Analysis: 'Sicko' Numbers Mostly Accurate

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: TallBill
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9

I am shocked, SHOCKED that you haven't seen the movie!</end quote></div>

I personally don't want to give Moore one cent of my money. I've made the mistake in the past with "Bowling for Columbine" which was full of clever editing, omission of the full story, and a few outright lies.

Heck, just reading the CNN article I already know that he's not telling the truth. Saying 50 million when the real number is 44 million is not what I'm looking for in a "documentary".

So yes, continue to be shocked, and eating up the crap by this "working class" defender who is a zillionaire and grew up with money as well.

I should tell my doctor father that he is eating the crap.. he surely knows nothing about healthcare!

Choose not to see the movie and then STAY OUT OF THREADS ABOUT IT. You can't comment on something you don't have the whole story on.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Googer
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmens
Nice, just drop out the whole context thing, it's only part of the CNN headline. Moore's entire act is based around creating bias by omission, are you trying to imitate him? Here is the whole headline so it is included in the thread:

'Sicko' numbers mostly accurate; more context needed

Is there a scene that shows the taxes incurred on the happy smiling people getting money for their cab ride home from the hospital? Naw that'd just get in the way. Even the CNN article is disingenuous. For example, medicare overhead is 1% only if tax deduction is taken out of the equation, but is a real cost nonetheless.

Oh, I didn't see this film yet, but I heard there's scenes regarding Cuba in it. Here's the real Cuban system. I doubt Moore ever saw the kind of care regular Cubans get. Useful idiot for Castro? Seems likely.</end quote></div>

I am shocked, SHOCKED that you haven't seen the movie!</end quote></div>

My watch is less predicable than a Michal Moore film. Don't need to see it.</end quote></div>

You have the right to not see his movie.. but stay out of threads about movies you choose NOT to see.

I am already very well informed on the issue and don't need Michal Moore to give me a cherry picked point of view that I know is highly slanted.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Ignore shadow9d9, his only tactic is to claim that the ONLY people aginst gov healthcare must have not seen this perfect 100% factual movie.

Yeah ignore the person who actually saw the movie.. focus on people who are judging and spouting garbage without even seeing the movie they are spouting garbage against! The government and healthcare shills are out in full force with damage control here!

If my republican doctor father could tell all of his friends to see the movie, I can surely endorse it here.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Ignore shadow9d9, his only tactic is to claim that the ONLY people aginst gov healthcare must have not seen this perfect 100% factual movie.</end quote></div>

Yeah ignore the person who actually saw the movie.. focus on people who are judging and spouting garbage without even seeing the movie they are spouting garbage against! The government and healthcare shills are out in full force with damage control here!

If my republican doctor father could tell all of his friends to see the movie, I can surely endorse it here.

I have already been briefed on the film.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Googer
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Googer
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmens
Nice, just drop out the whole context thing, it's only part of the CNN headline. Moore's entire act is based around creating bias by omission, are you trying to imitate him? Here is the whole headline so it is included in the thread:

'Sicko' numbers mostly accurate; more context needed

Is there a scene that shows the taxes incurred on the happy smiling people getting money for their cab ride home from the hospital? Naw that'd just get in the way. Even the CNN article is disingenuous. For example, medicare overhead is 1% only if tax deduction is taken out of the equation, but is a real cost nonetheless.

Oh, I didn't see this film yet, but I heard there's scenes regarding Cuba in it. Here's the real Cuban system. I doubt Moore ever saw the kind of care regular Cubans get. Useful idiot for Castro? Seems likely.</end quote></div>

I am shocked, SHOCKED that you haven't seen the movie!</end quote></div>

My watch is less predicable than a Michal Moore film. Don't need to see it.</end quote></div>

You have the right to not see his movie.. but stay out of threads about movies you choose NOT to see.</end quote></div>

I am already very well informed on the issue and don't need Michal Moore to give me a cherry picked point of view that I know is highly slanted.

This is a topic about the MOVIE, something you haven't seen. Go create your own trashy thread for that. What's the matter? Afraid you will only be heard by trolling in threads about movies you haven't seen?

How can you cherry pick 40 million people without healthcare, insurance companies puposely denying coverage for their own profit, and our senators being bought out with big healthcare money?

Is he cherrypicking that France is #1 in healthcare in the world and we are 37? I keep seeing you trolls ignore that point.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Googer
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Ignore shadow9d9, his only tactic is to claim that the ONLY people aginst gov healthcare must have not seen this perfect 100% factual movie.</end quote></div>

Yeah ignore the person who actually saw the movie.. focus on people who are judging and spouting garbage without even seeing the movie they are spouting garbage against! The government and healthcare shills are out in full force with damage control here!

If my republican doctor father could tell all of his friends to see the movie, I can surely endorse it here.

</end quote></div>

I have already been briefed on the film.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That is the funniest, most ignorant statement I've heard in a while. You have been told, not by the internet apparently, everything about the movie from an obviously completely unbiased person exactly what you wanted to hear. The internet is full of fools.. or are you admitting to being a shill? : ). Pathetic.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Ignore shadow9d9, his only tactic is to claim that the ONLY people aginst gov healthcare must have not seen this perfect 100% factual movie.</end quote></div>

Yeah ignore the person who actually saw the movie.. focus on people who are judging and spouting garbage without even seeing the movie they are spouting garbage against! The government and healthcare shills are out in full force with damage control here!

If my republican doctor father could tell all of his friends to see the movie, I can surely endorse it here.

Please, you dont have to see the movie in full to debate the politics behind the movie. The topic isnt new. And arent you the same troll who tells people if they arent a scientist they shouldnt voice an opinion on the politics and effects of global warming?

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Ignore shadow9d9, his only tactic is to claim that the ONLY people aginst gov healthcare must have not seen this perfect 100% factual movie.</end quote></div>

Yeah ignore the person who actually saw the movie.. focus on people who are judging and spouting garbage without even seeing the movie they are spouting garbage against! The government and healthcare shills are out in full force with damage control here!

If my republican doctor father could tell all of his friends to see the movie, I can surely endorse it here.

There are MANY valid points as to why gov controlled heath will not work in the US. You just can't seem to make any argument about it except "The movie is 100% factual without seeing it you can NEVER know!"

 

[ThePresence]

Maybe it's just me, but I think John Q made a bigger impact on me than sicko.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Craig234
As for Cuba, with the economic situation they're in, made much worse by the embargo

oh really?

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Distortion of facts is what its all about, both CNN and Moore have the same agenda.

The difference in costs between Private Insurance and Medicare for overhead considerations forgets that most Medicare coverage is for older folks who have longer and more expensive doctor issues - which causes the "overhead" for the bill to decrease compared to the total bill. Most private insurance companies report only 10% medical cost ratios (and they are reporting numbers to investors) for their senior visits. What runs up costs are all the short doctor visits (60 dollar visit, once every 3 months will show a higher percentage spent on admin and a 6000 dollar 1 week visit)

United Health Care and Wellpoint reported Medical cost rations 83% approximate, leaving 17% overhead for expenses, taxes, and profit. See that key word in the middle? Medicare is not subject to taxes. Also Medicare's contribution to the deficit is not kept track of either (one giant hell hole). Both HMOs paid approximate THREE (3%) percent of their REVENUE - not profit in taxes.


As for Great Britain, 15% of those eligible for government health care OPTED OUT and pay for private out of their own pockets (and yes I know people who have been through that system - private payers are royalty when it comes to treatment)



As for medical costs, how much do we pay for mandated coverage that is nothing more than cosmetic or elective in other countries? (also, what part of our costs are associated with unnecessary services?)

 

[Arglebargle]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: jpeyton

So, if Americans are paying so much and they're not getting as good or as much care, where is all the money going? "Overhead for most private health insurance plans range between 10 percent to 30 percent," says Deloitte health-care analyst Paul Keckley. Overhead includes profit and administrative costs.

"Compare that to Medicare, which only has an overhead rate of 1 percent. Medicare is an extremely efficient health-care delivery system," says Mark Meaney, a health-care ethicist for the National Institute for Patient Rights.</end quote></div>

Just as I suspected.

I wonder if the expense numbers also include the costs to businesses of having to hire benefits and health insurance account managers. I suspect that there are also other hidden costs involving both time and money that have gone unidentified not to mention the costs to our economy and decreased job mobility. Another issue is decreased competitiveness for American-made goods and services since the costs of health care are included in the costs of our would-be exports.

I am familiar and sympathetic to the economic arguments against socialized-medicine and socialized-anything. However, to a great extent, health care is, essentially, a service that is not compatible with perfect competition for several reasons. (1.) Unlike the needs of food and water, health care is very expensive and relatively limited. (2.) When people need health care they need health care and cannot wait for a sale nor seek a substitute good or service nor do without it. (3.) It is almost impossible to compare prices because the prices are not transparent and it is difficult to predict how much care will be needed in advance.

As the percentage-of-GDP statistics are beginning to reveal, outright socialized medicine might well prove to be more economically efficient, much better for the economy, and a better way to provide health care.

In addition, commercial health insurance fails in an important capitalist maxim: The people who use the service are not the people who buy the service. Executives of companies decide on a plan, usually based on bean counter values. Executives who rarely actually use these services. And the employees do not have a real choice in what they get. Very anti-competitive. Though, as stated above, health care isn't that well served by the competitive model.


And as an anecdotal aside, everyone I know who has ever worked in the Insurance industry has privately told me how widely corrupt their companies were.

 

[thatguy82]

Originally posted by: Googer
The only SICKO in that movie is Michal Moore himself. He's so full of BS and you are gullible to believe it.

what's with the personal attacks?

 

[thatguy82]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Googer
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Googer
The only SICKO in that movie is Michal Moore himself. He's so full of BS and you are gullible to believe it.</end quote></div>

The movie you haven't seen? Talk about gullible.. you take the word of people on the internet with a view you want to believe insteadof seeing hte movie and judging for yourself.

My father, a staunch republican, and also a doctor, advised all of his friends to see the movie...</end quote></div>

I haven't read anything about it on the internet.</end quote></div>

Even better, you are judging it with 0 knowledge whatsoever except a hatred for Moore.. go see the movie or shut it... You can't expect to be taken seriously to judge something you haven't seen...

the worst part people like googer hold the strongest to their views.

"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

not sure where this is from but seems appropriate

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Genx87
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Ignore shadow9d9, his only tactic is to claim that the ONLY people aginst gov healthcare must have not seen this perfect 100% factual movie.</end quote></div>

Yeah ignore the person who actually saw the movie.. focus on people who are judging and spouting garbage without even seeing the movie they are spouting garbage against! The government and healthcare shills are out in full force with damage control here!

If my republican doctor father could tell all of his friends to see the movie, I can surely endorse it here.

</end quote></div>

Please, you dont have to see the movie in full to debate the politics behind the movie. The topic isnt new. And arent you the same troll who tells people if they arent a scientist they shouldnt voice an opinion on the politics and effects of global warming?

Umm, i've never even entered the global warming threads... good try though.

And, to respond to a movie, yes you need to know what is actually IN the movie.. not just cherrypicked data from your favorite hatemichaelmoore site. Pathetic.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Ignore shadow9d9, his only tactic is to claim that the ONLY people aginst gov healthcare must have not seen this perfect 100% factual movie.</end quote></div>

Yeah ignore the person who actually saw the movie.. focus on people who are judging and spouting garbage without even seeing the movie they are spouting garbage against! The government and healthcare shills are out in full force with damage control here!

If my republican doctor father could tell all of his friends to see the movie, I can surely endorse it here.</end quote></div>
There are MANY valid points as to why gov controlled heath will not work in the US. You just can't seem to make any argument about it except "The movie is 100% factual without seeing it you can NEVER know!"

I never made that claim and then you use a lie of your own creation to back it up.

You can't discuss a movie with someone who hasn't seen it. Get it through the thick skull of yours.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Distortion of facts is what its all about, both CNN and Moore have the same agenda.

The difference in costs between Private Insurance and Medicare for overhead considerations forgets that most Medicare coverage is for older folks who have longer and more expensive doctor issues - which causes the "overhead" for the bill to decrease compared to the total bill. Most private insurance companies report only 10% medical cost ratios (and they are reporting numbers to investors) for their senior visits. What runs up costs are all the short doctor visits (60 dollar visit, once every 3 months will show a higher percentage spent on admin and a 6000 dollar 1 week visit)

United Health Care and Wellpoint reported Medical cost rations 83% approximate, leaving 17% overhead for expenses, taxes, and profit. See that key word in the middle? Medicare is not subject to taxes. Also Medicare's contribution to the deficit is not kept track of either (one giant hell hole). Both HMOs paid approximate THREE (3%) percent of their REVENUE - not profit in taxes.


As for Great Britain, 15% of those eligible for government health care OPTED OUT and pay for private out of their own pockets (and yes I know people who have been through that system - private payers are royalty when it comes to treatment)



As for medical costs, how much do we pay for mandated coverage that is nothing more than cosmetic or elective in other countries? (also, what part of our costs are associated with unnecessary services?)

Stop trolling. You haven't seen the movie. Go create your own thread. This is related to something you haven't seen.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Shivetya
Distortion of facts is what its all about, both CNN and Moore have the same agenda.

The difference in costs between Private Insurance and Medicare for overhead considerations forgets that most Medicare coverage is for older folks who have longer and more expensive doctor issues - which causes the "overhead" for the bill to decrease compared to the total bill. Most private insurance companies report only 10% medical cost ratios (and they are reporting numbers to investors) for their senior visits. What runs up costs are all the short doctor visits (60 dollar visit, once every 3 months will show a higher percentage spent on admin and a 6000 dollar 1 week visit)

United Health Care and Wellpoint reported Medical cost rations 83% approximate, leaving 17% overhead for expenses, taxes, and profit. See that key word in the middle? Medicare is not subject to taxes. Also Medicare's contribution to the deficit is not kept track of either (one giant hell hole). Both HMOs paid approximate THREE (3%) percent of their REVENUE - not profit in taxes.


As for Great Britain, 15% of those eligible for government health care OPTED OUT and pay for private out of their own pockets (and yes I know people who have been through that system - private payers are royalty when it comes to treatment)



As for medical costs, how much do we pay for mandated coverage that is nothing more than cosmetic or elective in other countries? (also, what part of our costs are associated with unnecessary services?)




</end quote></div>

Stop trolling. You haven't seen the movie. Go create your own thread. This is related to something you haven't seen.

Whats wrong? Can't refute what I say so you use the playschool method of debate? Why not say "thats hate speech" - "nazi" - or "neo-con" and show even more lack of intelligence?

Whats next, your daddy has a better car so discussion ends?

your pretty damn lame, I know what box to put you in. Thank you for playing, your now relegated to the idiot box.

 

[daveymark]

lol...leaving out the "more context needed" part...classic Moore-ism

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Googer
The only SICKO in that movie is Michal Moore himself. He's so full of BS and you are gullible to believe it.

:roll:

 

[umbrella39]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Googer
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Ignore shadow9d9, his only tactic is to claim that the ONLY people aginst gov healthcare must have not seen this perfect 100% factual movie.</end quote></div>

Yeah ignore the person who actually saw the movie.. focus on people who are judging and spouting garbage without even seeing the movie they are spouting garbage against! The government and healthcare shills are out in full force with damage control here!

If my republican doctor father could tell all of his friends to see the movie, I can surely endorse it here.

</end quote></div>

I have already been briefed on the film.</end quote></div>

GTFOOTT.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Shivetya
Distortion of facts is what its all about, both CNN and Moore have the same agenda.

The difference in costs between Private Insurance and Medicare for overhead considerations forgets that most Medicare coverage is for older folks who have longer and more expensive doctor issues - which causes the "overhead" for the bill to decrease compared to the total bill. Most private insurance companies report only 10% medical cost ratios (and they are reporting numbers to investors) for their senior visits. What runs up costs are all the short doctor visits (60 dollar visit, once every 3 months will show a higher percentage spent on admin and a 6000 dollar 1 week visit)

United Health Care and Wellpoint reported Medical cost rations 83% approximate, leaving 17% overhead for expenses, taxes, and profit. See that key word in the middle? Medicare is not subject to taxes. Also Medicare's contribution to the deficit is not kept track of either (one giant hell hole). Both HMOs paid approximate THREE (3%) percent of their REVENUE - not profit in taxes.


As for Great Britain, 15% of those eligible for government health care OPTED OUT and pay for private out of their own pockets (and yes I know people who have been through that system - private payers are royalty when it comes to treatment)



As for medical costs, how much do we pay for mandated coverage that is nothing more than cosmetic or elective in other countries? (also, what part of our costs are associated with unnecessary services?)




</end quote></div>

Stop trolling. You haven't seen the movie. Go create your own thread. This is related to something you haven't seen.</end quote></div>



Whats wrong? Can't refute what I say so you use the playschool method of debate? Why not say "thats hate speech" - "nazi" - or "neo-con" and show even more lack of intelligence?

Whats next, your daddy has a better car so discussion ends?

your pretty damn lame, I know what box to put you in. Thank you for playing, your now relegated to the idiot box.

I won't waste my time arguing about a movie with someone who hasn't seen it... stop the stupidity please.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I won't waste my time arguing about a movie with someone who hasn't seen it... stop the stupidity please.

Look, if you can't debate the healthcare issue because you have brains the size of a squirrel's nutsack, just say so. Don't pollute the thread any more.

 

[StageLeft]

18,000 people do die each year mainly because they are less likely to receive screening and preventive care for chronic diseases.

How many of those smoke, don't exercise, overeat? I bet most. If this country really cared about its health, it would actually take charge of it instead of looking to the medical establishment and putting all the blame there. Is there anything as funny as a fatso sucking down a cigarette and talking about their lack of health coverage?

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: TallBill
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9

I am shocked, SHOCKED that you haven't seen the movie!</end quote></div>

I personally don't want to give Moore one cent of my money. I've made the mistake in the past with "Bowling for Columbine" which was full of clever editing, omission of the full story, and a few outright lies.

Heck, just reading the CNN article I already know that he's not telling the truth. Saying 50 million when the real number is 44 million is not what I'm looking for in a "documentary".

So yes, continue to be shocked, and eating up the crap by this "working class" defender who is a zillionaire and grew up with money as well.
</end quote></div>

I should tell my doctor father that he is eating the crap.. he surely knows nothing about healthcare!

Choose not to see the movie and then STAY OUT OF THREADS ABOUT IT. You can't comment on something you don't have the whole story on.

Good job not even reading my post.