Sicko is excellent!

**alaskaguy** · 07-01-2007, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by cyson

Hispanics are here because big business wants them here. They work cheap, make business owners rich and the taxpayer foots incidental costs. I like Moore. He wants to make America a more equitable country.

Yes, Moore wants everyone to be poor, then America would be equitable.

**brianhos** · 07-01-2007, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by cyson

Hispanics are here because big business wants them here. They work cheap, make business owners rich and the taxpayer foots incidental costs. I like Moore. He wants to make America a more equitable country.

Equitable how? By making ME pay for everyones healthcare? I already pay for their food, education, retirement, and well, healthcare already. Anyone how cannot afford it gets free medicade anyway. Just what I want is my already outrageous taxes increased from 30% - 50% just so I can get "free" healthcare. No thanks.

Lets take france, the top tax rate there is 49% with a 20% VAT tax too... sounds like somewhere that penalizes working hard.

**Kyle** · 07-01-2007, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

I told ya, ekim.....don't throw around the word socialist! They are called liberals now. Or progressives? What do you socialists like to be called now?

I've always thought supreme overlord sounded good, so go with that.

Here's the lowdown. If you have enough money to afford decent insurance the U.S. health care system is the best in the world. We have the best doctors, drugs, and technology. Why do we have the best? Because we can pay for it. On the other hand, if you are poor the U.S. system is a horrible one for you because you cannot afford to utilize its resources.

So, what health care system is the "best" depends on how the variables are weighted. Which should be weighted more, quality care or care that everyone can access? There is no objective way to determine the answer.

I personally don't think we are doing all that bad. I think we need to maintain competition to ensure innovation and quality, and hence think a single payer system is a bad idea. The idea of mandatory health insurance and allowing people to buy into relatively inexpensive government insurance holds some appeal to me. I'll be curious to see how it works out in some of the states that are trying such an approach, such as Massachusetts.

**CyinCo** · 07-01-2007, 10:43 AM

I've never seen a MM film, nor do I care to. But here is what I don't understand:

What are his goals with a film like this or any of those before this one? People see the film and agree that the US health care system is messed up. So what is new? If he is just trying to make a buck by stirring the pot, fine. Coulter does the same thing from the other end of the spectrum. People should be allowed to make money even if they do so by leveraging controversy. However, I continue to not understand what people like Moore and Coulter really want to accomplish? Maybe it is just to make $$$.

Now, for a slight change in topic, lets talk about insurance. There a lot of short sighted people in the US. Most people never think about the future. It is all about the now. It is the very reason why credit card debt is out of control in ths country. So, I suspect that many people make a poor choice when it comes to choosing their insurance plans. Many people will choose to pay less monthly with high deductibles and less coverage. If people would smart-up a bit and actually take the time to buy the correct insurance, they wouldn't have problems when a surprise surgery comes along. Because, really, how many surgeries are planned.

**Incyte** · 07-01-2007, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by mjones34

Thats a classic case of ad hominem where you're attacking the person and not the issue.

Not really. An ad hominem is where one attacks the speaker of the claim. I didn't say cloneaholic who originally first posted was fat and disgusting, I said Michael Moore was.

All bets are off it Cloneaholic is actually Michael Moore.

**mj4cy** · 07-01-2007, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Incyte

Not really. An ad hominem is where one attacks the speaker of the claim. I didn't say cloneaholic who originally first posted was fat and disgusting, I said Michael Moore was.

All bets are off it Cloneaholic is actually Michael Moore.

Haha well we shall see.

**Matthew-10** · 07-01-2007, 11:01 AM

I do agree that the health care system needs to be addressed, however, I don't think the Eropean model is the way to go. I have friends in England and anyone one who can afford it, has private insurance. In a sense, we do have universal health care-county hospitals. That is a problem in, and of, its self.

**Incyte** · 07-01-2007, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by joepublic

The real kicker is that the dude lives to accuse others of doing that. He invented hypocrisy.

I invented a lot of great terms, among them being "Vande Barta", but however, I cannot take credit for inventing "hypocricy".

I wish I invented "hypociricy" becase the royalties on that would be HUGE.

Did you call me a "dude"? I thought that was retired in 1993.

**jtd9046** · 07-01-2007, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by cloneaholic

It's one of the few movies I've been to where the entire audience stood and applauded.

Possibly because the only people who would pay $10 to see that movie are the same people who can be brainwashed by a blank like Moore.

Also, interesting that the original poster has not been back to the thread yet.

**brianhos** · 07-01-2007, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by jtd9046

Possibly because the only people who would pay $10 to see that movie are the same people who can be brainwashed by a blank like Moore.

Also, interesting that the original poster has not been back to the thread yet.

Not that I condone this, but it is ahhh out on the web for free, your favorite torrent client is your key. It was at least interesting to watch, but very very biased, but not quite as bad as 9-11.

**ISUboi12** · 07-01-2007, 01:02 PM

Political threads always seem to lose track of the topics. Hate Micheal Moore or not, he told the stories of fellow Americans who were fully screwed by the healthcare system when they shouldn't have been. It seems that people have somehow took the film, or others acceptance of it as a personal attack and have defended themselves and degraded others accordingly.
Just because a liberal made the movie doesn't mean you have to disregard it if you are a republican. There are valid points here for both sides. You may have your opinion, but imagine yourself in the victims shoes. It very well could happen to you. I don't think too many of us are pulling in 100,000 a year, and if you are great (You probably have more important things to do than an internet message board). However, if the shoe fit your foot, and it was your life on the line, would you still have the same strong opinions? I for one am glad this issue has been brought to attention, my belief is that necessary medical attention should not be denied to anyone with or without the means to pay for it. I would hate to think of cancer treatment as a consumer good, like an expensive car.

**Cyclonepride** · 07-01-2007, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by ISUboi12

Political threads always seem to lose track of the topics. Hate Micheal Moore or not, he told the stories of fellow Americans who were fully screwed by the healthcare system when they shouldn't have been. It seems that people have somehow took the film, or others acceptance of it as a personal attack and have defended themselves and degraded others accordingly.
Just because a liberal made the movie doesn't mean you have to disregard it if you are a republican. There are valid points here for both sides. You may have your opinion, but imagine yourself in the victims shoes. It very well could happen to you. I don't think too many of us are pulling in 100,000 a year, and if you are great (You probably have more important things to do than an internet message board). However, if the shoe fit your foot, and it was your life on the line, would you still have the same strong opinions? I for one am glad this issue has been brought to attention, my belief is that necessary medical attention should not be denied to anyone with or without the means to pay for it. I would hate to think of cancer treatment as a consumer good, like an expensive car.

Sorry, man. If someone lies on a consistent basis, they lose my trust in the rest of what they say.

**alaskaguy** · 07-01-2007, 01:10 PM

Socialized medicine promises that everyone gets to wait for health care:

A Great Britian Department of Health analysis of 208,000 people admitted to hospital in March showed 48% were wheeled into the operating theatre within 18 weeks of a GP sending them for hospital diagnosis. But 30% waited more than 30 weeks and 12.4% more than a year.

**alaskaguy** · 07-01-2007, 01:11 PM

A recent front-page story in the New York Times detailed the European cutbacks. According to the article, Britain, France and Germany are all being forced to limit access to care. Rationing, already extensive, is increasing.

The Europeans have run into a very simple economic rule. If something is perceived as free, people will consume more of it than they would if they had to pay for it. Think of it this way: if food were free, would you eat hamburger or steak? At the same time, health care is a finite good. There are only so many doctors, so many hospital beds and so much technology. If people overconsume those resources, it drives up the cost of health care.

**Incyte** · 07-01-2007, 01:16 PM

-Just because a liberal made the movie doesn't mean you have to disregard it if you are a republican.

I'm not a republican, I'm a conservative. Those are very different things. If Michael Moore possessed one iota of objectivity I would consider the film.