It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Micheal Moore's SICKO gets *Thumbs Up* from fact checkers.

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
If you are making the connection that free health care and freedom go together, you are wrong. To implement free health care is more of a shot at freedom them supporting it. The only thing free health care has in connection with freedom is that it further limits the people who earn their money to spend it as they see fit. It only restricts the freedom of certain people.

You are free to pursue happiness, but I'll be damned if the government will force me to pay for yours.

(that movie was a great movie, but you used the quote in a bad spot. A better spot would be to use it when people discuss how it is hopeless to try to reform the voting system and who gets into office.)




posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I liked that movie quote.


Instead of having doctors take up early residency inside another hospital, as they are required now. That docotor now spends his residency under 'general medicine' terms inside a state operated medical center. That center may have all the general specialaties; Internist, Pediatrician, Pulmonalogist, cardiologists, neurologists, podiatrists, etc., with each department head the supervisor of incoming newbies. These department heads can be highly regarded and paid well for their supervision and direction. Kind of like the Distric Attorneys office, those lawyers get higher wages to keep them from going into private defense law.

As long as doctors are still going through medical school, there will always be a free medical clinic, and if you tell me we can't fund something like this; I'll say piss off, because we spend 250,000,000 dollars a day in Iraq & Afghganistan.

AAC

[edit on 30-6-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Well you can tell me to piss off, cause we can't afford this. We can't afford the Iraq war, we can't afford free healthcare, and we sure as HELL can't afford both. I believe in a balanced budget. Its a radical idea in this society of spending credit like it was air, but I stick by it.

We need to have a balanced budget, and free healthcare just doesn't fit in there.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by grimreaper797]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
We'll you can tell me to piss off,


Forget it! I won't do it!


AAC



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
You can think what you like, but its suicide for the government to attempt free healthcare in the long run. Eventually, the government will go bankrupt and all these state run institutions will just close, leaving people out in the cold with a lack of medical facilities to go to for help. That's when the real chaos will start.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
You can think what you like, but its suicide for the government to attempt free healthcare in the long run. Eventually, the government will go bankrupt and all these state run institutions will just close, leaving people out in the cold with a lack of medical facilities to go to for help. That's when the real chaos will start.


If i lived near you I'd come to see your crystal ball.


"Man you sure are an optimist." -I say

"No. I'm a realist." -then you say & so on...

"I don't know, I think it could work if certain things change. I am willing to have an open mind and listen for suggestions."

"You fool! But I have this crystal ball of the future."

"Damn it. I forgot."



AAC



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Time will tell...

The funny thing is... We'll know soon enough where Michael Moore's cholesterol clogged heart is. It won't take long for a guy with his body habitus to need some advanced health care. Does he run to Cuba for it? Or does he head for one of the ivory towers of the medical arts here in the U.S?

I know where I would put my money... That it will be here in the U.S. and that hypocrite will not give one moment of thought about it.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   
See there is this thing, it is called cause and effect. When you take X amount of dollars to pay for health care, X amount of dollars must come from somewhere. Where does it come from? Well the rich will have to pay grossly large taxes, and even still you would haven an unbalanced budget.

Tell me how you plan to raise enough money to afford free healthcare? Where is this money coming from? The rich? Have you taken into account what will happen as a result of this taxation, or lack there of?

You will decimate the economy with creating a balanced budget free health care system. This isn't a prediction, its common sense. When you heavily tax the upper class, they are going to stop spending money. The poor are trying to make ends meet. Good luck with the economy. Also, have you taken into account the idea these people may simply stop working hard? What's the point of working hard if you can blow it off and get the same services?

work hard, get taxed ridiculously. Don't work hard, get services from the government. Which do you think most people are going to choose? Just use commonsense when looking at the issue. Entitlements simply don't work.

Ok so you have created a balanced budget and implemented the free healthcare system. How do you plan to address the increasing population problem? Are we going to start limiting families one child per family? This is what I had about these entitlement programs. They don't give a rats ass about the long term future of our country, so long as they get the feel-good moral forfilment from saying they made a difference and helped some people get healthcare, when in reality what they did is take the future of our country and flush it down the toilet to give the less fortunate what they felt was entitled to everyone. Entitlements will never work in a long term, ever. Its not predictions, its commonsense. Entitlements create unbalance which will get balanced out one way or another.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Tell me how you plan to raise enough money to afford free healthcare?

Medicare is a decent example of a step in the right direction. I'm sure a few decades ago this would've seemed impossible.


When you heavily tax the upper class, they are going to stop spending money.

Not if you tax their assets.
They will pay taxes whether they spend it or not. And I don't have much sympathy for the 5% of people who hold 75% of the nations wealth (That is a completely made up statistic)
But I'm sure it's close.




The poor are trying to make ends meet. Good luck with the economy. Also, have you taken into account the idea these people may simply stop working hard? What's the point of working hard if you can blow it off and get the same services?

Let's not turn this into a socialist debate. I am all for putting REAL thought into the proposed structure. I take it you don't like creativity?



work hard, get taxed ridiculously. Don't work hard, get services from the government. Which do you think most people are going to choose? Just use commonsense when looking at the issue. Entitlements simply don't work.

We're talking about people and their health. It's like I'm trying to pitch immigration amnesty. Geez,


Perhaps we create a tax for this service. You know on the back of your check it says X amount for SS, X amount for federal, State, and so on... Well, now we can have an amount for health coverage. It could help with the governments part.

BTW, these are just suggestions.


AAC

[edit on 30-6-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

[edit on 30-6-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Why stop there?


Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Perhaps we create a tax for this service. You know on the back of your check it says X amount for SS, X amount for federal, State, and so on... Well, now we can have an amount for health coverage. It could help with the governments part.


Let's turn it all over to the state and federal governments... It's obvious that "we" aren't smart enough to make financial decisions ourselves. I don't know how many times I've had patients that had eschewed personal responsibility and then when they find that health coverage would be a nice thing to have... They scream "not fair." I wonder if they were thinking about fairness when they went deep into hock for that new car... Or the ridiculous bling they're wearing... Or the shopping spree they really needed.




posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   
How about this, we come to grips with the idea some people aren't going to have health care. Cut government involvement and set up charity groups. From there get government to stop allowing ridiculous insurance lawsuits to get through which boost everyones insurance rates.

I like creativity. Its government involvement and entitlements that I don't like. You may not have a problem with taxing people ridiculously simply because they are the top 5% but I do. My principles aren't these things that I hold to when it is convenient or sounds good to do so. I hold to them strictly. Equality is something I stand by. That doesn't mean since everyone is equal, everyone should have healthcare. That's not what equal means. Equal means if governments says you will be taxed 5% on your wages, then everyone be taxed 5% on their wages. We don't make laws based on what social class you are in.

You want to help the less fortunate, charity is the way to do it. I believe in the idea everyone has the right to do what they want with their money and property, rich or poor.

What you are proposing is not a system that can work with optimism. You are proposing a system that is flawed at the most fundamental levels, so optimism is actually more naive then anything else. Its like saying "I am going to jump off this cliff and fly using my two arms" then I tell you not to do it and you say "you need to be optimistic". Optimism is for the systems that have a chance at failure, not systems that are designed to fail.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone
I really can't wait to see it. I heard he gets 50% of whatever it takes. Good for him I say
No more producer restrictions on his next film



Right. The more money he makes the better able he is to continue to make these expose films.

I think his next one should be on the IRS and the Federal reserve (Which is no more federal then Federal Express).

If he lives thru the making of it....



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Why stop there?


Let's turn it all over to the state and federal governments...


Or perhaps it is the innate instict to think that our country, whom we pay 1/3rd of our taxes to, should be conscious of our hope to be healthy. And I am not saying, so much as to turn it "all over" to the feds and state, I am proposing the idea of not leave a large portion of our citizens out to dry.

Again, I believe your position is easy to argue considering your standing on top of it. Change doesn't always articulate well, considering it is peoples first reaction to despise it, so I guess I'll have to hope a reflection session can be in your future.


AAC

[edit on 1-7-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Au contraire...

I am asking for change... I'm asking for personal responsibility.


It is you that is taking the easy way out... I'm having a difficult time finding a philosophical anchor for handing over the responsibility and the freedom you propose.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
I am asking for change... I'm asking for personal responsibility.

Circumsances change ideas. I am not saying pay for all, I swear it is hard here on ATS to make a suggestion for discussion, without having someone come in and paint a negative picture. I will reiterate, threads are sometimes for discussion, not always for debate. If your answers are simply, "It will not work, I don't want it to work, fine. I will agree to disagree. But I would still like to move on...


It is you that is taking the easy way out...

Okay?




I'm having a difficult time finding a philosophical anchor for handing over the responsibility and the freedom you propose.


Your comprehending my words wrong, from this assertion. I want offerings of change, not "it won't work."

Noone is saying that I think lazy people should get more. But some of the people being left to dry are real genuine cases of inability.

AAC



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Godwin's Law

I am placing bets.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Hillary Clinton worked most of her life on this and she was eventually put up against the wall and paid off. I think she received around $800,000.00 to just shut up. She had to stay quiet for years while in the white house.

I sure would like to hear what Hillary has to say about this film, and see her answer some of the types of questions posted here. Why can't we have both? NHS and the Fair Tax proposal

Look, I am not saying this will be perfect, but we need help. My family and many others I know are in a financial crisis due to our medical care costs. We have to make a choice every week either to keep our medical insurance or pay a bill. Of course we do both so that means we eat PB&J or eggs all week. The stress alone can make people sick and even kill them. Children these days know what's going on with Mommy & Daddy's finances simply because you cannot hide it anymore. These kids are not stupid, they know when things are bad. My own kids said Bravo to this film, and they are only 10 and 15 yrs old.

As to the comment about the PPO and putting away 2 to 5K. I do have a PPO that costs me 400$ a week and again that is a group rate. IF I didn't have to pay that amount each WEEK I sure could put 2 to 5K away, but because I pay for my medical I can't afford any savings! Just to let those that are not in the USA know ... I looked to purchase medical insurance privately and for a family of four to have the coverage I have now it would have been just a little over $3000.00 a month. With a group plan at work it is $1600.00 a month. Add in the taxes the Federal Gov takes out and we are out over $800.00 a week. We need change, and we need it BAD.

Michael Moore's film to me is worth more then you can even imagine. His voice on this situation was heard across America and to me that is priceless. Thank you Mr. Moore.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 06:22 AM
link   
I had lost all hope in Mr. Moore since his last movie. I had deemed him a shill and written him off. He has redeemed himself to me with Sicko.

However as I watched this movie I found myself getting very angry and then very sad as I realised that the righteous anger this should arouse in Americans would be quickly drowned out by the nay-sayers and the nit-pickers. The same knee-jerk reaction that occured with the mention of 'socialised' medicine in the movie would apply here, causing the majority of Americans to come to ignore the realisation that you are being screwed over by those who seek to rule over you.

I have lived in three different Health Systems and have never gone without treatment or had any complaints about them.

While I was in Japan I paid about 60 dollars a month and any time I had to use the Health Service I usually ended up paying about 30% of the bill. It usually was quite cheap. I paid about 50 dollars to get one of my wisdom teeth out. The true cost would have been about 160 dollars. I am reliably told that the Dentist (and indeed most Doctors) would have padded the bill nicely before submitting it to the Government for compensation. I don't think too many of you would object to a system where the Government came off worse, right?

Having said that, they still had many problems. Doctors would throw pharma-company sponsored drugs out like candy and get a nice little bonus for that. All educated people on the board know the dangers of over prescribing antibiotics but that is a different debate for a different forum.

Also young Japanese Doctors are flocking to the United States first for experience and then when they realise how much money can be made fleecing the sheeple stay on.

On to the NHS here in England where I currently reside. I have had limited experience, all very good. It isn't as happy and shiny as is made out in Sicko but it is still good enough that I can confirm the reaction of people in the hospital (spit-take....you..have..to pay??) as being true. I pay a hefty tax on my income on top of a 'council tax' of 300 or so dollars a month for all the essential services such as fire, health and refuse. So when I get sick I would balk at the idea of having to pay considering how much I pay already.

If anyone wants to don their tin-foil hats for a moment and think why many other Western countries are eyeing the US system to replace their own then all you have to consider is how a few people can make millions screwing over the little folk by buying off those in power. Politicians are corrupt everywhere and it is up to us to be extra vigilent should anybody propose taking the NHS off us. They have lied in the past to gain their own ends, why should now be any different?

Finally my heart goes out to those of you straining under massive Health insurance builds. Know that we don't view your situation as any laughing matter and while the thought of "Thank God I am not living in America" does cross our minds we do wish that you guys get the situation handled. Because if you don't then the likelihood of this spreading across the world as "America does it this way so it should be the way we all do it" is very high indeed.

Many people on these boards shout about Freedom. Freedom to me is when you are in danger the Police come, when your house is on fire the Firefighters come and when you are sick you can go to Hospital and you will be treated and all this time the first thing that crosses your mind should not be:

"How much will this cost me?"



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Is it morally right to say that because they are poor they will die first, no. Fact is though thats how the world works.



but that isn't the way it is...
so, who is getting the short end of the stick??

letting a bunch of poor people go without insurance makes us look too ugly in the eyes of the world...
and having a bunch of uninsured children makes us look worse.

so, the problem of being uninsured and unable to get the minimum standards of healthcare in the country has been shifted to another group.

let's imagine that we have a family of three living in NY State. Mom stays home with their 2 year old son while dad works.

okay...if dad makes less than $2,147 NY offers a program, a free plan with prescriptions included, better than most insurance plans...



if they make less than $3,557...there is another program that NY runs that might be able to help them.

but it will cost them from $310.83 to $812.28 a month...depending the plan that they pick....none of these plans are as good as that other free plan for the other group, there's deductables, co-pays, some don't cover perscription drugs, ect.

so, can a family of three, living in NY, afford to pay this, and the deductable, and the co-pays, perscription drugs, when they are making just $ 2,200 month before taxes...I mean payroll taxes will eat up around $500 a month I think, rent, another $500 or so, electric and gas...$100 to $200, more in the winter, car payment??a couple more hundred, car insurance?? food? probably $200-$400 hundred now days.. water? about $50, gas for the car, clothing, and, well, I threw the numbers into the calculator, and well, I don't think they could do it, throw in a few hundred dollar perscriptions, I know they couldn't. but throw your own numbers into your calculator and see what you come up with.

NY state themselves don't think so, that's way they have another plan, child health plus that will pay for all of the child's healthcare for a low monthly payment, or maybe you won't even need pay...


numbers taken from:

www.health.state.ny.us...

www.health.state.ny.us...

www.ins.state.ny.us...

dad might luck out and be able to get insurance at work...
the kids might luck out and get insurance through childhealth plus....

but, the stay at home mom might find herself out in the cold, and who cares, since she is for the most part, out of the public view....

but one thing is for sure...it's not the poor that are going without in most cases, making sure they have healthcare gives us a better image in the worldview, and it makes us all feel oh, so much better! and it definately isn't the children, since well who want their kids going to school with other kids who might be carrying some highly infectious, deadly virus!


and NY State is one of the more liberal states, they are actually trying to extend the coverage to everyone. and the strain it is causing is showing through their taxes...and they aren't reaching all in need!!
other states might have different programs, and I can't say what they are like.

It's also interesting to note, I remember when these programs were started in the state. blue cross/blue shield was one of the insurance agencies selected to participate. that very same year.....the insurance premiums were hiked up (why not, they wouldn't lose that many customers, the state program just delivered a whole mess to them), and all the upper level management in the company got really nice salary increases...some I think actually doubled I think.

If you want my opinion, we should go back to the old way of doing things....get rid of the insurance companies, this would cut down on the waste, the fraud, the staff that needs to be kept just for all that paperwork! and well, we should eliminate most of these aide programs from the government....
and then, if necessary, we should start putting a little pressure on our healthcare providers to keep the costs down.

till the cost of the care is reduced to a manageable level, I don't think it will matter much what we do...
either more and more people will find their healthcare beyond their reach, or our governments will be strained to the breaking point trying to keep up with the rising costs and the growing need of the people for help.
or both...
and well, if we do decide to let event flow naturally, our government takes a hands off approach....well there will be alot less customers for our healthcare to have to contend with, less doctors needed, less nurses, less hospitals, ect....alot of unemployed people!!



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
There isn't any arguement that can convince me to have national free healthcare. You want a state healthcare system, fine. I will gladly move to another state that does not have such a system. I will move to a state where like-minded people stick to the principle "governments job is to ensure rights, and that is it". So my taxes are low, and I am entrusted with my own money. So if I get sick, I can reach into my bank account and take some money that I have been saving up, rather then going to somebody else.

The most efficient healthcare system for me is the one I am in control of. No one will handle my money better then I will. As for the poor that cannot afford it, well my theory is this. Initially, the rich will think they are free and clear. That will last until they start to see the effects of their choices. That goes for everyone. Once people see that where they put their money has an effect they will become more fiscally responsible, not because of morality but because of necessity.

You can't convince a greedy person to help other people by what is moral right. You have to show him that helping other people is economically beneficial to him. If a company doesn't give any healthcare and doesn't pay enough for people to save up and pay it themselves, they will quickly realize the damage that will do to their own business. Employees get sick and can't work, production gets sluggish, profits start to decline. People see the way the company is treating its employees and says "Im not shopping there".

You want a great system? Free market is it. Not because markets can compete but because you can withdrawl your support whenever you like. As much as I hate the idea, money= voice. Where you put your money is what you stand for. If you shop at walmart, you support walmart. If you eat at the local deli, you support the local deli. If you give money to healthcare for the poor, you support healthcare for the poor. The amount you give shows how strongly you feel. If you don't like what walmart does, don't shop there.

If you depend on any place so much that you can't live without them, that is a problem that needs to be immediately addressed. If you believe you cant live without Store X, then you need to quickly find a way to change that. America stands for independence, and it is important that each person stay independent, and not need to depend on anything. Dependence quickly turns into a control factor. Its dangerous.

I believe that if people realize the power they have with spending power, they can quickly reform our broken system. In fact, I would go so far as to say its not the system broken at all, its the people living in it. Maybe it isn't the system that needs fixing?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join