• 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"

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: freegeeks
typically, you don't answer my questions.

It must really hurt for a convinced free-market-will solve-anything-guy like you, that a country like Norway, where the govt. manages a big part of the economy has citizens who have more money and live longer then you


btw, which lie did I tell and where did I say that the US sucks?
IF we were talking free-market-will-solve-anything, you might have a point, but we're not so you don't. My argument has been regarding the differences in scale between Norway and the US, which you have ignored.
why it is some so damn hard for people to acknowledge that sometimes lefty or even "socialist" policies (oops, I said the forbidden word) can be successfull? Are you really so wrapped up in your own ideas that it blinds you that maybe, just maybe you can learn something of these evil "socialists"

you don't answer questions and you imply things that I never said, a typical Vic thread
Quite simply: Because socialist policies invariably lead to a loss of freedoms and/or rights. You cannot have someone else taking care of you without them seeking to limit/control your actions. Especially when that someone are voters.

With freedom comes risk. Populist/socialist/liberal policies seek to limit that risk. The only way to do that is to, in the end, limit freedom.

We are already well down that road. "The cost to society" (because of socialist programs) has been used as an argument to limit many of our freedoms and rights. From unconstitutional DUI checkpoints to seatbelt/helmet laws. From "fat taxes" to smoking taxes.

In fact, it's the main battle cry in the war on drugs. And we all know the freedoms and rights lost to that.

No thanks. I'll pay for myself and keep my freedom... even if the populist/progressive/liberal thinks he knows better than I do what's good for me.
The army, education system, post office, fire, and police offices have restricted your rights?

You do realize that you still have private healthcare in UHCs right? You still have all the choices you want.
The point went right over your head. I even spelled it out for you in my post and gave valid examples of freedoms/rights lost to socialist policies/"the cost to society" and it still went right over your head.

Wow.
Valid to you. People here seem to think they are the center of the universe.

Your amazing examples are nonsense. "From unconstitutional DUI checkpoints to seatbelt/helmet laws. From "fat taxes" to smoking taxes."

Things that are unconstitutional get struck down in courts. Everything that the government does has the possible ffect of causing unconsistutional acts and legislation...

You are creating causality where none exists.

Does that mean we should never do anything? Because something might be created that takes a few months to be struck down as unconstitutional?

The gov tried restricting movies, music, videogames, etc etc etc etc. They are all struck down after a time as being unconstitutional. They have nothing to do with "socialist policies".. they are just pandering by the government.... Patriot act, illegal wiretapping.. it is all unconstitutional and not caused by anything "socialist."

Again.. you are linking things that aren't even close to related.

Yeah, waaay over my head! You are right... it is all the socialists faults... Damn socialists! We do nothingwrong.. Only when those commie bastards enter the fray do we do stupid things!
 

CyberDuck

Senior member
Oct 10, 1999
258
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Vic
Socialists have nothing to do with it. The Socialists are a rather minor party in Norway. What the Norwegians do have is better political representation, with 7 political parties current holding national legislative office in a country with an area and population smaller than most US states.
Contrast that with the choices in the US, where only the 2 major parties hold national office, and they are more similar to each other than any of all the parties in Norway.
all these parties would be labeled "socialist" or "lefties" in the USA

the funny thing is that the scandinavian countries and countries like luxembourg have at the same time big government influence and very open economies. They have been running left leaning policies for decades (in the USA some of these policies would even be labeled communist) and still manage to be on the top of any possible indicator about income, freedom, education, healthcare ....
Really? Even the Conservative party, Christian Democratic party, Christian Unity party, and Abortion Opponents party?
And what about the fact that Norway still has a king who still (nominally) holds de jure executive power, and that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway is still the state religion/church?

:roll:

Quit trolling. Not all of us are so stupid as to believe the internet Eurotroll lies about Europe being some kind of socialists paradise.
Hello, quite funny to realise that Moore have visited our small country, and he didn't even want to show it.. :(

As to our political system, by U.S. standard there is probably not a single party in Norway that you would consider conservative. Our most right-wing party is called the Progress party (Fremskrittspartiet), and even they are most probably to the left of the U.S. Democratic party, not in every single case, but overall. The cristian democratic party is rather moderate (they are in the center politically) and had the primister for several years just recently, and there is no such thing as Abortion Opponents party. The King has the support of the people, his grand father was elected king in 1905, and there is still a lot more than 50% support for monarchy. There is not enough support for a republic to put that up for vote. The church is also supportet by the majority of people, although many like me would love to get rid of the state church.

Btw, our public health system is not perfect either, but I don't have much complaints about it. I use a lot of expensive medisins for my asthma, and expet for 1600 nkr (about 290$) in self pay each year everything is free (doctors, medisins, transport to doctor or hospital), and waiting times for consultation is about 30 mins- 2 hours in weekends and nights if you go to an emergency center. About 1-2 weeks for non emergency consultaions, and same day for moderate important things like influensa.

Regards

Jostein
 

CyberDuck

Senior member
Oct 10, 1999
258
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: freegeeks
typically, you don't answer my questions.

It must really hurt for a convinced free-market-will solve-anything-guy like you, that a country like Norway, where the govt. manages a big part of the economy has citizens who have more money and live longer then you


btw, which lie did I tell and where did I say that the US sucks?
IF we were talking free-market-will-solve-anything, you might have a point, but we're not so you don't. My argument has been regarding the differences in scale between Norway and the US, which you have ignored.
So, why should it be any different for large countries? People have more or less the same diseases and problems if they live anywhere in the U.S. as they do in Belgium or Norway. Maybe appart from gunshot wounds that is..

Regards

Jostein
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
54,171
7,719
126
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: freegeeks
typically, you don't answer my questions.

It must really hurt for a convinced free-market-will solve-anything-guy like you, that a country like Norway, where the govt. manages a big part of the economy has citizens who have more money and live longer then you


btw, which lie did I tell and where did I say that the US sucks?
IF we were talking free-market-will-solve-anything, you might have a point, but we're not so you don't. My argument has been regarding the differences in scale between Norway and the US, which you have ignored.
why it is some so damn hard for people to acknowledge that sometimes lefty or even "socialist" policies (oops, I said the forbidden word) can be successfull? Are you really so wrapped up in your own ideas that it blinds you that maybe, just maybe you can learn something of these evil "socialists"

you don't answer questions and you imply things that I never said, a typical Vic thread
Quite simply: Because socialist policies invariably lead to a loss of freedoms and/or rights. You cannot have someone else taking care of you without them seeking to limit/control your actions. Especially when that someone are voters.

With freedom comes risk. Populist/socialist/liberal policies seek to limit that risk. The only way to do that is to, in the end, limit freedom.

We are already well down that road. "The cost to society" (because of socialist programs) has been used as an argument to limit many of our freedoms and rights. From unconstitutional DUI checkpoints to seatbelt/helmet laws. From "fat taxes" to smoking taxes.

In fact, it's the main battle cry in the war on drugs. And we all know the freedoms and rights lost to that.

No thanks. I'll pay for myself and keep my freedom... even if the populist/progressive/liberal thinks he knows better than I do what's good for me.
The army, education system, post office, fire, and police offices have restricted your rights?

You do realize that you still have private healthcare in UHCs right? You still have all the choices you want.
The point went right over your head. I even spelled it out for you in my post and gave valid examples of freedoms/rights lost to socialist policies/"the cost to society" and it still went right over your head.

Wow.
Valid to you. People here seem to think they are the center of the universe.

Your amazing examples are nonsense. "From unconstitutional DUI checkpoints to seatbelt/helmet laws. From "fat taxes" to smoking taxes."

Things that are unconstitutional get struck down in courts. Everything that the government does has the possible ffect of causing unconsistutional acts and legislation...

You are creating causality where none exists.

Does that mean we should never do anything? Because something might be created that takes a few months to be struck down as unconstitutional?

The gov tried restricting movies, music, videogames, etc etc etc etc. They are all struck down after a time as being unconstitutional. They have nothing to do with "socialist policies".. they are just pandering by the government.... Patriot act, illegal wiretapping.. it is all unconstitutional and not caused by anything "socialist."

Again.. you are linking things that aren't even close to related.

Yeah, waaay over my head! You are right... it is all the socialists faults... Damn socialists! We do nothingwrong.. Only when those commie bastards enter the fray do we do stupid things!
May I ask you why in the world you would think the SCOTUS has never upheld unconstitutional laws before?

May I ask you why you think seatbelt laws exist? What the main argument for getting them passed was? May I ask you why you think extremely high tobacco taxes exist and what you think the main argument for getting that passed was?

If you think a tax-payer supported health care system will not result in limitations on our freedom, I say you are ignorant of history and are doomed to repeat it.

"The cost to society" argument used to pass these and many other limitations on our freedoms is DIRECTLY related to socialist programs. Is these programs did not exist, i.e. if the government was paying for them, the freedoms would never have been lost.

You can be as insulting as you like, but it won't change this very simple fact: The caregiver WILL and always DOES seek to control the actions of those it pays for.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: freegeeks
typically, you don't answer my questions.

It must really hurt for a convinced free-market-will solve-anything-guy like you, that a country like Norway, where the govt. manages a big part of the economy has citizens who have more money and live longer then you


btw, which lie did I tell and where did I say that the US sucks?
IF we were talking free-market-will-solve-anything, you might have a point, but we're not so you don't. My argument has been regarding the differences in scale between Norway and the US, which you have ignored.
why it is some so damn hard for people to acknowledge that sometimes lefty or even "socialist" policies (oops, I said the forbidden word) can be successfull? Are you really so wrapped up in your own ideas that it blinds you that maybe, just maybe you can learn something of these evil "socialists"

you don't answer questions and you imply things that I never said, a typical Vic thread
Quite simply: Because socialist policies invariably lead to a loss of freedoms and/or rights. You cannot have someone else taking care of you without them seeking to limit/control your actions. Especially when that someone are voters.

With freedom comes risk. Populist/socialist/liberal policies seek to limit that risk. The only way to do that is to, in the end, limit freedom.

We are already well down that road. "The cost to society" (because of socialist programs) has been used as an argument to limit many of our freedoms and rights. From unconstitutional DUI checkpoints to seatbelt/helmet laws. From "fat taxes" to smoking taxes.

In fact, it's the main battle cry in the war on drugs. And we all know the freedoms and rights lost to that.

No thanks. I'll pay for myself and keep my freedom... even if the populist/progressive/liberal thinks he knows better than I do what's good for me.
The army, education system, post office, fire, and police offices have restricted your rights?

You do realize that you still have private healthcare in UHCs right? You still have all the choices you want.
The point went right over your head. I even spelled it out for you in my post and gave valid examples of freedoms/rights lost to socialist policies/"the cost to society" and it still went right over your head.

Wow.
Valid to you. People here seem to think they are the center of the universe.

Your amazing examples are nonsense. "From unconstitutional DUI checkpoints to seatbelt/helmet laws. From "fat taxes" to smoking taxes."

Things that are unconstitutional get struck down in courts. Everything that the government does has the possible ffect of causing unconsistutional acts and legislation...

You are creating causality where none exists.

Does that mean we should never do anything? Because something might be created that takes a few months to be struck down as unconstitutional?

The gov tried restricting movies, music, videogames, etc etc etc etc. They are all struck down after a time as being unconstitutional. They have nothing to do with "socialist policies".. they are just pandering by the government.... Patriot act, illegal wiretapping.. it is all unconstitutional and not caused by anything "socialist."

Again.. you are linking things that aren't even close to related.

Yeah, waaay over my head! You are right... it is all the socialists faults... Damn socialists! We do nothingwrong.. Only when those commie bastards enter the fray do we do stupid things!
May I ask you why in the world you would think the SCOTUS has never upheld unconstitutional laws before?

May I ask you why you think seatbelt laws exist? What the main argument for getting them passed was? May I ask you why you think extremely high tobacco taxes exist and what you think the main argument for getting that passed was?

If you think a tax-payer supported health care system will not result in limitations on our freedom, I say you are ignorant of history and are doomed to repeat it.

"The cost to society" argument used to pass these and many other limitations on our freedoms is DIRECTLY related to socialist programs. Is these programs did not exist, i.e. if the government was paying for them, the freedoms would never have been lost.

You can be as insulting as you like, but it won't change this very simple fact: The caregiver WILL and always DOES seek to control the actions of those it pays for.
The government likes to control things. It passes bogus legislation and good legislation.

Again, you make connections where none exist.

More harm has been done by bogus legislation than by anything in connection to any socialist program.

Seatbelt laws and tobacco taxes are stupid... they are NOTHING compared to mass censureship and reducing of major civil rights(warrantless wiretapping and patriot act garbage), which are all unrelated to socialists.. they are related to capitalists in charge of our government instead of patriots.. people that are easily bought out by interest groups...


But this is all off topic... Not even you point out falseties of the movie... Can I guess you also have not watched it but feel no guilt going into a thread about it?
 

amdfansftw

Member
Nov 21, 2007
192
0
0
man and i thought this was going to help me understand the movie and different points....too bad this tool totally whores up this thread.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: BradAtWork
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? :)
Well the NHS is far from perfect but except from France i have yet to see a country with a better solution.

The US system is NOT one i'd like England to emulate att all, going from a non-perfect system to a system that is disasterous to many people isn't a step forward.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,923
0
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?
There are more than 1 million people in the US with HIV/AIDS. Check the CDC if you don't believe me

Let's say only 500,000 of those people take the $100 drugs (suggesting Americans only pay $100). Hell, let's say it only costs $100 for the whole year.

500,000*$100/year = $50,000,000 / year

R&D companies generally don't have operating expenses of $50,000,000/year... most of these companies have huge government grants and other sources of income (older cures, other discoveries, patents, etc.)

Your post = bullshit

 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,923
0
0
Originally posted by: Queasy
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.
That looks 10x better than a hospital I went to once in downtown Phoenix...
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,923
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Vic
Sicko was par for the course Moore. He starts off with some good premises and makes some good points, and then throws it all away on obvious lies and glossed-over generalizations. Yes, the US health care system desperately needs fixing, but no, it's not all sunshine and roses everywhere else.
Like in BFC, where he rightly calls the US media to task for fearmongering and improper correlation (which is the title of the movie), and then fearmongers himself in favor of gun control, proposes a singular silly idea for how to bring about gun control (most of the real "gun nuts" already make their own bullets), and labels a former Civil Rights leader a racist.
His style makes sense if you consider that he's just propagandizing to the typical knee-jerk member of the United States of Amnesia, but if you're actually aware of the facts and the circumstances, you can easily see through his nonsense and recognize that the real solutions are nowhere near as simplistic black-and-white as he tries to make them out to be. Complex problems are made worse when you try to fix them with simple solutions.
It's kind of funny, Moore reminds me of Ernest Hemingway... 99% of his work is crap, but he has a few gems in every story (or documentary in Moore's case).

I hate Ernest Hemingway, BTW
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,923
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: freegeeks
typically, you don't answer my questions.

It must really hurt for a convinced free-market-will solve-anything-guy like you, that a country like Norway, where the govt. manages a big part of the economy has citizens who have more money and live longer then you


btw, which lie did I tell and where did I say that the US sucks?
IF we were talking free-market-will-solve-anything, you might have a point, but we're not so you don't. My argument has been regarding the differences in scale between Norway and the US, which you have ignored.
why it is some so damn hard for people to acknowledge that sometimes lefty or even "socialist" policies (oops, I said the forbidden word) can be successfull? Are you really so wrapped up in your own ideas that it blinds you that maybe, just maybe you can learn something of these evil "socialists"

you don't answer questions and you imply things that I never said, a typical Vic thread
Quite simply: Because socialist policies invariably lead to a loss of freedoms and/or rights. You cannot have someone else taking care of you without them seeking to limit/control your actions. Especially when that someone are voters.

With freedom comes risk. Populist/socialist/liberal policies seek to limit that risk. The only way to do that is to, in the end, limit freedom.

We are already well down that road. "The cost to society" (because of socialist programs) has been used as an argument to limit many of our freedoms and rights. From unconstitutional DUI checkpoints to seatbelt/helmet laws. From "fat taxes" to smoking taxes.

In fact, it's the main battle cry in the war on drugs. And we all know the freedoms and rights lost to that.

No thanks. I'll pay for myself and keep my freedom... even if the populist/progressive/liberal thinks he knows better than I do what's good for me.
Now we're comparing the war on drugs to universal health care... unbelievable.

(not referring to you, Amused, when I say this) Does anyone else find it ironic that the people who are most opposed to UHC and cite "I don't want my tax dollars going to programs I don't like" are the ones who support actions like the Iraq War, which are essentially enormous money sinks that almost no one supported? Or how about that Dept of Homeland Security? Yeah, those damn liberals came up with that one. Right.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,923
0
0
Originally posted by: CyberDuck
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Vic
Socialists have nothing to do with it. The Socialists are a rather minor party in Norway. What the Norwegians do have is better political representation, with 7 political parties current holding national legislative office in a country with an area and population smaller than most US states.
Contrast that with the choices in the US, where only the 2 major parties hold national office, and they are more similar to each other than any of all the parties in Norway.
all these parties would be labeled "socialist" or "lefties" in the USA

the funny thing is that the scandinavian countries and countries like luxembourg have at the same time big government influence and very open economies. They have been running left leaning policies for decades (in the USA some of these policies would even be labeled communist) and still manage to be on the top of any possible indicator about income, freedom, education, healthcare ....
Really? Even the Conservative party, Christian Democratic party, Christian Unity party, and Abortion Opponents party?
And what about the fact that Norway still has a king who still (nominally) holds de jure executive power, and that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway is still the state religion/church?

:roll:

Quit trolling. Not all of us are so stupid as to believe the internet Eurotroll lies about Europe being some kind of socialists paradise.
Hello, quite funny to realise that Moore have visited our small country, and he didn't even want to show it.. :(

As to our political system, by U.S. standard there is probably not a single party in Norway that you would consider conservative. Our most right-wing party is called the Progress party (Fremskrittspartiet), and even they are most probably to the left of the U.S. Democratic party, not in every single case, but overall. The cristian democratic party is rather moderate (they are in the center politically) and had the primister for several years just recently, and there is no such thing as Abortion Opponents party. The King has the support of the people, his grand father was elected king in 1905, and there is still a lot more than 50% support for monarchy. There is not enough support for a republic to put that up for vote. The church is also supportet by the majority of people, although many like me would love to get rid of the state church.

Btw, our public health system is not perfect either, but I don't have much complaints about it. I use a lot of expensive medisins for my asthma, and expet for 1600 nkr (about 290$) in self pay each year everything is free (doctors, medisins, transport to doctor or hospital), and waiting times for consultation is about 30 mins- 2 hours in weekends and nights if you go to an emergency center. About 1-2 weeks for non emergency consultaions, and same day for moderate important things like influensa.

Regards

Jostein
Wow... Vic just got pwnd.

Thanks, Jostein
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY