• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Just finished watching "Sicko"

BradAtWork

Senior member
Sep 5, 2005
320
0
0
I usually don't like Micheal Moore. He seems like a left wing nut job.

But this film was better than his normal stuff.

Was anyone swayed by this film, do you now support UHC when you didnt before?

I believe he made a very good argument. At least a more rational one that he usually does.

One day people will look back and this we are barbarians for denying people medical help.

However, this film had major flaws.

ie. We have free health care in Australia, but most people still have private health insurance. Why, because the free health care system sucks!

Same with England, the NHS is far from perfect.

You didn't say this Micheal!

But crappy health care for the poor is better than none. And everyone else can afford private health insurance. Not perfect but it works.

Anyone else agree, or am I an idiot? :)
 

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
76
The movie made a very valid point, though I think it went a bit over the top to prove it. But to deny the fact that the US Health care system is completely broken would just be naive
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,381
94
86
Poor people do get free/cheap healthcare in the US. Its the middle/working class that gets screwed.

 

Kreon

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2006
1,329
0
0
Actually, it did kinda sway me

Before, I wanted the system fixed.
Maybe remove the pre-existing conditions crap, and a few other things, and it'd be fixed

UHS does seem to work though. I mean, you really can't argue with the statistics he points out. America is low in life expectancy and healthcare in the world rankings no matter how you slice it.
But France is at the top, and they have it. Most of Europe does too, and they all rank better than America. Canada even rates higher than the US (no offense to Canada).

And a number of people I've met from Europe already think we're barbarians for not having UHS...

Besides, the Health care companies are perfect examples of "bad" trusts (in the TR way)
That's enough reason to shut them down anyways
 

BradAtWork

Senior member
Sep 5, 2005
320
0
0
Most medical technology comes from the US. Why, because your health care is so expensive , and companies can charge whatever they like from their new products, notably drugs. So they spend huge on R&D, knowing they can charge $4000 for AIDS meds or whatever.

In nearly every other country the goverment say, "Sif you're charging $4000 for those drugs. You sell it for $100 or you GTFO."

If the US went to UHC, and forced drug companies to sell their drugs at $100 instead of $4000, what is that going to do to R&D?
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Kreon
Actually, it did kinda sway me

Before, I wanted the system fixed.
Maybe remove the pre-existing conditions crap, and a few other things, and it'd be fixed

UHS does seem to work though. I mean, you really can't argue with the statistics he points out. America is low in life expectancy and healthcare in the world rankings no matter how you slice it.
But France is at the top, and they have it. Most of Europe does too, and they all rank better than America. Canada even rates higher than the US (no offense to Canada).

And a number of people I've met from Europe already think we're barbarians for not having UHS...

Besides, the Health care companies are perfect examples of "bad" trusts (in the TR way)
That's enough reason to shut them down anyways
Life expectancy does not equate to better health care. America's life expectancy is lower than other countries for a variety of different factors that have nothing to do with the quality of health care. Everything from gun violence to car wrecks to obesity.

If you want to look at quality of health care than look at survival rates which America leads in most categories.

And yes, you can argue with the statistics and other things that Moore brings up. He cherry-picks statistics and anecdotes and the only prescription for what ailes the American Medical System for him is Socialized Medicine. Moore is a Socialist through and through.

MTV's Kurt Loder rightly lambasts Moore and "Sicko".

Even Canadian journalists were having at Moore and "Sicko".
 

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
76
Originally posted by: BradAtWork
Most medical technology comes from the US. Why, because your health care is so expensive , and companies can charge whatever they like from their new products, notably drugs. So they spend huge on R&D, knowing they can charge $4000 for AIDS meds or whatever.

In nearly every other country the goverment say, "Sif you're charging $4000 for those drugs. You sell it for $100 or you GTFO."

If the US went to UHC, and forced drug companies to sell their drugs at $100 instead of $4000, what is that going to do to R&D?
Actually, quite a bit, if not the majority, or medical research is done by universities.
 

BradAtWork

Senior member
Sep 5, 2005
320
0
0
Yeah, Norway health care system is great.

But their lowest tax rate is 28%!

I just love paying tax to da man.
 

BradAtWork

Senior member
Sep 5, 2005
320
0
0
Originally posted by: Slick5150
Originally posted by: BradAtWork
Most medical technology comes from the US. Why, because your health care is so expensive , and companies can charge whatever they like from their new products, notably drugs. So they spend huge on R&D, knowing they can charge $4000 for AIDS meds or whatever.

In nearly every other country the goverment say, "Sif you're charging $4000 for those drugs. You sell it for $100 or you GTFO."

If the US went to UHC, and forced drug companies to sell their drugs at $100 instead of $4000, what is that going to do to R&D?
Actually, quite a bit, if not the majority, or medical research is done by universities.

O'rly?

Don't the drug companies give them grants though? :)
 

jonessoda

Golden Member
Aug 3, 2005
1,407
1
0
Originally posted by: BradAtWork
Most medical technology comes from the US. Why, because your health care is so expensive , and companies can charge whatever they like from their new products, notably drugs. So they spend huge on R&D, knowing they can charge $4000 for AIDS meds or whatever.

In nearly every other country the goverment say, "Sif you're charging $4000 for those drugs. You sell it for $100 or you GTFO."

If the US went to UHC, and forced drug companies to sell their drugs at $100 instead of $4000, what is that going to do to R&D?
A major reason drugs are so expensive in America is because countries with socialized medicine put price caps on the drugs, and the drug companies aren't able to recoup their expenses from sales at that price, so they have to charge a lot in the countries where they can.

It's not the job of government to take care of us from cradle to grave. That's our own responsibility. At least, it used to be, and it should be.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: villageidiot111
Check out this scene Michael Moore had to cut because audiences wouldn't believe it.
Pictures of Cuba's health care system that Moore wouldn't show.

I've seen worse pictures than these too.
 

gururu2

Senior member
Oct 14, 2007
686
1
81
this topic is beyond moore. the matter makes little coverage because of special interests.
yes of course. everyone should have medical benefits. how poor is America that we cannot do that? its vile that we don't.
 

Descartes

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
13,968
0
0
Originally posted by: jonessoda
Originally posted by: BradAtWork
Most medical technology comes from the US. Why, because your health care is so expensive , and companies can charge whatever they like from their new products, notably drugs. So they spend huge on R&D, knowing they can charge $4000 for AIDS meds or whatever.

In nearly every other country the goverment say, "Sif you're charging $4000 for those drugs. You sell it for $100 or you GTFO."

If the US went to UHC, and forced drug companies to sell their drugs at $100 instead of $4000, what is that going to do to R&D?
A major reason drugs are so expensive in America is because countries with socialized medicine put price caps on the drugs, and the drug companies aren't able to recoup their expenses from sales at that price, so they have to charge a lot in the countries where they can.

It's not the job of government to take care of us from cradle to grave. That's our own responsibility. At least, it used to be, and it should be.
[/quote]

That's just your opinion. Not saying I disagree with you, but what do you have to support that?
 

Kreon

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2006
1,329
0
0
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Kreon
Actually, it did kinda sway me

Before, I wanted the system fixed.
Maybe remove the pre-existing conditions crap, and a few other things, and it'd be fixed

UHS does seem to work though. I mean, you really can't argue with the statistics he points out. America is low in life expectancy and healthcare in the world rankings no matter how you slice it.
But France is at the top, and they have it. Most of Europe does too, and they all rank better than America. Canada even rates higher than the US (no offense to Canada).

And a number of people I've met from Europe already think we're barbarians for not having UHS...

Besides, the Health care companies are perfect examples of "bad" trusts (in the TR way)
That's enough reason to shut them down anyways
Life expectancy does not equate to better health care. America's life expectancy is lower than other countries for a variety of different factors that have nothing to do with the quality of health care. Everything from gun violence to car wrecks to obesity.

If you want to look at quality of health care than look at survival rates which America leads in most categories.

And yes, you can argue with the statistics and other things that Moore brings up. He cherry-picks statistics and anecdotes and the only prescription for what ailes the American Medical System for him is Socialized Medicine. Moore is a Socialist through and through.

MTV's Kurt Loder rightly lambasts Moore and "Sicko".

Even Canadian journalists were having at Moore and "Sicko".
Very true...
I guess I feel the way I do because the health insurance companies have shafted my family.

Something needs to be done.
Maybe fix the health insurance companies is all that needs to be done
I think UHS is a possibility, and not a bad one at that
Probably should have take Sicko with a bigger grain of salt though

I'm also not saying that UHS is a cure-all (I apologize if it sounded like that was what I was trumpeting)
Every system has it's flaws, UHS is there can be crappy service
Ours is the problems pointed out by Moore

My only issue with survival rates is (though I don't know for sure) they only count the people who actually got to have the operation/meds
Not the people who couldn't get it because it was experimental or related to a pre-existing condition.
 

BradAtWork

Senior member
Sep 5, 2005
320
0
0
Originally posted by: jonessoda
Originally posted by: BradAtWork
Most medical technology comes from the US. Why, because your health care is so expensive , and companies can charge whatever they like from their new products, notably drugs. So they spend huge on R&D, knowing they can charge $4000 for AIDS meds or whatever.

In nearly every other country the goverment say, "Sif you're charging $4000 for those drugs. You sell it for $100 or you GTFO."

If the US went to UHC, and forced drug companies to sell their drugs at $100 instead of $4000, what is that going to do to R&D?
A major reason drugs are so expensive in America is because countries with socialized medicine put price caps on the drugs, and the drug companies aren't able to recoup their expenses from sales at that price, so they have to charge a lot in the countries where they can.

It's not the job of government to take care of us from cradle to grave. That's our own responsibility. At least, it used to be, and it should be.
That's exactly what I was saying. If you went UHC, there would be no more R&D money.

It's not the job of government to take care of us from cradle to grave.

Mmm, that's a little naive. I'm a Libertarian, so I would normally agree, but not in this situation.

Pure Market is prefect for everything, EXCEPT products without a supply/demand curve.

If Sony charge $10,000 got a PS3, everyone would buy a Xbox360. The market forces sets the price.

If you have AIDS, you NEED the drugs. If they cost $4000 you still need them. As the price rises the demand doesn't go down. There is no motivation for the company to make a better product when they can already charge you whatever they want to the current crappy product.

Monopolies are illegal. collusion is illegal. So why should price fixing be legal? Which is what drugs companies are going. When there is no supply/demand curve the company is seting an arbitrary price. Thats called price fixing where I come from.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: BradAtWork
Originally posted by: jonessoda
Originally posted by: BradAtWork
Most medical technology comes from the US. Why, because your health care is so expensive , and companies can charge whatever they like from their new products, notably drugs. So they spend huge on R&D, knowing they can charge $4000 for AIDS meds or whatever.

In nearly every other country the goverment say, "Sif you're charging $4000 for those drugs. You sell it for $100 or you GTFO."

If the US went to UHC, and forced drug companies to sell their drugs at $100 instead of $4000, what is that going to do to R&D?
A major reason drugs are so expensive in America is because countries with socialized medicine put price caps on the drugs, and the drug companies aren't able to recoup their expenses from sales at that price, so they have to charge a lot in the countries where they can.

It's not the job of government to take care of us from cradle to grave. That's our own responsibility. At least, it used to be, and it should be.
That's exactly what I was saying. If you went UHC, there would be no more R&D money.

It's not the job of government to take care of us from cradle to grave.

Mmm, that's a little naive. I'm a Libertarian, so I would normally agree, but not in this situation.

Pure Market is prefect for everything, EXCEPT products without a supply/demand curve.

If Sony charge $10,000 got a PS3, everyone would buy a Xbox360. The market forces sets the price.

If you have AIDS, you NEED the drugs. If they cost $4000 you still need them. As the price rises the demand doesn't go down. There is no motivation for the company to make a better product when they can already charge you whatever they want to the current crappy product.

Monopolies are illegal. collusion is illegal. So why should price fixing be legal? Which is what drugs companies are going. When there is no supply/demand curve the company is seting an arbitrary price. Thats called price fixing where I come from.
You're right, Wal-Mart selling prescriptions for $5 and Publix giving away prescriptions for free clearly shows that that the market cannot work.

And yes, there is motivation for companies to make a better product. Because as soon as their patents run out, every generic drug company around than the patent holder loses any advantage. So, they have to work on a better drug when that happens.
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,207
65
91
I'm pretty conservative and I have to say I'm waffling on the subject. It's not like some aspects of society aren't socialized like education and the health system as it stands now is corrupt and broken. But, it just goes against some of my root beliefs.
 

BradAtWork

Senior member
Sep 5, 2005
320
0
0
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: BradAtWork
Originally posted by: jonessoda
Originally posted by: BradAtWork
Most medical technology comes from the US. Why, because your health care is so expensive , and companies can charge whatever they like from their new products, notably drugs. So they spend huge on R&D, knowing they can charge $4000 for AIDS meds or whatever.

In nearly every other country the goverment say, "Sif you're charging $4000 for those drugs. You sell it for $100 or you GTFO."

If the US went to UHC, and forced drug companies to sell their drugs at $100 instead of $4000, what is that going to do to R&D?
A major reason drugs are so expensive in America is because countries with socialized medicine put price caps on the drugs, and the drug companies aren't able to recoup their expenses from sales at that price, so they have to charge a lot in the countries where they can.

It's not the job of government to take care of us from cradle to grave. That's our own responsibility. At least, it used to be, and it should be.
That's exactly what I was saying. If you went UHC, there would be no more R&D money.

It's not the job of government to take care of us from cradle to grave.

Mmm, that's a little naive. I'm a Libertarian, so I would normally agree, but not in this situation.

Pure Market is prefect for everything, EXCEPT products without a supply/demand curve.

If Sony charge $10,000 got a PS3, everyone would buy a Xbox360. The market forces sets the price.

If you have AIDS, you NEED the drugs. If they cost $4000 you still need them. As the price rises the demand doesn't go down. There is no motivation for the company to make a better product when they can already charge you whatever they want to the current crappy product.

Monopolies are illegal. collusion is illegal. So why should price fixing be legal? Which is what drugs companies are going. When there is no supply/demand curve the company is seting an arbitrary price. Thats called price fixing where I come from.
You're right, Wal-Mart selling prescriptions for $5 and Publix giving away prescriptions for free clearly shows that that the market cannot work.

And yes, there is motivation for companies to make a better product. Because as soon as their patents run out, every generic drug company around than the patent holder loses any advantage. So, they have to work on a better drug when that happens.

The drugs that cost $5 are homogenized, and thus have a supply/demand curve. You just proved my point.
 

BradAtWork

Senior member
Sep 5, 2005
320
0
0
Originally posted by: gururu2
Originally posted by: BradAtWork

That's exactly what I was saying. If you went UHC, there would be no more R&D money.

.

not so true. take a look at the largest companies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...armaceutical_companies

England and France clearly have R&D budgets in the ballpark of U.S. companies. do their citizens deserve those drugs more than us? do we deserve our drugs more than them?
Hell, i'm glad i'm wrong.

If this is true doesn't it mean that some form of UHC would work in the US?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY