Did you guys watch SiCKO? What did you think?

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Please, if you haven't seen the movie, and if you already hate michael moore, you shouldn't be posting in this thread. This is about people who have SEEN the movie, not people with agenda or hate for a movie and its creator without actually knowing what they are talking about! You need to see the movie in order to criticize it. It is sad that nowadays people just need to make assumptions and read hate websites to feel qualified to criticize something they haven't seen.

Turn down your sensitivity meter; I was just asking a question.

Like I said, I'm in favor of semi-socialized medicine, and I'm glad that the Sicko movie was released. But, at the same time, I wonder if Moore is willing to acknowledge some politically incorrect realities related to the nation's health problems.

So, would anyone who's seen the movie care to answer my question? Did he dare risk angering altruist-liberals by mentioning that illegal immigration is part of the problem? Did he have the intellect needed to make the connection between the overall state of the economy, the increase in the percentage of people who are poor or working poor, and the economics of health care?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's michael moore, so I just kind of assumed that everything in the movie was half-truths and smoke and mirrors, though there's certainly a valid point underneath and grandstanding, self-aggrandizing soap box'ing.

This is the whole point, MM does exaggerate to a certain extent and sometimes presents half truths, but he is raising awareness, just like Al Gore.

Stimulating debate is what these movies are all about, you can nitpick the particulars but overall the thesis of his movies are sound.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Please, if you haven't seen the movie, and if you already hate michael moore, you shouldn't be posting in this thread. This is about people who have SEEN the movie, not people with agenda or hate for a movie and its creator without actually knowing what they are talking about! You need to see the movie in order to criticize it. It is sad that nowadays people just need to make assumptions and read hate websites to feel qualified to criticize something they haven't seen.</end quote></div>

Turn down your sensitivity meter; I was just asking a question.

Like I said, I'm in favor of semi-socialized medicine, and I'm glad that the Sicko movie was released. But, at the same time, I wonder if Moore is willing to acknowledge some politically incorrect realities related to the nation's health problems.

So, would anyone who's seen the movie care to answer my question? Did he dare risk angering altruist-liberals by mentioning that illegal immigration is part of the problem? Did he have the intellect needed to make the connection between the overall state of the economy, the increase in the percentage of people who are poor or working poor, and the economics of health care?

No, I'm sorry, but those were not questions. They were assertions with your assumptions. Why even bother posting here? Go see it and then you won't need to make assumptions.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ayabe
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: loki8481
it's michael moore, so I just kind of assumed that everything in the movie was half-truths and smoke and mirrors, though there's certainly a valid point underneath and grandstanding, self-aggrandizing soap box'ing.</end quote></div>

This is the whole point, MM does exaggerate to a certain extent and sometimes presents half truths, but he is raising awareness, just like Al Gore.

Stimulating debate is what these movies are all about, you can nitpick the particulars but overall the thesis of his movies are sound.

In some cases, like in Fahrenheit 9/11, he presented his main points all in sourced format.. over 6 pages worth, on his website. Not one person was ever able to dispute those main points.. Instead, people attacked his opinions, or his style/humor, or semantics.

People love arguing semantics with his movies... like how he dealt with heston.. their opinion is that he wasn't sensitive with him and they cut his clips a certain way to make him look bad. They complete skip over his main point, which remained unchanged... and he doesn't have to be sensitive because some people might share different opinions...

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Please, if you haven't seen the movie, and if you already hate michael moore, you shouldn't be posting in this thread. This is about people who have SEEN the movie, not people with agenda or hate for a movie and its creator without actually knowing what they are talking about! You need to see the movie in order to criticize it. It is sad that nowadays people just need to make assumptions and read hate websites to feel qualified to criticize something they haven't seen.</end quote></div>

Turn down your sensitivity meter; I was just asking a question.

Like I said, I'm in favor of semi-socialized medicine, and I'm glad that the Sicko movie was released. But, at the same time, I wonder if Moore is willing to acknowledge some politically incorrect realities related to the nation's health problems.

So, would anyone who's seen the movie care to answer my question? Did he dare risk angering altruist-liberals by mentioning that illegal immigration is part of the problem? Did he have the intellect needed to make the connection between the overall state of the economy, the increase in the percentage of people who are poor or working poor, and the economics of health care?</end quote></div>

No, I'm sorry, but those were not questions. They were assertions with your assumptions. Why even bother posting here? Go see it and then you won't need to make assumptions.

It seems like a pretty valid question to me, I'd also like to know the answer to that. By the way, since you are so quick to jump on people for posting in this thread that haven't seen the movie, how about you not reply to questions unless you can answer it?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ericlp

I liked that Canada, Briton, France are all on free health care. I'm sure he could have gotten a few reports where people died.

It's NOT free at all.

I was under the French system for a number of years, it's paid for by your "socuial security" taxes which are (or were at that time) FAR higher than here in the USA.

But there are fundamental differences I never hear addressed by those advocating "national health care" for us in the USA (e.g., Pres debates):

1. Doctors in France did not make the same high income as US doctors.

2. There were no "trial lawyers" to drive up the cost. Little to no litigation in France, and suppose the same in other countries with national health care.

IMO, the above two things are what drive up our costs, giving us less health care for our $'s and making it un-afforsable for many. I have never heard a proposal targeting thses problems. I think our AMA is a big problem too (limiting the number of physicians etc)

BTW: When I was working/living in France, if you weren't employed - you weren't covered (no social security paid for/by the unemployed).

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ericlp

I liked that Canada, Briton, France are all on free health care. I'm sure he could have gotten a few reports where people died.

</end quote></div>

It's NOT free at all.

I was under the French system for a number of years, it's paid for by your "socuial security" taxes which are (or were at that time) FAR higher than here in the USA.

But there are fundamental differences I never hear addressed by those advocating "national health care" for us in the USA (e.g., Pres debates):

1. Doctors in France did not make the same high income as US doctors.

2. There were no "trial lawyers" to drive up the cost. Little to no litigation in France, and suppose the same in other countries with national health care.

IMO, the above two things are what drive up our costs, giving us less health care for our $'s and making it un-afforsable for many. I have never heard a proposal targeting thses problems. I think our AMA is a big problem too (limiting the number of physicians etc)

BTW: When I was working/living in France, if you weren't employed - you weren't covered (no social security paid for/by the unemployed).

Fern

Tort costs are not the problem. According to this study defending against malpractice amounts to less then one half of one percent of US healthcare spending. (about 6.6 billion annually in both settlements and legal costs) Not only that but the UK and others with socialized medicine operate under a similar tort system to ours. While we are more likely to sue then they are (appx. 50% more likely according to the study) people in the UK receive almost 40% more money per settlement then US people do.

Also, as far as pay goes... in England's socialized system the average doctor makes more then 100,000 pounds which at the moment is close to $200,000. According to career builder the average doctor in the US actually makes less at about 150,000. (there are many different types of doctors though and I was unfortunately not able to make an apples to apples comparison.)

In the case of health care, torts aren't even on the map when it comes to healthcare spending, and salaries are comparable. Simply put, socialized medicine works better.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Fern
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ericlp

I liked that Canada, Briton, France are all on free health care. I'm sure he could have gotten a few reports where people died.

</end quote></div>

It's NOT free at all.

I was under the French system for a number of years, it's paid for by your "socuial security" taxes which are (or were at that time) FAR higher than here in the USA.

But there are fundamental differences I never hear addressed by those advocating "national health care" for us in the USA (e.g., Pres debates):

1. Doctors in France did not make the same high income as US doctors.

2. There were no "trial lawyers" to drive up the cost. Little to no litigation in France, and suppose the same in other countries with national health care.

IMO, the above two things are what drive up our costs, giving us less health care for our $'s and making it un-afforsable for many. I have never heard a proposal targeting thses problems. I think our AMA is a big problem too (limiting the number of physicians etc)

BTW: When I was working/living in France, if you weren't employed - you weren't covered (no social security paid for/by the unemployed).

Fern</end quote></div>

Tort costs are not the problem. According to this study defending against malpractice amounts to less then one half of one percent of US healthcare spending. (about 6.6 billion annually in both settlements and legal costs) Not only that but the UK and others with socialized medicine operate under a similar tort system to ours. While we are more likely to sue then they are (appx. 50% more likely according to the study) people in the UK receive almost 40% more money per settlement then US people do.

Also, as far as pay goes... in England's socialized system the average doctor makes more then 100,000 pounds which at the moment is close to $200,000. According to career builder the average doctor in the US actually makes less at about 150,000. (there are many different types of doctors though and I was unfortunately not able to make an apples to apples comparison.)

In the case of health care, torts aren't even on the map when it comes to healthcare spending, and salaries are comparable. Simply put, socialized medicine works better.

No.

Simply put, you can not simply compare the US to any other European country or Canada. Our populations, sheer geographic size, huge numbers of illegal immigrants, and lifestyle habits are very different constraints that many other countries do not have to work around.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Tort costs are not the problem. According to this study defending against malpractice amounts to less then one half of one percent of US healthcare spending. (about 6.6 billion annually in both settlements and legal costs) Not only that but the UK and others with socialized medicine operate under a similar tort system to ours. While we are more likely to sue then they are (appx. 50% more likely according to the study) people in the UK receive almost 40% more money per settlement then US people do.

Also, as far as pay goes... in England's socialized system the average doctor makes more then 100,000 pounds which at the moment is close to $200,000. According to career builder the average doctor in the US actually makes less at about 150,000. (there are many different types of doctors though and I was unfortunately not able to make an apples to apples comparison.)

In the case of health care, torts aren't even on the map when it comes to healthcare spending, and salaries are comparable. Simply put, socialized medicine works better.

Can't access the study you cite (account required or something).

1. Ask a doctor how much the (tort) insurance costs them. They disagree mightily that torts/litigation are not a problem.

2. I'm talking France (personal experience) you're talking the UK.

3. Umm, as far as comparing salary, that won't work. Firstly exchange rates have fluctuated badly to the detriment of the USA. So it mistates the situation regarding comperable pay. You see, just as their profit has appeared to rise vis-avis the exchange rate fluctuations, so have their living and other expenses. I.e., too simplistic.

Just know that as "junior" accountant in France, I was making the same amount as their doctors. Not true in the USA, not at all. I've never seen a junior accountant in the US afford a trophy wife (including alimony to the ex's), a big mansion at the country club (along with club and green fees), and expensive fancy automobiles like the doctors I see here in the USA.

The largest most expensive mansions on the CC's here are owned by doctors.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Can't access the study you cite (account required or something).

1. Ask a doctor how much the (tort) insurance costs them. They disagree mightily that torts/litigation are not a problem.

2. I'm talking France (personal experience) you're talking the UK.

3. Umm, as far as comparing salary, that won't work. Firstly exchange rates have fluctuated badly to the detriment of the USA. So it mistates the situation regarding comperable pay. You see, just as their profit has appeared to rise vis-avis the exchange rate fluctuations, so have their living and other expenses. I.e., too simplistic.

Just know that as "junior" accountant in France, I was making the same amount as their doctors. Not true in the USA, not at all. I've never seen a junior accountant in the US afford a trophy wife (including alimony to the ex's), a big mansion at the country club (along with club and green fees), and expensive fancy automobiles like the doctors I see here in the USA.

The largest most expensive mansions on the CC's here are owned by doctors.

Fern

Well, actually the study addresses all costs related, including malpractice insurance. Of course doctors don't like seeing their hard earned money go to insurance, but then again they are hardly an impartial source now are they? The study is scientific, and they determine that torts have an inconsequential effect on health care costs, both through malpractice and through "defensive medicine".

Even if you take the position of where the pound was 10 years ago, the doctors there are still making slightly more then their US counterparts. And while France and the UK are certainly different systems, they were both extremely positively protrayed in sicko, and they are both socialized medicine systems. I think the comparison is apt.

 

[eits]

uh... i already started a thread about this a few days ago... it's the official one.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...t_key=y&keyword1=sicko

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
No.
Simply put, you can not simply compare the US to any other European country or Canada. Our populations, sheer geographic size, huge numbers of illegal immigrants, and lifestyle habits are very different constraints that many other countries do not have to work around.

American Exceptionalism is a common theme around here, whether people are engaging in jingoistic ego stroking or melodramatic moaning, but the simple truth is that you're not special little unique flowers, but are just like everyone else. Your largest state has 30m people and if it wanted universal care, it could have it - many countries with much larger populations (France 60m, Germany 80m, Japan 120m) have done it. The real reason why you don't have universal care because its ideologically incompatible with conservatives and no amount of facts, figures or human suffering can change their minds.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Simply put, you can not simply compare the US to any other European country or Canada. Our populations, sheer geographic size, huge numbers of illegal immigrants, and lifestyle habits are very different constraints that many other countries do not have to work around.

Also, don't forget to include the U.S.'s huge amount of impoverished people and working poor, many of whom essentially live in the American third world.

 

[Allanv]

Our National Insuraance payments are the same for everyone 8% of your earnings, which looking at the various threads on this film are less than what you pay.

that said the waiting times are longer than yours.

for that price we get all medical and subsidiesed dental care, but we do pay for pills unless you are under 16 over 60 or unemployed.

so be you young or old rich or poor you get the same level of care, being rich you probably have private health care but that suffers from the same problems yours does.

If you work then the money is automatically deducted oh nearly forgot that 8% also covers a state pension should you fall into the correct age bracket now but thats another story and it isnt worth much at all.....

The film was good i thought.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Did Moore mention that we're spending gobs of money to provide health care for illegal aliens and their families? I bet he didn't.

Did Moore mention that one of the problems is the increasing percentage of Americans who live near or below the poverty line and that, thus, the nation's overall economic malaise is a big contributor to the problem (regardless of whether you have free market or socialized medicine)? I doubt it; I don't think he's that smart.

We can enact socialized medicine, but if the nation's economy falters, it won't do that much good because even socialized medicine is not free. I'm in favor of semi-socialized medicine, but at the same time I recognize that the ability to provide health care is dependent on the rest of the economy. If global labor arbitrage transforms the United States into a third world country, then even an ideal health care system would provide poor care and poor coverage.

Is that better or worse than no care and no coverage? Do we want a society that only covers those who can afford it? Because that's what we have now and the numbers of those who cannot afford it just keep growing.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Did Moore mention that we're spending gobs of money to provide health care for illegal aliens and their families? I bet he didn't.

Did Moore mention that one of the problems is the increasing percentage of Americans who live near or below the poverty line and that, thus, the nation's overall economic malaise is a big contributor to the problem (regardless of whether you have free market or socialized medicine)? I doubt it; I don't think he's that smart.

We can enact socialized medicine, but if the nation's economy falters, it won't do that much good because even socialized medicine is not free. I'm in favor of semi-socialized medicine, but at the same time I recognize that the ability to provide health care is dependent on the rest of the economy. If global labor arbitrage transforms the United States into a third world country, then even an ideal health care system would provide poor care and poor coverage.</end quote></div>

Is that better or worse than no care and no coverage? Do we want a society that only covers those who can afford it? Because that's what we have now and the numbers of those who cannot afford it just keep growing.

What percent of children do you think are uninsured either by Medicaid, private or some combination of both? Without googling, just make a guess.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Turn down your sensitivity meter; I was just asking a question.

Like I said, I'm in favor of semi-socialized medicine, and I'm glad that the Sicko movie was released. But, at the same time, I wonder if Moore is willing to acknowledge some politically incorrect realities related to the nation's health problems.

So, would anyone who's seen the movie care to answer my question? Did he dare risk angering altruist-liberals by mentioning that illegal immigration is part of the problem? Did he have the intellect needed to make the connection between the overall state of the economy, the increase in the percentage of people who are poor or working poor, and the economics of health care?

Illegal immigration just isn't a significant part of this equasion. The Rand corporation estimates that illegals comprise about 1% of health care spending as shown here.

Your economic argument wasn't addressed by the movie because it doesn't need to be. To claim that economic doldrums for the middle and working classes somehow have translated into a system as broken as ours is just isn't accurate. Even if that was what broke our system, countries with socialized medicine have encountered the same economic problems and yet do not face our same health care problems. If anything you're just further reinforcing his point.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Fern

Can't access the study you cite (account required or something).

1. Ask a doctor how much the (tort) insurance costs them. They disagree mightily that torts/litigation are not a problem.

2. I'm talking France (personal experience) you're talking the UK.

3. Umm, as far as comparing salary, that won't work. Firstly exchange rates have fluctuated badly to the detriment of the USA. So it mistates the situation regarding comperable pay. You see, just as their profit has appeared to rise vis-avis the exchange rate fluctuations, so have their living and other expenses. I.e., too simplistic.

Just know that as "junior" accountant in France, I was making the same amount as their doctors. Not true in the USA, not at all. I've never seen a junior accountant in the US afford a trophy wife (including alimony to the ex's), a big mansion at the country club (along with club and green fees), and expensive fancy automobiles like the doctors I see here in the USA.

The largest most expensive mansions on the CC's here are owned by doctors.

Fern</end quote></div>

Well, actually the study addresses all costs related, including malpractice insurance. Of course doctors don't like seeing their hard earned money go to insurance, but then again they are hardly an impartial source now are they? The study is scientific, and they determine that torts have an inconsequential effect on health care costs, both through malpractice and through "defensive medicine".

Even if you take the position of where the pound was 10 years ago, the doctors there are still making slightly more then their US counterparts. And while France and the UK are certainly different systems, they were both extremely positively protrayed in sicko, and they are both socialized medicine systems. I think the comparison is apt.

One other point to bear in mind is the cost of living in UK is higher than the US. So while they may earn the same or more in a direct conversion based on exchange rates, they have less disposable income than doctors in the US.

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Please, if you haven't seen the movie, and if you already hate michael moore, you shouldn't be posting in this thread. This is about people who have SEEN the movie, not people with agenda or hate for a movie and its creator without actually knowing what they are talking about! You need to see the movie in order to criticize it. It is sad that nowadays people just need to make assumptions and read hate websites to feel qualified to criticize something they haven't seen.</end quote></div>

Turn down your sensitivity meter; I was just asking a question.

Like I said, I'm in favor of semi-socialized medicine, and I'm glad that the Sicko movie was released. But, at the same time, I wonder if Moore is willing to acknowledge some politically incorrect realities related to the nation's health problems.

So, would anyone who's seen the movie care to answer my question? Did he dare risk angering altruist-liberals by mentioning that illegal immigration is part of the problem? Did he have the intellect needed to make the connection between the overall state of the economy, the increase in the percentage of people who are poor or working poor, and the economics of health care?

He never mentioned immigration. Immigration is a seperate matter. The fact that they come in is part of the problem that needs to be fixed. No matter how you try to socialize medicine or not. But on the other hand many Americans are going to other counteries with socilized medicine and doing expensive procedures there.

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: Fern
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ericlp

I liked that Canada, Briton, France are all on free health care. I'm sure he could have gotten a few reports where people died.

</end quote></div>

It's NOT free at all.

I was under the French system for a number of years, it's paid for by your "socuial security" taxes which are (or were at that time) FAR higher than here in the USA.

But there are fundamental differences I never hear addressed by those advocating "national health care" for us in the USA (e.g., Pres debates):

1. Doctors in France did not make the same high income as US doctors.

2. There were no "trial lawyers" to drive up the cost. Little to no litigation in France, and suppose the same in other countries with national health care.

IMO, the above two things are what drive up our costs, giving us less health care for our $'s and making it un-afforsable for many. I have never heard a proposal targeting thses problems. I think our AMA is a big problem too (limiting the number of physicians etc)

BTW: When I was working/living in France, if you weren't employed - you weren't covered (no social security paid for/by the unemployed).

Fern

When Michael Moore visited UK and visited a doctor there that point was made. Doctors over there didn't make as much as here. But, they make good money. I think he mentioned doctors there maybe couldn't afford 3 or 4 brand new cars like well established doctors over here. Doctors here are not willing to get huge paycuts due to socialized medicine.

Americans are the suing type of people that is just the way we are.

BTW: So if your not working a simple job you can't get health care. Why is this a problem?????

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Fern
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ericlp

I liked that Canada, Briton, France are all on free health care. I'm sure he could have gotten a few reports where people died.

</end quote></div>

It's NOT free at all.

I was under the French system for a number of years, it's paid for by your "socuial security" taxes which are (or were at that time) FAR higher than here in the USA.

But there are fundamental differences I never hear addressed by those advocating "national health care" for us in the USA (e.g., Pres debates):

1. Doctors in France did not make the same high income as US doctors.

2. There were no "trial lawyers" to drive up the cost. Little to no litigation in France, and suppose the same in other countries with national health care.

IMO, the above two things are what drive up our costs, giving us less health care for our $'s and making it un-afforsable for many. I have never heard a proposal targeting thses problems. I think our AMA is a big problem too (limiting the number of physicians etc)

BTW: When I was working/living in France, if you weren't employed - you weren't covered (no social security paid for/by the unemployed).

Fern</end quote></div>

Tort costs are not the problem. According to this study defending against malpractice amounts to less then one half of one percent of US healthcare spending. (about 6.6 billion annually in both settlements and legal costs) Not only that but the UK and others with socialized medicine operate under a similar tort system to ours. While we are more likely to sue then they are (appx. 50% more likely according to the study) people in the UK receive almost 40% more money per settlement then US people do.

Also, as far as pay goes... in England's socialized system the average doctor makes more then 100,000 pounds which at the moment is close to $200,000. According to career builder the average doctor in the US actually makes less at about 150,000. (there are many different types of doctors though and I was unfortunately not able to make an apples to apples comparison.)

In the case of health care, torts aren't even on the map when it comes to healthcare spending, and salaries are comparable. Simply put, socialized medicine works better.

I think if you remove COST from much of the medical system you will see the number and frequency of lawsuits go down. Lawsuits that involve insurance companies not paying are an example.

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: Martin
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: vi_edit
No.
Simply put, you can not simply compare the US to any other European country or Canada. Our populations, sheer geographic size, huge numbers of illegal immigrants, and lifestyle habits are very different constraints that many other countries do not have to work around.</end quote></div>

American Exceptionalism is a common theme around here, whether people are engaging in jingoistic ego stroking or melodramatic moaning, but the simple truth is that you're not special little unique flowers, but are just like everyone else. Your largest state has 30m people and if it wanted universal care, it could have it - many countries with much larger populations (France 60m, Germany 80m, Japan 120m) have done it. The real reason why you don't have universal care because its ideologically incompatible with conservatives and no amount of facts, figures or human suffering can change their minds.

I do believe this. The fact of the matter is republicans love systems by which one who does well can show their status by some ways (I have Medical Insurance and your poor ass dosen't). Whenever you socialze a system you futher break down the social class structure within the US. Libraries being an example, Bill Gates can go to any public library just like you and get a book. The system treats everybody equality. Healthcare on the other hand dosen't. Those who are unemployed or poor can't afford healthcare.

 

[steppinthrax]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: steppinthrax
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Martin
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: vi_edit
No.
Simply put, you can not simply compare the US to any other European country or Canada. Our populations, sheer geographic size, huge numbers of illegal immigrants, and lifestyle habits are very different constraints that many other countries do not have to work around.</end quote></div>

American Exceptionalism is a common theme around here, whether people are engaging in jingoistic ego stroking or melodramatic moaning, but the simple truth is that you're not special little unique flowers, but are just like everyone else. Your largest state has 30m people and if it wanted universal care, it could have it - many countries with much larger populations (France 60m, Germany 80m, Japan 120m) have done it. The real reason why you don't have universal care because its ideologically incompatible with conservatives and no amount of facts, figures or human suffering can change their minds.</end quote></div>
</end quote></div>



I do believe this. The fact of the matter is republicans love systems by which one who does well can show their status by some ways (I have Medical Insurance and your poor ass doesn?t). Whenever you socialize a system you further break down the social class structure within the US. Libraries being an example, Bill Gates can go to any public library just like you and get a book. The system treats everybody equality. Healthcare on the other hand doesn?t. Those who are unemployed or poor can't afford healthcare and many conservatives feel they deserve it.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Illegal immigration just isn't a significant part of this equasion. The Rand corporation estimates that illegals comprise about 1% of health care spending as shown here.

end quote

K, I read & re-read this thing. What the heck does this mean?

begin quote

The study estimates that undocumented immigrants ages 18 to 64 cost the health system about $6.5 billion a year in 2000 dollars. The cost to taxpayers is about $1 billion in 2000 dollars, or $11 per household

End quote

Where did the other $5.5 billion go (or come from)? ($6.5 billion minus $1 Billion paid by taxpayers)

Did the hospital "eat it"?

Otherwise, the studies I've seen say $2 billion annual cost to Medicaid for illegal immigrants. But I think that was year 2002, not 2000 amounts

Fern

EDIT: I'm getting sick of this FUBAR'd quotation problem :|

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Did Moore mention that we're spending gobs of money to provide health care for illegal aliens and their families? I bet he didn't.

Did Moore mention that one of the problems is the increasing percentage of Americans who live near or below the poverty line and that, thus, the nation's overall economic malaise is a big contributor to the problem (regardless of whether you have free market or socialized medicine)? I doubt it; I don't think he's that smart.

We can enact socialized medicine, but if the nation's economy falters, it won't do that much good because even socialized medicine is not free. I'm in favor of semi-socialized medicine, but at the same time I recognize that the ability to provide health care is dependent on the rest of the economy. If global labor arbitrage transforms the United States into a third world country, then even an ideal health care system would provide poor care and poor coverage.

Is that better or worse than no care and no coverage? Do we want a society that only covers those who can afford it? Because that's what we have now and the numbers of those who cannot afford it just keep growing.

What percent of children do you think are uninsured either by Medicaid, private or some combination of both? Without googling, just make a guess.

I have no idea. I do remember seeing stats that indicate the number of uninsured people in this country at around 12-15% though so I'd imagine the number of children who are uninsured would be about the same.