorize the procedure.

Or worse, think of the absolute meltdown after Hurricane Katrina. Then consider dealing with that level of chaos at the hospital during an emergency. Imagine being in a dire condition and having a doctor at your side unable to get through to the right person to authorize what you need done, or finding out that you can only be treated at another hospital on the other side of town.

Government cannot overcome the laws of economics. All resources are limited. Supply and demand set price, quantity, and quality. When you promise something for free, you run out of supply as people consume resources regardless of need.

Also, the smaller an organization is, the better administrators are able to handle unusual or emergency situations. The opposite is true for government because it is immense.

For all these reasons, a national government takeover of medicine, promising unlimited treatment for 300 million people cannot possibly work half as well as the system we have today. We need to improve the system, not make it an endless bureaucracy.

Instead of a big-government takeover, the candidates should support allowing competitive markets to fix health care. Patients need providers and researchers competing against each other to provide better services and medicine. This only occurs when patients have a choice among providers and are free to go elsewhere if dissatisfied.

They must understand the superiority of the free market when it comes to bringing down prices. Government wastes countless of billions of dollars because it does not have to compete, so prices soar and you pay for all of it through higher taxes.

Private sector personnel keep searching for ways to do it faster and cheaper, so that they can offer a lower price to attract business. They work long hours to innovate, improve, eliminate waste, fix problems, develop new products and services, and offer solutions.

When that happens, consumers win. In a medical context, that means more lives are saved and people are healthier.

Finally, all of the candidates must talk about prevention. We can prevent many emergencies that result in hospital stays. Problems like childhood obesity and overuse of alcohol and tobacco result in terrible injuries that are either deadly or force a person into decades of constant discomfort with the need for extremely expensive care.

There will always be those with special needs. Government is needed to help people, but government must be the last resort, not the first. It should be a safety net for those who suddenly fall out of the system, not become the system. If we empower people to take care of themselves, it will free up the government resources necessary to help them.

The Democrats enjoy an advantage in the polls in health policy because they promise everyone will get care for free from an all-knowing, all-powerful government, as if government can ever get it right.

Republicans believe in enhancing a system focused on individuals and families that will keep everyone healthier and save lives. They must make that case to the people.

As the debate over health care reform continues, Americans should remember Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Sabrido. He was the Spanish surgeon flown to Cuba to operate on Fidel Castro. It seemed that Cuban doctors botched the job on el presidente and needed outside help. I wonder if they made Mr. Garcia Sabrido available to other Cubans during his visit? I must have missed that part in "Sicko."

[Dos Equis]

Good article.  This is a major distinction between the Republican and Democrat candidates:  socialism vs. free market. 

[Colossus_500]

Good article.  This is a major distinction between the Republican and Democrat candidates:  socialism vs. free market. 

I like the free market format myself.  Where seeing the same thing with the "Fairness Doctrine".  The left side only wants this because no one wants to listen to "Air America", so now their trying to shove it down our throat.  I hope that gets 86'd on outta here just like the amnesty bill. 

[Decker]

Good article.  This is a major distinction between the Republican and Democrat candidates:  socialism vs. free market. 

It's an awful article.

The same tired cliche's and 1/2 truths are trotted out:

BS #1 ...all of them call for the federal government to take over medicine, controlling what doctor you can see and for what reason you can see them, and dictating what treatment you'll receive.

BS#2 ...whenever government takes over a program, it gets more expensive, leads to terrible waste, declines in quality of service, and endures countless delays and mistakes. 

BS #3Also, the smaller an organization is, the better administrators are able to handle unusual or emergency situations. The opposite is true for government because it is immense.

BS #4For all these reasons, a national government takeover of medicine, promising unlimited treatment for 300 million people cannot possibly work half as well as the system we have today. We need to improve the system, not make it an endless bureaucracy.


And on.


The Blackwell article is nothing more than an unsupported and unsubstantiated slinging of rightwing Bullshit in defense of the engorged Insurance industries. 

[Colossus_500]

It's an awful article.

The same tired cliche's and 1/2 truths are trotted out:

BS #1 ...all of them call for the federal government to take over medicine, controlling what doctor you can see and for what reason you can see them, and dictating what treatment you'll receive.

BS#2 ...whenever government takes over a program, it gets more expensive, leads to terrible waste, declines in quality of service, and endures countless delays and mistakes. 

BS #3Also, the smaller an organization is, the better administrators are able to handle unusual or emergency situations. The opposite is true for government because it is immense.

BS #4For all these reasons, a national government takeover of medicine, promising unlimited treatment for 300 million people cannot possibly work half as well as the system we have today. We need to improve the system, not make it an endless bureaucracy.


And on.


The Blackwell article is nothing more than an unsupported and unsubstantiated slinging of rightwing Bullshit in defense of the engorged Insurance industries. 

[Dos Equis]

It's an awful article.

The same tired cliche's and 1/2 truths are trotted out:

BS #1 ...all of them call for the federal government to take over medicine, controlling what doctor you can see and for what reason you can see them, and dictating what treatment you'll receive.

BS#2 ...whenever government takes over a program, it gets more expensive, leads to terrible waste, declines in quality of service, and endures countless delays and mistakes. 

BS #3Also, the smaller an organization is, the better administrators are able to handle unusual or emergency situations. The opposite is true for government because it is immense.

BS #4For all these reasons, a national government takeover of medicine, promising unlimited treatment for 300 million people cannot possibly work half as well as the system we have today. We need to improve the system, not make it an endless bureaucracy.


And on.


The Blackwell article is nothing more than an unsupported and unsubstantiated slinging of rightwing Bullshit in defense of the engorged Insurance industries. 

All of those "BS" items sound legitimate to me.  The federal government does not manage our money very well.  We will be taxed into kingdom come if they establish some new federal department to run socialized medicine.  It's a disaster waiting to happen. 

I agree that the insurance industry is bloated.  There are just a step below tobacco companies and the oil cartel in my book. 

[Decker]

All of those "BS" items sound legitimate to me.  The federal government does not manage our money very well.  We will be taxed into kingdom come if they establish some new federal department to run socialized medicine.  It's a disaster waiting to happen. 

I agree that the insurance industry is bloated.  There are just a step below tobacco companies and the oil cartel in my book. 

They 'sound' legitimate but they are bald-faced unsupported conclusions.

You know, propaganda.

I'll be damned if I can find one private insurance company that has the less than the 1% administrative costs of the SSA (death benefits, disability, and retirement income).  Nope, private firms (12-19%) cost more b/c they are profit driven:  high overhead--advertising, corporate salaries, corp. jets, funding pro golf tours all the while crushing the costs of paying benefits while leaving millions uninsured (but they'll cost much more down the road when their conditions turn critical/terminal).  We will pay that bill at some point in time.

Our current system of insurance is already a disaster. 

[24KT]

Here's another great article on Michael Moore's movie:

'Sicko' Control of Health Care
This Op-Ed originally appeared in the June 27, 2007 edition of the The New York Sun.
by: Ken Blackwell

Actually not such a great article at all, ...but it is about moore's film, ...I'll grant it that.

Mr. Moore's film "Sicko," though, is certainly abuzz among liberal pundits. Mr. Moore offers a solution to millions of Americans without health insurance -- government-run health care, just like Cuba.

...actually he pointed to health Care systems in Canada, England, and France, as well as Cuba.

Mr. Moore correctly identifies health care reform as a pivotal issue for this country, but he dives off the liberal deep-end by claiming the Cuban health care system is somehow superior to ours.

Moore makes no such claim. Infact, he clearly showed the overall status of USA healthcare system was better than Cuba. There was one other country between USA & Cuba... Slovenia I think (not entirely sure which one, but he clearly stated USA's was better than Cuba's). Despite this, ...a system is truly only better for the patient, when the patient has access to it. if they do not, it could be as dazzling as the Hope Diamond, ...but still will do you no good. Did this Op-Ed author even view the movie? I did. This is simply an attempt to slam it before opening day.

Let's put it this way. While Major League Baseball scouts may dream of free access to Cuban pitchers, shortstops, and clean-up hitters, few Americans would consider drafting a Cuban doctor for a critical surgery.

I'm sure the ones in need of major surgery and neither able to afford it, nor get healthcare would.

It's easy to discount Mr. Moore as just another half-baked Hollywood activist on a misinformed, politically fashionable tirade. That is, until you tune in to what the Democrat presidential candidates are saying. They, like Mr. Moore, believe a federal government-run health care system is the solution to our health care challenges.

The sooner people stop thinking in terms of Repubs vs. Dems, and align themselves based on how they really feel about an issue  (after all the facts are in... not just the propaganda & spin) the sooner you can get down to business to figure out how to solve the huge healthcare crisis you're faced with.

While they may vary on specifics, all of them call for the federal government to take over medicine, controlling what doctor you can see and for what reason you can see them, and dictating what treatment you'll receive.

This is a myth, ...or more accurately, a blatant lie. Universal healthcare does not operate like this.
If anything, it is the current HMO system that behaves like this, ...that is of course, ...when you can get care.

Republicans strongly disagree with this approach. All 11 Republicans running for president, now that we can include Fred Thompson, believe whenever government takes over a program, it gets more expensive, leads to terrible waste, declines in quality of service, and endures countless delays and mistakes.

I've seen more declines in quality of service, more needless delays, and more mistakes coming out of the current US HMO system.

Think of the hassles you face at the department of motor vehicles. Now picture dealing with those hassles when you take a child to the doctor: Take a number to wait in line for countless hours, or days, for the wrong test, or to correct a prescription for the wrong medicine. Stand in one line for x-rays, then another for medication.

Blatant scare tactic, ...and unfair assessment. It doesn't work like that at all. If every other country can manage a universal healthcare system without the nightmare scenarios described above, ...what is different about the USA that she'd be unable to do so as well. There'd have to be something very wrong if such a great country was unable to accomplish what so many lesser countries were able to do.

At each stage the person you're dealing with has to consult thick rulebooks written by bureaucrats hundreds of miles away. As mistakes are inevitably made, the nurse will be unable to get through to someone with the authority to fix the record or authorize the procedure.

More blatant bullcrap. Universal healthcare doesn't work like that. HMO's do.

Or worse, think of the absolute meltdown after Hurricane Katrina. Then consider dealing with that level of chaos at the hospital during an emergency. Imagine being in a dire condition and having a doctor at your side unable to get through to the right person to authorize what you need done, or finding out that you can only be treated at another hospital on the other side of town.

Again, this is the nightmare scenario you find yourself in under the current system of HMO's

Based on this article, I can only conclude this Ken Blackwell must really think you guys are a bunch of idiots ready to believe any garbage he shoves down your throat. Why don't you prove him wrong, ...and affirm once & for all that Americans are not a bunch of dumb sheep ready to swallow hook line & sinker, any load of bullcrap some lying shill pens.  View "Sicko", and understand what universal heathcare would infact mean, ...both to citizens, and then to the for-profit heathcare insurance companies, ...and all the confusing pieces will fall into place perfectly.

Government cannot overcome the laws of economics. All resources are limited. Supply and demand set price, quantity, and quality. When you promise something for free, you run out of supply as people consume resources regardless of need.

Oh wow, I never knew that, ...note to self: Must run out and get that expensive double lung transplant.
It's not that I need it or anything, ...but hey, ...it's FREE. 

Also, the smaller an organization is, the better administrators are able to handle unusual or emergency situations. The opposite is true for government because it is immense.

So that's sufficient reason to deny proper healthcare to millions of INSURED patients?
So the Paris Hilton's of this world can have someone at her beck n' call when hit by a bout of claustrophobia?
I don't think so

For all these reasons, a national government takeover of medicine, promising unlimited treatment for 300 million people cannot possibly work half as well as the system we have today. We need to improve the system, not make it an endless bureaucracy.

This is a rather specious argument, because no one is arguing to turn the system into a bureacracy.
Infact, just the opposite. The point of the film is there has to be a better way than the bureacratic,
and mercenary system that put's profits, and CEO salaries & bonuses over patient care, that is in place now.

Instead of a big-government takeover, the candidates should support allowing competitive markets to fix health care. Patients need providers and researchers competing against each other to provide better services and medicine. This only occurs when patients have a choice among providers and are free to go elsewhere if dissatisfied.

They must understand the superiority of the free market when it comes to bringing down prices. Government wastes countless of billions of dollars because it does not have to compete, so prices soar and you pay for all of it through higher taxes.

Then why have costs soared out of control these past 30 some years under the current system?

Private sector personnel keep searching for ways to do it faster and cheaper, so that they can offer a lower price to attract business.

The challenge is they cut costs at the expense of patient care.

They work long hours to innovate, improve, eliminate waste, fix problems, develop new products and services, and offer solutions.

There's a difference between activity & productivity. They've worked the long hours, but it hasn't produced results.

When that happens, consumers win. In a medical context, that means more lives are saved and people are healthier.

Except the actual stats do not bear that out. Quite the opposite is true.
Consumers in America have not won, their lives are not saved and they are not healthier.

Finally, all of the candidates must talk about prevention. We can prevent many emergencies that result in hospital stays. Problems like childhood obesity and overuse of alcohol and tobacco result in terrible injuries that are either deadly or force a person into decades of constant discomfort with the need for extremely expensive care.

Go ahead and demonize the sick. Alcohol & Tobacco don't account for brain tumours, car accidents, or other diseases that force people into years of discomfort. But it's easier to blame those damned sinners who drink & smoke, than it is to face the facts that someone with a brain tumour has a life threatening illness, through no fault of his own, and needs treatment.

There will always be those with special needs. Government is needed to help people, but government must be the last resort, not the first. It should be a safety net for those who suddenly fall out of the system, not become the system. If we empower people to take care of themselves, it will free up the government resources necessary to help them.

If you can find trillions of dollars to kill people, ...surely you can find trillions of dollars to save American lives.

The Democrats enjoy an advantage in the polls in health policy because they promise everyone will get care for free from an all-knowing, all-powerful government, as if government can ever get it right.

Republicans believe in enhancing a system focused on individuals and families that will keep everyone healthier and save lives. They must make that case to the people.

I don't know how many more people can survive "an enhancement" of such a system.

Folks, don't take my word for it. Don't take Ken Blackwell's word for it. View "Sicko" yourself,
...and really listen to what Mr. Moore documents, ...then make up your own mind, based on facts.

[24KT]

They 'sound' legitimate but they are bald-faced unsupported conclusions.

You know, propaganda. 

I'll go one further to say they are bald-faced lies. Not only are they unsupported,
...but everywhere, where there is universal healthcare, the evidence supports conclusions in the other direction.

[Colossus_500]

Our current system of insurance is already a disaster. 

Agreed, but I don't agree with the method that's being offered up.  If I want that, I'll go to Canada where I can wait 6 months or longer for heart-surgery if I needed it.    

[Colossus_500]

Actually not such a great article at all, ...but it is about moore's film, ...I'll grant it that.

...actually he pointed to health Care systems in Canada, England, and France, as well as Cuba.

Moore makes no such claim. Infact, he clearly showed the overall status of USA healthcare system was better than Cuba. There was one other country between USA & Cuba... Slovenia I think (not entirely sure which one, but he clearly stated USA's was better than Cuba's). Despite this, ...a system is truly only better for the patient, when the patient has access to it. if they do not, it could be as dazzling as the Hope Diamond, ...but still will do you no good. Did this Op-Ed author even view the movie? I did. This is simply an attempt to slam it before opening day.

I'm sure the ones in need of major surgery and neither able to afford it, nor get healthcare would.

The sooner people stop thinking in terms of Repubs vs. Dems, and align themselves based on how they really feel about an issue  (after all the facts are in... not just the propaganda & spin) the sooner you can get down to business to figure out how to solve the huge healthcare crisis you're faced with.

This is a myth, ...or more accurately, a blatant lie. Universal healthcare does not operate like this.
If anything, it is the current HMO system that behaves like this, ...that is of course, ...when you can get care.

I've seen more declines in quality of service, more needless delays, and more mistakes coming out of the current US HMO system.

Blatant scare tactic, ...and unfair assessment. It doesn't work like that at all. If every other country can manage a universal healthcare system without the nightmare scenarios described above, ...what is different about the USA that she'd be unable to do so as well. There'd have to be something very wrong if such a great country was unable to accomplish what so many lesser countries were able to do.

More blatant bullcrap. Universal healthcare doesn't work like that. HMO's do.

Again, this is the nightmare scenario you find yourself in under the current system of HMO's

Based on this article, I can only conclude this Ken Blackwell must really think you guys are a bunch of idiots ready to believe any garbage he shoves down your throat. Why don't you prove him wrong, ...and affirm once & for all that Americans are not a bunch of dumb sheep ready to swallow hook line & sinker, any load of bullcrap some lying shill pens.  View "Sicko", and understand what universal heathcare would infact mean, ...both to citizens, and then to the for-profit heathcare insurance companies, ...and all the confusing pieces will fall into place perfectly.

Oh wow, I never knew that, ...note to self: Must run out and get that expensive double lung transplant.
It's not that I need it or anything, ...but hey, ...it's FREE. 

So that's sufficient reason to deny proper healthcare to millions of INSURED patients?
So the Paris Hilton's of this world can have someone at her beck n' call when hit by a bout of claustrophobia?
I don't think so

This is a rather specious argument, because no one is arguing to turn the system into a bureacracy.
Infact, just the opposite. The point of the film is there has to be a better way than the bureacratic,
and mercenary system that put's profits, and CEO salaries & bonuses over patient care, that is in place now.

Then why have costs soared out of control these past 30 some years under the current system?

The challenge is they cut costs at the expense of patient care.

There's a difference between activity & productivity. They've worked the long hours, but it hasn't produced results.

Except the actual stats do not bear that out. Quite the opposite is true.
Consumers in America have not won, their lives are not saved and they are not healthier.

Go ahead and demonize the sick. Alcohol & Tobacco don't account for brain tumours, car accidents, or other diseases that force people into years of discomfort. But it's easier to blame those damned sinners who drink & smoke, than it is to face the facts that someone with a brain tumour has a life threatening illness, through no fault of his own, and needs treatment.

If you can find trillions of dollars to kill people, ...surely you can find trillions of dollars to save American lives.

I don't know how many more people can survive "an enhancement" of such a system.

Folks, don't take my word for it. Don't take Ken Blackwell's word for it. View "Sicko" yourself,
...and really listen to what Mr. Moore documents, ...then make up your own mind, based on facts.

I knew it would only be a matter of time before you jumped on this socialism bandwagon.   

[24KT]

Agreed, but I don't agree with the method that's being offered up.  If I want that, I'll go to Canada where I can wait 6 months or longer for heart-surgery if I needed it.    

Who fed you this line of crap... Blackwell, ...or one of his predecessors?

[24KT]

I knew it would only be a matter of time before you jumped on this socialism bandwagon.   

I pray you never get seriously ill in the USA, because I fear you'd be in for a very rude awakening.

I wouldn't even be able to marry you so you could get healthcare, ...cause you're already married. 

I suppose a quick trip to Mexico could take care of that, ...but best to just stay healthy instead.     

[Colossus_500]

I pray you never get seriously ill in the USA, because I fear you'd be in for a very rude awakening.

I have, and I was very well taken care of thank you very much.   

I wouldn't even be able to marry you so you could get healthcare, ...cause you're already married. 

lol

I suppose a quick trip to Mexico could take care of that, ...but best to just stay healthy instead.     

lol, i think you'd step on my neck, leave me for dead and collect on insurance.   

[Colossus_500]

Who fed you this line of crap... Blackwell, ...or one of his predecessors?

Just for you, Ms. Jag. 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbq_OZ_dygE

here's a link to the antithesis of Sicko:

http://www.sickandsickermovie.com/

[24KT]

I have, and I was very well taken care of thank you very much.   

I'm happy to hear that. I'm sure there are many wishing they were you. Not all have been so fortunate.

lol, i think you'd step on my neck, leave me for dead and collect on insurance.   

Oh dude, you are sooooo giving me ideas. 

j/k... I'd never do that to you, ...from what I heard, ...you have no neck,
...and I don't think 110lbs stomping on you would be enough.
But don't worry, ...I'm sure if I thought real hard, I could come up with something. 

[24KT]

Just for you, Ms. Jag. 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbq_OZ_dygE

here's a link to the antithesis of Sicko:

http://www.sickandsickermovie.com/

Touché Colossus, ...however since you are so far removed from the situation, I feel it necessary to clarify how the facts were twisted in that scenario.

True, many a hospital wing was shut down, true, ...many a hospital wing was used for film sets,
I've even filmed quite a few scenes in hospitals myself, ...and yes there was a shortage of doctors in rural areas which the gov sought to address by offering incentives for doctors to move to underserved communities...

...however, it was the Conservative gov that was responsible for that. In an effort to pave the way for private for-profit enterprises, they slashed & burned and closed down hospital wings. The voters rejected a two-tier health system, by booting Harris out of office along with his finance minister when he took over as premiere, and things went back to normal. As for the lack of doctors in certain communities, ...who the heck wants to work in a town covered in ice for 330 days of the year. Doctors who accepted gov funds for their education did so with the knowledge and the caveat that for the first few years after graduation, they'd be giving back so to speak, by setting up practice in underserved communities. Doctors who paid for their own medical school etc., were always free to practice wherever they chose. But yes, Conservative premiere Bill Harris wreaked so much havoc on this province, in what can only be described as an attempt to pave the road for campaign contributors with special interests. Twas but a temporary glitch 10 years ago. The system itself is sound, and as such rebounded and righted itself rather quickly.

Take it from someone who lives here... it's not all doom & gloom. A person is always free to seek private insurance if they want, ...but private insurance will never thrive here, at the expense of public universal care.

Canada's Universal Healthcare system was the vision of one man... labour unionist Tommy Douglas.
a.k.a Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather, ...a man to which Canadians owe a huge debt of gratitude. 

[Dos Equis]

They 'sound' legitimate but they are bald-faced unsupported conclusions.

You know, propaganda.

I'll be damned if I can find one private insurance company that has the less than the 1% administrative costs of the SSA (death benefits, disability, and retirement income).  Nope, private firms (12-19%) cost more b/c they are profit driven:  high overhead--advertising, corporate salaries, corp. jets, funding pro golf tours all the while crushing the costs of paying benefits while leaving millions uninsured (but they'll cost much more down the road when their conditions turn critical/terminal).  We will pay that bill at some point in time.

Our current system of insurance is already a disaster. 

So you think the federal government does not manage our money very well and we will not be taxed into kingdom come if they establish some new federal department to run socialized medicine?

I trust a private company over the government any day of the week.  Sure they can still cheat, mismanage, etc., but there is more accountability in the private sector IMO. 

[24KT]

So you think the federal government does not manage our money very well and we will not be taxed into kingdom come if they establish some new federal department to run socialized medicine?

With such a large population base, USA should be able to pull it off relatively inexpensively.

I trust a private company over the government any day of the week.  Sure they can still cheat, mismanage, etc., but there is more accountability in the private sector IMO. 

{cough} Enron... Worldcom... {cough}