New Vent: Schooling Michael Moore Updated
posted at 8:05 am on June 22, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Michelle picks apart the cherry-picked facts and half-baked logic of Michael Moore’s new crockumentary, SiCKO, which opens in theaters today. Plus, health tips from the svelte film maker.
Update: I don’t usually do this in a Vent post, but this story is worth adding here because, unlike the reporter who filed the story, I was there at the screening and the reporter has at least one fact wrong in an otherwise good story:
[U]nlike Al Gore’s film on global warming, which helped rally support on an equally controversial problem, “Sicko” is creating an awkward situation for the leading Democratic presidential candidates.
Rejecting Moore’s prescription on healthcare could alienate liberal activists, who will play a big role in choosing the party’s next standard-bearer. However, his proposal — wiping out private health insurance and replacing it with a massive federal program — could be political poison with the larger electorate.
At a special screening in Washington this week, politicians, lobbyists, media pooh-bahs and policy junkies flocked to see Moore’s film.
No one “flocked” to see this film on *Thursday, which was the lobbyist screening at Union Station theater in DC. I was there. That’s my footage in today’s Vent–I was a few feet from Moore when he entered the theater. There were a couple dozen or so red-shirted people who claimed to be RNs supporting the film, though they wouldn’t talk to me on camera or even answer when I asked whether they were really nurses or not. They didn’t even get into the lobbyist screening, at least not while I was there. They were gathered outside, waiting to get into another screening of it. There was a small group of white-haired ladies shouting “Health care not warfare” standing outside the theater, because no gathering of leftwingers is complete without some kind of anti-war demonstration, no matter how irrelevant it might be to the issue at hand. Inside, there were maybe 30 or 40 people seated to watch the film, in a room that could seat hundreds. Most of those people were probably not lobbyists at all. They just followed Moore into the theater, as I had done when he walked in. That is not “flocking” to see the film by any standard definition of the term. It’s a bunch of people letting themselves be used as props, and a few who actually watched the film as Moore’s intended targets/audience. As he entered the theater, one of Moore’s people said that he’d attracted “about a dozen” lobbyists to the screening. Is that flocking? I don’t think so.
As to the article’s larger point, that it creates a difficulty for Democrats, that’s probably true. They certainly aren’t flocking to support it, they way they flocked to get behind the pile of lies called Fahrenheit 9-11 back in 2004. Undermining a war in progress obviously didn’t create the same dilemma then that undermining a push to socialize health care creates for them now.
Correction: The lobbyist screening I attended in DC was on Wednesday, not Thursday as I said above.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
I live in NJ, and I’m surrounded by Big Pharma. Let’s just say most of us would agree with MM than we would with Michael Moore.
asc85 on June 22, 2007 at 8:26 AM
Ahh, the hypocrisy of Micheal Moore on full display.
Nice Vent.
Malpaso on June 22, 2007 at 8:27 AM
“Sicko” would be a great title for a Michael Moore biography.
Guardian on June 22, 2007 at 8:30 AM
I’m not suggesting our health care system is perfect, because it’s got a ton of problems. But I did live in a country with nationalized health care for 10 years and let me tell you it sucks bigger balls than George Michael.
Mindcrime on June 22, 2007 at 8:36 AM
Did he really say the drug companies have to go back to inventing more vaccines? We have a problem now with too MANY vaccines that need to be given. New ones in the last 10 years, just off the top of my head, Gardasil, Hep A, Rotavirus, Menactra, adult pertussis, shingles, pneumococcus, probably more that are out of my area of expertise. Did the idiot even talk to any doctors?!?? Why do people listen to this guy?
jessie924 on June 22, 2007 at 8:43 AM
I don’t have an issue with your parody of it, because it highlights the utter stupidity, but I absolutely abhor when people inappropriately mix upper case and lower case letters within a word in a lame attempt to be hip or trendy.
James on June 22, 2007 at 8:46 AM
It’s disturbing to watch Michael Moore holding court on topics on which his opinions far outstrip his knowledge (which, in his case, would be most topics other than cheesebugers and fries), and still manage to draw an admiring crowd. Really, as a country, we ought to exercise a bit more discretion with regard to whom we take seriously.
morganfrost on June 22, 2007 at 9:04 AM
I lived in England for a couple of years. I married an English girl while I was stationed there. Whenever she needed to see a doctor there was always a minimum wait of about two weeks to get an appointment unless it was a life threatening situation.
Guardian on June 22, 2007 at 9:13 AM
Uhhh… James .. Bryan and Michelle aren’t trying to be hip or trendy. That is the official title/logo of the film.
Blame Michael Moore for SiCKO; the title as well as for the idiotic content… if it really offends your sensibilities all that much.
LegendHasIt on June 22, 2007 at 9:18 AM
Same sh*t, different day.
Would anyone like to trade the health care they get here for that of the Island Paradise of Cuba?
Pablo on June 22, 2007 at 9:21 AM
Fatso perhaps, but he’s not sick he’s dangerous…and stupid!
PS. The Vents run much better on YouTube
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on June 22, 2007 at 9:21 AM
I’d really like to know how he thinks taking a pill once will cure chronic diseases like diabetes and high blood pressure as well as a host of genetic diseases. There’s a fundamental flaw in Moore’s understanding of bioloby (but then we knew that).
I guess he really bought it when McCoy gave the woman a pill and she grew a new kidney (good thing he carried the “grow a new kidney” pill on that mission). As I’ve often said, those Hollywood types seem to confuse their own Hollywood fiction with reality.
taznar on June 22, 2007 at 9:26 AM
When are people going to get this notion that goverment is supposed to replace your mommie or nannie? Too many people, mainly adults, are apparentely suffering from severe separation anxiety and think having goverment take care of them from cradle to grave is the only answer. Michelle asked where will pharmacuticals get there money to do R&D from. The answer is simple more taxes. Just on the wealthy of course.
If we instituted some tort reform so that ambulance chasing lawyers like John Edwards couldn’t get multi million dollar judgements to finance his next mansion it would help also. I wonder what kind of house the family of that child who Edwards channeled in the infamous trial made public when he was running on the ticket with Kerry lives in?
LakeRuins on June 22, 2007 at 9:28 AM
Reading is fundamental:
James on June 22, 2007 at 9:41 AM
Actually, so is writing. You stated, “BUT”–as if to imply your distaste for the all-caps was something Michelle did. Re-read your post. That’s how it sounded to me, as well.
robblefarian on June 22, 2007 at 9:46 AM
Writing with clarity is nice too.
Your first post now makes even less sense than it did before.
LegendHasIt on June 22, 2007 at 9:48 AM
I only hope the moniker SICKO sticks with Moore for eternity as his legacy goes down in infamy.
shooter on June 22, 2007 at 9:50 AM
Michelle asks the question “and who will fund these companies?” i.e. their R&D activities…
She then answers “no one”.
That’s not entirely true. Moore probably wants the government to do it. But that would require levying more taxes, which is a slippery slope, of course.
Even in Canada drugs are not free. Health insurance provided by some companies covers most of it, but many many people don’t have insurance and have to pay out of their own pockets. And those drugs are damn expensive!
AlexB on June 22, 2007 at 9:54 AM
I don’t want to totally hijack the thread so I’ll only reply once more, “BUT” there’s a distinct difference between a disclaimer at the beginning that says I’m not upset with this one use of it for parody, and saying that I contradicted myself and DO mind it this one time and I WASN’T really talking about how Moore did it first.
By the way, it’s not all-caps…that would actually be proper English convention for a movie title.
James on June 22, 2007 at 9:59 AM
I’ve had that experience with Kaiser. Not that I’m complaining…
There’s going to be a temptation to believe this film, on the part of anyone with unrealistic expectations about the USA health care industry, and there are a lot of people in that category. They don’t always realize that the alternatives elsewhere (over which Moore glosses) are worse. People also know that, until recently, the idea of dental care insurance was a joke. He’ll play on that naivete, and he’ll go a long way with it.
manwithblackhat on June 22, 2007 at 10:03 AM
What’s really depressing is the number of people who will see this movie thinking Michael Moore is telling the truth about health care in this country.
infidel4life on June 22, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Huh?—-
No, don’t explain… That last one was even more incomprehensible. My head will explode trying to figure out any further ‘clarification’ .
LegendHasIt on June 22, 2007 at 10:06 AM
I find it ironic that Mikey Moron has adopted an Ann Coulter style for the title of the film. You know how Ann only uses one word titles on her books like “Treason”, “Godless”.
Hey it works for svelte, blondes with a law degree but not so good for fat, scruffy, overweight high school dropouts.
LakeRuins on June 22, 2007 at 10:10 AM
Michelle… it is awful and inexcusable that we are not allow to use the word socia-list on this site. What is the point of that? How can we fight socia-lism if we can’t say it? Please have this word and its variants removed from the word filter.
Maxx on June 22, 2007 at 10:18 AM
The only real problem with our health care system is our tort system.
flipflop on June 22, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Testing word filter for the word: socia-lized
Maxx on June 22, 2007 at 10:23 AM
testing word filter for the word” slaves
Maxx on June 22, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Freaky…we can’t use soshaleest on this site? What’s up with that? Can we say kommmuneest?
tickleddragon on June 22, 2007 at 10:32 AM
The only line Moore has waited in is at Wendys
tomas on June 22, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Someone needs to airlock that pig.
unamused on June 22, 2007 at 10:37 AM
People should realize there is nothing so bad that the government can’t make it worse. Look what the government involvement did for our school system. Prior to the 1960’s America had the best schools on the planet… then the government got involved and public schools took over.
Before government took over, the big problems in schools were kids chewing gum and running in the halls, now its kids attacking teachers, teachers having sex with students and kids bringing guns to schools and massacring their classmates. See what the government can do when it gets involved? Just think of what they can do for your healthcare system. Medical facilities would soon have all the efficiency of the Immigration service, all the compassion of the IRS and all the integrity of Congress.
Stuart Browning, and independent filmmaker has several videos on the topic. See the nightmare of socia-lized for yourself !
Maxx on June 22, 2007 at 10:42 AM
I bet Mr. Moore trusts his neighborhood drug dealer provides better pharmaceuticals than are available by prescription from your run of the mill physician.
Finally, if his physical presence and prose are any indication that socialist health care is the answer, he needs to use his perceived influence to get to the top of the waitlist for a lobotomy, liposuction, and libation to set his thought process right.
MSGTAS on June 22, 2007 at 10:57 AM
I have two words for the people who think government should provide health care:
Walter Reed.
corbettw on June 22, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Given MM embonpoint, I predict he’ll develop type II diabetes quite soon, if he hasn’t already. And it will be all the fault of conservatives.
Excellent point!!
Ellen on June 22, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Kaiser Permanente doctor tried to kill me once.
Drtuddle on June 22, 2007 at 11:25 AM
A reality check from the retiree belt:
The Dems know that such things as stem-cell demagoguery and criticism of the Bush medicare-drugs plan play well with retirees. I wouldn’t have believed it until I witnessed my own mother, my in-laws, and their “active retiree” buddies (social and defense cons all) loudly complaining about “the Republicans” standing in the way of health-care paradise.
My opinion (no survey data, just what I see in my red-state life) is that a huge chunk of the middle class and comfortable retirees view health care as a right. It’s not just the poor who are looking to the government for help with health care; it’s also people who are otherwised well-acquainted with capitalism.
Oddly, my most effective argument when engaging such folks is to quote health-care horror stories from liberal British newspapers, such as the recent expose on maternity-ward horrors in the UK National Health service (published by the Independent, if I remember correctly).
I have a fatalistic outlook on government-run health-care. I think it’s coming no matter what we vocal conservatives do about it. The best way to limit the damage is to make sure that private hospitals are allowed (as in England), instead of following the Canadian model where private practice is outlawed.
Anton on June 22, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Michael: Lose the hat, lose the scruffy look. You’re not fooling anyone; anyone with a brain. You are a multi-millionare, not “joe-paycheck.” Nothing says contempt like visual pandering to your audience.
I predict Sicko will flounder. The topic isn’t “sexy” like 9/11 or even Columbine. I suppose he will make a mint selling DVDs to school teachers and universities professors who will add this to their curricula.
Mallard T. Drake on June 22, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Ellen, you made me shoot coffee out my nose. At first, given whom we usually refer to as “MM,” I was prepared to be rather offended, in an “I rise to defend the lady’s honor!” kind of way. Then I realized you were talking about Mikey. The idea of that guy in an Empire gown….
Anyone care to do a photoshop of that?
Anton on June 22, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Just out of curiostiy, how do you know what Michelle makes financially and even is she does have money pouring out of her pockets how’s she’s supposed to dress/ Aren’t the rich able to dress casually too?
As for the content of the video, those we good questions that the Left-wing MSM won’t likely ask as they’re too busy worshiping the ground Michael Moore walks on. I’m thinking Michael Moore is going to make it all too easy to debunk this movie this time… not that it was hrd to debunk most of his other mockumentaries. This film will solidify even more his socialist desires.
Yakko77 on June 22, 2007 at 12:51 PM
OH CRAP, Sorry Mallard. I somehow TOTALLY misread that somehow. I thought you were going after Michelle for some idiotic reason. I rally need to clean my friggin’ glasses.
So sorry.
Yakko77 on June 22, 2007 at 12:52 PM
My mother works as a case manager in a SoCal hospital. If she starts talking about healthcare, then she usually ends up wondering why she even bothers paying for health insurance, when she could be treated for free like most of her patients. A couple of months ago, she mentioned that the hospital spent $30k to fly by helicopter an “undocumented American” in the final stages of AIDS back to the person’s Central American country in order to avoid filling a $2500/day bed until the person died and never seeing a cent of reimbursement.
Moore would point to that as proof of the healthcare industry taking the cheapest route, but it is also an industry that is required to provide services to everyone, even those unable to pay. If the government enforced the laws, then I would probably not have to tell my mother that it isn’t a good idea in today’s litigious world to threaten to call INS to get parents to pick up their adult developmentally disabled child that they dumped in the local hospital for some free healthcare.
rw on June 22, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Re: mixed case in “SiCKO”:
Maybe Silicon, Carbon, Potassium, and Oxygen are the constituent elements in the wonder drug Dr. Moore and his crack team of researchers have created to CURE people of dread diseases. I can’t quite figure out an arrangement of them in 1:1:1:1 proportions that accounts for all of the valence electrons. For instance, K-Si=C=O would leave the Si with a free electron just dying to hook up with a Hydrogen radical, or another Potassium if one were handy.
Oh? What’s that? You say that if Michael Moore heard someone talking about the Periodic Table, he’d think they were talking about where he’ll get his next meal(s)? (Full disclosure, I’m over 300#, which is too much to weigh even at 6′6″, so it’s a bit of a Pot/Kettle thing, but I’m not the one telling people that we’re going to make their health care system ILLEGAL!)
You could take him into a laboratory, and ask him to point to an Ehrlenmeyer flask, and he’d have no clue?
What an arrogant Fenstermacher to think that he has a clue what it takes to do the science necessary to produce a drug powerful enough to cure a disease without causing actionable side effects!
The only reason that all those other countries have been able to nationalize health care and still get new technology is that they get a free ride off US research. If we stop paying for those new drugs and procedures, there won’t be any progress in medicine. Then when some mutation causes Avian Ebolaids to kill a billion people, he’ll still say it’s the evil big companies at fault.
The Monster on June 22, 2007 at 1:27 PM
He/she…mikie moore…looks like rosie in drag…just a thought…thinks and talks like her also…about the same size…fat and ughly…
areseaoh on June 22, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Tickle,
The word soci*list when not altered contains a drug name “cial*s” which is very popular in spam (and therefore, very popular with the spam filters.
That’s why you are able to do the word “socialized” but not “soci*list”. It’s certainly not because the HA staff is impeding our fight against the commies. :)
JadeNYU on June 22, 2007 at 1:38 PM
The focus on Health Care is poorly focused on several areas, but the larger picture is ignored. While pharmaceuticals, HMO’s, and money is an issue, quality and quantity of health care staff is another issue. Regulation of health care is not the answer, but self-regulation in the health care industry needs to be better enforced. Bad doctors need to be filtered out and lawsuits need to be scrutinized to eliminate trivial lawsuits. Doctors and lawyers are like oil and vinegar, they don’t mix well. In my experience, hospital A is a death trap, while Hospital B is a life saver. And they are across the street from each other. It’s the luck of the dice if you are sent to a good or bad hospital. If there is any regulation it should be on the quality of health care. However, putting a government bureaucracy as a gating factor in getting health care is not the answer, it will only increase the cost, somebody has to pay for it, and lengthen the time for any health care. Just look at the Canadian and European systems. Government was not designed for this work, especially when government sheds it’s skin every four to six years.
Kini on June 22, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Of course it’s got a 93% favorable ratingfrom all the critics at Rotten Tomatoes.com
Yakko77 on June 22, 2007 at 2:40 PM
It’s Mikey, therefore, crap. In the interests of full disclosure, I liked “Roger & Me”, until I became aware of Moore’s shenanigans with regards to production. TV Nation was better suited to his style. Couple of brilliant segments, in which he crossed paths with Phelps’ group and bought slaves in Mississippi.
Haven’t watched Moore’s work in years and probably won’t bother with this little schlockumentary. I know the cost of “free” health care.
Krydor on June 22, 2007 at 2:58 PM
I just started working for a large Pharma company in NJ via telecommute. I would have to say they are probably the best group of people I have ever had the pleasure of working with. I’m amazed at the dedication these people show, i.e. emails with a time stamp of 0′dark thirty when normal people are in bed is just not what I expected from corporate IT people. So Michael “sicko” Moore can just put it you know where..
JimK on June 22, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Socialist.
It’s not that hard to do. I’m surprised the spammers haven’t learned how. Since I now know I’m not teaching anyone anything the admins don’t want you to know…
“Social‍ist” produces the word “Socialist” when your browser interprets it.
The Monster on June 22, 2007 at 3:31 PM
I will most likely never go see this movie or any of his other films. He is on a mission to not uncover the real truths but to distort like most on the left would like it to be. I wish they would do a film on how,according to the AMA (American Medical Association) the # 1 killer in our country is properly precribed pharmacuticals. We all need to take care of our own health and a drug is not the cure all for everything but I am sure glad of the R&D that those companies put into making a lot of the drugs but they sure aren’t going after any cure. The science to find a cure in a synthetic type pill is not the answer but just a cover up. I agree with many on this blog that tort reform would go along way in helping our health care system in this country.
bones47 on June 22, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Moore complains that we’ve gone from 30 pharma companies developing drugs and vaccines to only 5 and this is the reason why new vaccines aren’t being developed. My question for Moore, is if 5 pharma companies are less innovative than 30, just how innovative does he think having a single, government controlled pharma company will be?
rokemronnie on June 22, 2007 at 3:39 PM
The only real problem with our health care system is our tort system.
flipflop on June 22, 2007 at 10:19 AM
BINGO! Thank you John Edwards!
sonnyspats1 on June 22, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Bush and Congress misrepresented their intentions dealing with big phamaceutical they literally looted the taxpayers. That deal represented billions of dollars. It was suposed to releive the burden on the consumer. I wonder how many Senators and Congressmen benefited from that rape job. Does anyone remember that theivery. Wheres the outrage or did we forget!
sonnyspats1 on June 22, 2007 at 3:51 PM
In the tobacco litigation the trial lawyers established a legal precedent, that a legal industry can be forced to pay for the cost to society for the use of their product.
Litigation is the primary reason why medicine is expensive. Everything, down to hospital electrical outlets, must be vetted and insured against possible litigation. So while a hospital grade outlet may be identical in construction to a milspec one, it’s significantly more expensive because of the threat of litigation.
Since trial lawyers have created a situation where society is now paying the cost of their own product, litigation, I say there should be a national plan for health insurance that is funded by a 50% surtax on attorneys’ fees for personal injury cases. Liberals should love this, theoretically, because it soaks “rich” lawyers and, besides, they are always looking for “windfall profits” to tax.
Of course, the fact that Congress and most state legislatures are made up mostly of lawyers makes my proposal rather moot.
rokemronnie on June 22, 2007 at 4:06 PM
I’ve seen the movie, and I must say, this one actually has substance where his previous films were primarily built on artfully concocted deceptions.
I must say I’m a bit taken aback by Malkin’s approach on this. This isn’t an all or nothing game, it isn’t about black and white. I don’t know about you, Michelle, but there are a lot of poor people out there that need the bare minimum of health care that they are not getting today. What is the meaning in having poor people fork over thousands of dollars that they don’t have for things like… living?
Also, can anyone explain to me the justification or necessity of health insurance companies to make a profit? For pharmaceutical companies, profits often go into R&D for new products, vaccines, cures, and so on. That is a legitimate reason for making a profit. What’s the excuse for health insurance companies??
Shelter, food, and health are the primary needs of a human being. The government must ensure that its citizens have access to these things. Does that mean we socialize the entire health industry? Of course not, in Canada we see what that leads to - but at least everyone there has access to health care!
Which is the entire point Moore is trying to make in his film, even though he tosses out the usual scurrilous blanket assertions and half-truths to get there. I am very lucky that I’ve been in Norway the past 5-6 years because if I had been in the US, I most surely would have been a lot poorer right now due to health care. Why? Because here in Norway, you at least get the bare necessities for “free”.
Let those who want pay for health insurance, go to their fancy hospitals with luxury rooms and service, and state-of-the-art medical attention. The rest of Americans should be given a safety net through the government so they at least have something.
This is about health and life or death. It’s no time to put on the monochrome goggles and deny fellow Americans the most basic of needs.
Seixon on June 22, 2007 at 4:23 PM
There are so many issues that can be attacked in just the short clip of Moore preaching, but I will go with one obvious one. Moore scolds members of Pharma in the audience because (and I quote roughly) “there used to be 30 companies making vaccines, but now there are only 5. If you vaccinate someone, you cure them for life, and then you don’t have to use pills.” What he conveniently leaves out of this statement is the reason why there are now only 5 companies who produce vaccines. Nobody can afford to make them. Vaccines are very, very expensive to develop. And while it is true that you can provide a long term protection against some diseases, you can also cause long term or life long injuries.
Consider the math of a hypothetical case. You spend $$$ to develop a vaccine for babies which can prevent autism. This would be great. Everybody would want to have it. So you put it through the FDA testing and they determine that it is 100% effective and is safe except that in one case out of a million there is potential for causing brain damage. That is a great rate of safety. But it means that if you immunize 20 million babies per year, you will likely have 20 injuries. And for each baby that is injured, the vaccine producer (and every one else in the chain) will be responsible for very expensive care for 50 years (not to mention the inevitable pain and suffering for the family as well as the 20,000 sqft home for the lawyer). That cost, as well as the incredible expense of bringing a new vaccine to market must be borne by the producer. Then, Moore and his ilk will tell us that this vaccine must be provided free. Is there any wondering why there are now only 5 companies manufacturing vaccines?
Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have I ever been an employee of a pharmaceutical company. I am a pediatrician, and I do remember lining up to get my polio vaccine along with all the kids in the neighborhood back in the 50’s. Things change. But socialists who believe you can create good by fiat never will.
Spurlee on June 22, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Absolute communistic drivel. Your political leanings have been kind of enigmatic to me before. No longer.
Continuing with that ‘logic’; everyone should get food, housing, utilities, transportation and recreation all provided by ‘government largesse’… After all, those are even more basic needs.
LegendHasIt on June 22, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Yes, free or “free” to those who need it, but the government would obviously pay the company for the vaccine. No one is expecting the producers of drugs to give medicine away. Little wonder so many of you are so resistant to even a little smidge of government involvement - you fundamentally misunderstand what the positions actually are.
Oh, so now I’m a communist? Careful there, you are doing exactly what the Left did to me when I ran my blog.
1. How are those more basic needs than health?
2. Yes, everyone who needs it, should get what they need. See that conditional?
We’re not talking about you or me here - we’re talking about the impoverished who can barely put a meal on the table or a roof over their head. There are only so many Americans this applies to, and we already have programs for them such as welfare, Medicare, etc.
What is wrong with every American having access to free health care? You can throw around the word communist all you like, but that’s only because you don’t have a defense of your position. You might also check the archives of Hot Air to find that you’re making a complete fool of yourself by referring to me in that manner.
Seixon on June 22, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Why would I even consider listening to Micheal Moore about anything?
William
William2006 on June 22, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Who fundamentally misunderstands what the positions actually are?
Are you specifically singling out “Spurlee on June 22, 2007, at 4:49 PM” for that comment, or are you indicting those who oppose such a move?
You stated that the government will pay for the pharmaceuticals. Where does the government get the money to pay the pharmaceutical companies?
Does the government produce anything? Do they earn any money form doing business of any kind, such as growing, harvesting, distributing, and selling crops for consumption?
Does the government earn money by developing automobiles, gasoline, movie theaters, toys for children, beds, tables, chairs, etc., then selling them to consumers, thus earning the money to “pay” for the pharmaceuticals?
Where will the government get their money?
The government does not have money of its own. The government confiscates money from those citizens who earn money. They take money through taxing citizens.
In order for government to pay for anything they stick their hand into the pockets of US citizens who are productive and who earn money.
Bottom line, it is not the “government” who will pay for the pharmaceuticals and medical care. It will be those US citizens who produce and earn money, those whose earnings are taken by the government and redistributed.
This is a good reason to oppose such a tactic.
Michael Moore earns millions of dollars with his cockumentaries. Susan Sarandon, George Sorros, George Clooney, Shaun Penn, Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Streisand, Bill Maher, and so many other loudmouths all earn millions to billions of dollars. If they care so much about providing “free” health care to others, they can all pool their money and pay for the health care themselves.
But, no, they want others who work hard, squirrel money away to pay for their children’s teeth, medical care, school, college, gymnastics, swimming, toys, etc., to pay for other people’s health care, a health care which will be micro managed by government bureaucrats who will decide if a doctor can treat someone will an illness, a bureaucrat who is not an MD, not a nurse, not trained in medicine, but who follows guidelines set forth by the likes of left wing, liberal, redistribution of wealth advocates like Multimillionaire Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton, and others.
Forget about it!
If Michael Moore and Hillary Clinton, and others, care so much about the health care, let them put their own money up and walk the walk!
William
William2006 on June 22, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Man, we’d BETTER not get a Moore-ish national health care, because I’ve been paying into a trust at work to get health insurance for life and I’d hate to be wasting all that money so close to retirement (5 years).
Bob's Kid on June 22, 2007 at 5:52 PM
William,
Dear sir.
I’m talking about those who consistently misstate the positions of people like Michael Moore. Fine, you disagree with him, but don’t misstate what his position actually is, that’s just as dishonest as his movies.
The same place where the pharmaceutical companies are getting it, with the added bonus of the poor getting access to medicines they otherwise would have to do without.
No. May I infer that you oppose all taxes and wished we lived in a society where it’s every man for himself, even the less fortunate?
You must be joking.
Yes, this is what modern democracies do to provide for the welfare of its citizens, unlike the monarchies of ye olden times where the kings would collect taxes and… not provide for the welfare of its citizens.
Because? In other words, the strong should turn their shoulder on the weak in society? Not everyone is born with a brain capable of wonderful things. Not everyone has the ability to provide for themselves like others do. Do we throw these people under the bus, or do the strong help along the weak out of compassion?
Hypocrisy aside, you’re still not providing a good case against helping the poor stay in good health. I don’t make millions or billions. What’s in it for me to say what I’m saying right now?
1. Michael Moore et al do pay taxes, ya know.
2. Just like I stated earlier, you are completely misstating how a system can be implemented so that your stance will sound reasonable. I live in Norway, that has a system like that of the UK. There are no bureaucrats involved in making health decisions. Where have you gotten this idea from? You know, other than from conservative talking points?
Let me tell you a story. I was sick last month. I got an appointment with my doctor. My doctor gets paid by the government according to how many patients he has, and how many times he sees them. He analyzed my health and decided to put me on penicillin. I paid a $30 co-pay. Then I went to the pharmacy and got my penicillin for around $10-20.
Now tell me, good sir, where did a bureaucrat get involved?
Oh, that’s right, no where.
Let me tell you another story. Five years ago I came down with something. I was sick at home in bed, and a doctor was summoned to where I was to take tests to figure out what it was. He determined that I had mono and that I had to be hospitalized. An ambulance came and picked me up later that day and took me to the hospital. I was treated at the hospital and had my own room there for one week. Then I was discharged from the hospital.
Know how much I paid? Nothing.
How many bureaucrats were involved? None.
Now I have a 9-5 job with a decent salary, and I pay 36% income tax, the sales tax here is 25%, and tax on food is 12%. Can you tell me how much all of the above would have set me back in the USA? How much wrangling with insurance companies would I have had to go through? What if my insurance company denied coverage?
In fact, I’d have to deal with more bureaucrats in the US than here - a different set of bureaucrats than the ones you fear. You know, the HMOs. The insurance companies. They are bureaucrats too. Forget about them?
Sorry, but I prefer my zero bureaucrats to a bunch of bureaucrats in a private company that have no oversight.
You seem to have completely fooled yourself by ignoring simple facts.
Seixon on June 22, 2007 at 6:22 PM
When you expect ‘the government’ to provide for everyone’s NEEDS then, yeah, I call that communistic. OK, Maybe I’m a little off on my terminology; maybe it is merely socialistic.
The first thing I read of yours some months ago, I thought “here is a pretty smart
guyperson. Everything I’ve read of yours since then has been rather equivocal, making me wonder if my initial impression was accurate. Maybe the reason that you were attacked by the Left and now by the Right (me) is that your political - economic ideals are inconsistent at best.LegendHasIt on June 22, 2007 at 6:24 PM
I challege anyone who buys these ideas to go to actual emergency rooms in the US and find the people who are turned away from getting the healthcare they need. Are there actually any? (awnser no) Does Moore try to do this in the movie? Havent seen it but I doubt it. I would bet he focuses on people with exotic diseases or in need of experimental procedures.
Getting the healthcare you need and then later lamenting the bill is not a reason to overhaul the healthcare system.
Resolute on June 22, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Yeah but he goes to Cuba and proves their health care is better than Americas!
Drtuddle on June 22, 2007 at 6:27 PM
United States of America’s that is!
Drtuddle on June 22, 2007 at 6:30 PM
LegendHasIt,
Perhaps you should visit a dictionary. Communism is a system where the government owns everything and runs the entire economy. Socialism is communism lite, with less focus on ownership of everything and more focus on nationalizing major industries. This is not what Moore is suggesting, and it is not what is the case in Norway, or the UK when it comes to the health care industry. There are private health insurance firms here, private hospitals, private doctors, private plastic surgeons, and on, and on.
There is a healthy mix of socialism and capitalism here that provides a safety net for the less fortunate, and a capable system that anyone else can use if they should wish to do so. Otherwise, they are free to pursue whatever avenues of taking care of themselves that they wish.
As I already stated, slapping a label on something isn’t an argument, it’s a cop-out.
What you actually mean is that I’m not a pure partisan that holds to one side consistently, which is true, because I’m a moderate that chooses what is logical and reasonable in each given situation instead of basing everything on an ideology or a set of talking points.
I get attacked by the Left and the Right because I refuse to be shackled up on their respective plantations. Partisans hate people like me because they cannot legitimately attack me as their “enemy” because I agree with them on various other issues.
What if you can’t afford the bill? Tough luck? Should have known better than to treat that cancer that had been bothering you?
Seixon on June 22, 2007 at 6:39 PM
Actuaries make predictions based on statistics. When the actuaries are correct, their employer makes money, when the actuaries are wrong, the insurance company pays out more in benefits than they take in as revenue. Insurance companies, like anyone else risking their money in an enterprise, are entitled to try to earn some kind of return on that risk.
Let me tell you a story. I was sick last month. I got an appointment with my doctor. My doctor gets paid by the government according to how many patients he has, and how many times he sees them. He analyzed my health and decided to put me on penicillin. I paid a $30 co-pay. Then I went to the pharmacy and got my penicillin for around $10-20.
Now tell me, good sir, where did a bureaucrat get involved?
Ummm, when they set the rates at which doctors will be compensated, when they told the doctors which treatments will be covered, when they told the doctors which drugs to prescribe because they are considered “cost effective”. Most doctors don’t like insurance companies telling them how to practice medicine. They really don’t like the state, in the form of socialized medicine, telling them how to treat their patients.
Just because you don’t see a bureaucrat doesn’t mean there aren’t a few thousand hiding behind the procedures you are forced to follow.
rokemronnie on June 22, 2007 at 7:15 PM
The whole premise of this discussion is that people don’t get the healthcare they need. It is possible some people fall through the cracks in the system I supposed, but you just ceeded that argument and proceed to make the case there is an economic problem not an actual problem with healthcare. That is the basis for upending the health care system? absurd
Resolute on June 22, 2007 at 8:16 PM
Another Great Vent Michelle & Bryan; thanks.
Your video has exposed the deceit that a cretin like Michael Moore would present as truth. Your efforts put forth here at Hot Air and at MM.com provide a much needed counter balance to the disinformation presented by Hollywood in the guise of a documentary.
The war of ideas leading up to next year’s election is heating up to a full boil. Garbage like SiCKO provides the needed catalyst for characters like Hillary to reintroduce her failed health care plan one more time. I am glad (and proud) that you have taken up the gauntlet and engaged in this fight.
Zorro on June 22, 2007 at 8:38 PM
rokemronnie,
I guess that explains tens of millions or even billions in profits, then. Just to be on the safe side, eh?
1. The doctors themselves choose this arrangement and most doctors in Norway do this which easily explains why I’ve never heard of Norwegian doctors complaining about this. But hey, what do they know, you’re the expert.
2. All treatments the doctor finds necessary are covered. The doctor decides this, not bureaucrats. Only in cases where there are substantial costs involved will a bureaucrat get involved, and in virtually all cases, the patient will get the treatment if they really need it. And again - how is this worse than an HMO or health insurance company? Their entire business structure is built on trying to deny coverage, which they frequently do, leaving the person to have to pay out of pocket.
3. The bureaucrats do not tell the doctors which drugs to prescribe. Drugs in Norway are not heavily subsidized like they are in the UK, but drugs for chronic illnesses are. I got 100 allergy pills the other day prescribed by my doctor that cost me $10.
All of these things you are saying are the talking points that have been doled out to you by the Usual Suspects. You have no clue how the system works here in Norway, or the UK, or France, or many other places. You make do with ideologically convenient assumptions.
The Norwegian government is not telling Norwegian doctors how to practice medicine. In the US, you won’t even get to see a doctor if your insurance company won’t cover the costs and you cannot afford it. Here all you have to do is get an appointment with your doctor, tell him what’s up, and he will send you in for treatment if he deems it necessary to do so.
If what you are saying were true (it isn’t) then you’d expect a mass rebellion in the medical field in Norway. In my years living here, I’ve never been denied any treatments I needed, and I’ve paid considerably less than I would have in the US - without the need for health insurance at all.
For one, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, and second, there exists no such bureaucracy for micro-managing doctors. Or are you seriously telling me, a resident and citizen of Norway, that you know more about how things work here than I do?
And again, need I mention the bureaucracy in the health insurance industry that you are whistling past here? To get treatment in the US, you have to jump far more hurdles and deal with far more bureaucrats than you do here. The amount of paperwork that has to be done in the US vs. here in Norway is astounding - due to the bureaucracy of health insurance companies.
Do you really fear this that much that you have to go around inventing things about other countries of which you have absolutely no clue as to how function??
The health care industry in the USA is superb - they provide top-notch medical care. That’s not what the issue is here. The problem is economical because if you don’t have health insurance, you’re basically screwed. Even if you have health insurance, you might still be screwed when they won’t cover a treatment you need, meaning you have to pay out of pocket. This leads to people not getting the health care they need - due to their economical situation.
Here in Norway, I don’t have to struggle with any health insurance company, I can see a doctor for a small co-pay (usually around $30), and get any treatment I need for free. This applies for anyone in the country. If I were rich, I guess I might go to a private doctor or a private medical facility to get treatment since it would be faster and more comfortable. If I were poor, I would still be able to get treatment for free. That’s the whole point - enabling anyone to keep their health intact.
Seixon on June 22, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Unfortunately Michelle painted Kaiser as a non-profit when it actually has three different divisions, one of which is for-profit. I saw the movie, true to Moore’s style, he is a bit liberal with the truth and has a tendency to generalize. However, there’s no getting away from the fact that he has a very, very good point - that all Americans need a safety net when it comes to health care. The American system is absurd and needs a change. No, that doesn’t mean socializing the entire health industry, but it means that the government should guarantee a basic level of care for all Americans, especially those living in poverty.
Seixon on June 22, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Doesn’t Cuba quarantine people who are HIV positive? How humane is that Michael?? Doubt he mentions that in the film.
hollygolightly on June 22, 2007 at 9:16 PM
(I really wanted to respond promptly, but the my internet connection went down (for the first time for more than a few minutes, in years) until now, just as I was ready to click the submit button)
It is COMPASSION only when it is done voluntarily; I’m all for compassion. It is a good thing.
It is COERCION when it is done by government confiscating from those not disposed to be compassionate.
Even then, those without compassion are not “throwing them under the bus”. God, Fate or Genetics etc. is what is throwing ‘them under the bus’. Those that don’t desire to pay for the problems of strangers are merely neutral, they are not the cause of or a party to the misfortune.
Oh, Maybe ‘free’ healthcare or the hope someone else paying for some OTHER ‘need’ that you can’t provide for yourself. If you DID make millions or billions, you should be less likely to want someone else to pay for your medical care.
MANY bureaucrats were involved in that transaction. The bureaucrats that wrote the laws, the bureaucrats that collect the taxes, the bureaucrats that write the checks to your physician and your pharmacist, the bureaucrats that keep track ALL of the events involved. You seem to believe that your medical care came down like ‘manna from heaven’ and only you, your doctor and pharmacist were involved.
Again, there were MANY more bureaucrats involved in that than you imagine… dozens if not hundreds. Just because you don’t directly have to deal with them doesn’t mean they don’t exist, don’t have an economic cost.
The only time that a bureaucrat is NOT involved in your medical care is when you directly pay your caregiver for ’secret’ service done ‘off the books’.
But I DO see one thing I really envy in your system: A Doctor came to you! That hasn’t happened in urban America for 70 years and rural America for at least 30 years.
Of course, the reason it doesn’t happen here is because of efficiency; Every minute a doctor spends traveling to and from patients is a minute that he isn’t able to actually CARE for patients.
————————————–
But say that you never have to be hospitalized again. You will continue to pay exorbitant amounts of taxes for the rest of your life to pay for that ‘free’ healthcare. How many
hundreds of thousands of dollarsmillions of krone will you pay in taxes over the rest of your life in exchange for that fewthousands of dollarstens of thousands of krone of service?Free healthcare ‘ain’t free. ‘Free’ healthcare’ costs much more in the long run than the normal pay as you go kind.
You seem to have completely fooled yourself. PERIOD
Our healthcare system here if far from perfect… But it is much closer to perfect than any socialized system in any nation of significance. And the vast majority of the flaws in our system are DUE to the interference of the government and by ambulance chasing lawyers than by anything inherent in a capitalistic, market driven healthcare system.
LegendHasIt on June 22, 2007 at 9:32 PM
But you know as well as the rest of us that the Federal Gov’t is out of control and would never stop at “a basic level of care for all Americans, especially those living in poverty”. Charity will help those in dire need. The rest of us need to take care of ourselves. Besides, the Constitution has no provision for taking from one individual so as to give to another.
Zorro on June 22, 2007 at 9:39 PM
LegendHasIt,
Alright, so screw the poor it is, then.
What’s better, a nation full of healthy people, or a nation filled with people who literally have to rob others so their mother can get a hip replacement? Think about it. There are inevitable positive effects of a nation that provides for everyone.
I pay 36% of my income to the government, I pay 25% sales tax, I pay 12% tax on food. I have to pay $8 for a beer at a bar. Really now, I’m advocating the right to health for my fellow man because I’m looking for handouts? Really?
See, the health care system was there for me when I was a student in college and did not have that much money. Now I have a job and pay my taxes. It all comes around.
Wow, you mean the Norwegian health care system is an organized entity and not run in anarchy? Amazing!
Your absurdity aside, no bureaucrats were involved in the decisions made by me or my doctor. The fact remains, the health insurance industry in the USA has the same things as you just listed up, with the addition of acting like gate keepers every time you need a treatment.
The bottom line here is that I have virtually no hurdles to jump if I need health care here, while I would have to deal with in the least my health insurance company and their bureaucrats every time I needed something in the US.
OK, so then taking this “logic” of yours to the fullest, we can include all the people at the HMO or whatever who wrote up the directives that their employees follow, all the lawyers who went over this, the legislators who wrote laws that affect the company, etc, etc, etc. Hell, by your insane logic, even the president would be “involved” in the “transaction” of getting a treatment in the US.
I called my doctor. He gave me an appointment. I went in. He diagnosed me. I got a prescription. I took the prescription to the pharmacy. I bought drugs.
Now, where in this transaction was a bureaucrat directly involved? No where! A bureaucrat was not involved in any of these decisions. No bureaucrat told my doctor what to do, no bureaucrat told him to prescribe a certain drug, no bureaucrat told him what I could and could not have done. These were all things you suggested were the case, which are entirely false.
Is this really so hard for you to admit?
You’re essentially telling me that driving on the Autobahn is more of a hassle than in downtown LA because of all the bureaucrats that were involved in creating the Autobahn, blissfully pretending their American counterparts in LA don’t exist, and that I am swiftly moving along on the Autobahn while you’re stuck in traffic for hours in LA.
Eh, what? Dude, you have no clue how anything works here. Are you content with writing fiction to support your views?
Ah yes, much better to drag the sick person to the doctor. People and health first! Or last. You know, whatever.
As opposed to the hundreds of thousands I would be paying a health insurance company in the US for the same reason? Not to mention that my taxes go to a whole lot more than just free health care? Need I mention free college? Free grants to go to school? The list goes on. I shouldn’t be surprised that you never even considered that my taxes go to pay for more than just health care…. I’m not sure what the actual amount of my taxes that goes to health care is, but it would be interesting to compare that to what I would be giving an insurance company in the US.
Not to mention that everyone has a health problem at one time or another, and that hoping you beat the odds isn’t exactly the brightest idea. The Law of Averages isn’t some type of crazy theory.
That depends entirely upon each person, and what about the poor people? Again, throw them under the bus? Oh, tough break there guy, we do pay as you go here, no cancer treatment for you. Buh bye now.
Ooooh. Strong. Next you’ll smash me with a Yo Mama joke. I’ve fooled myself into a system that gives everyone free health care. So foolish! All this time I could have been paying loads of money to an insurance company that might not even cover what I need done anyways!
Well except for around 50 million Americans who don’t have health insurance. But, hey, that’s only around 15% of the population. Screw them, they’re probably a bunch of durty liberals anyways. ;)
I will give you one thing though, the lawyers in the USA are a huge problem, and the lawyer lobby that owns the Democratic party. The legal system drives up the cost of health care with absurd settlements and claims. But then again, what are you going to do to get a company that is putting billions in its pocket to treat their clients with the respect they deserve?
Tough one that. In the mean time, we could avoid lots of lawsuits like that by giving those who usually end up suing a free universal health care system.
Seixon on June 22, 2007 at 10:06 PM
The fact that the US still does not have universal health care coverage after all these years should allay any fears you have that we are headed for a slippery slope of a health care giveaway bonanza.
Charity is great, but it is no guarantee, and unfortunately does not take care of all those 50 million Americans who are basically fawked.
Does the Constitution forbid the taking from one individual to give to the collective? Nope. The Constitution doesn’t say that I can have an ice cream sundae either, but that doesn’t mean I can’t. You’re applying the Constitution inversely from its purpose.
Seixon on June 22, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Even if you have health insurance, you might still be screwed when they won’t cover a treatment you need, meaning you have to pay out of pocket. This leads to people not getting the health care they need - due to their economical situation.
Seixon on June 22, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Anyone can walk into a hospitial 24/7 and get treatment in the US, even illegal aliens. I find your disertations on how people are denied healthare in the US absurd.
You really think Americans put up with random denials of service by some corporate entity? People would take thier inurance company to court so fast if things like that happened. The treatments that might be denied and have to pay out of pocket would be mostly experimental, new or non vital. Guess where R&D for those come from? You are arguing to eliminate it and end biomedical progress since most of comes from the U.S.
Resolute on June 22, 2007 at 10:27 PM
OK, you have convinced me.
What a fool I have been.
Norway has achieved Nirvana.
Socialism DOES work well.
LegendHasIt on June 22, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Not if it isn’t an emergency. Proof of insurance mean anything to you? Come on guy, I even saw that on the Dave Chappelle Show. Give me a break.
Yes, because everyone has the cash to take a multi-million/billion dollar company to court. Uh huh.
I think there are more than enough people in the country who would tell you otherwise. Moore’s movie has a small sample.
So health insurance companies are actually in the business of biomedical progress and research? I thought insurance companies were insurance companies.
Apparently, according to you, poor people have the resources to sue gigantic companies, you don’t need proof of insurance to get treatment at a hospital, the thousands of people who have been denied coverage were all for experimental procedures, and insurance companies are actually medical research companies.
I have a feeling that you are what those in the medical field would call delirious.
Seixon on June 22, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Taking the debate to its extremes, check.
Socialism does work well - if you combine it with a healthy mix of capitalism. Are you capable of combining the two in your mind or is that too heavy of a concept?
Alright, I should get to bed, or else I might get sick and have to pay another whopping $30 to see my doctor and pay another exorbitant $15 for some medication, to go along with my horrific free college education, and mind-boggling 36% income tax.
Seixon on June 22, 2007 at 10:58 PM
I work in the U.S. healthcare field, know the Canadian system inside and out, have lived for over 20 years under a communist system, have numerous relatives and friends all over Europe, West and former East, and will say unequivocally that quite a few myths were claimed and even more delirious and patently false statements were made about the U.S. system and the ‘benefits’ of the utopian universal system. I’m too upset to comment on details. I’ll say this - the biggest myth - “the 50 million uninsured in the U.S.”
Good luck to the leftie candidates on running on this platform “Vote for me - I’m for nationalized healthcare, your new VAT will pay for it”. Mhhh! Good luck, indeed!
Seixon, with respect, I’m from Europe, the former communist one. Your commentary today gave me convulsions. These two worlds will never meet. I, for one, will see to it.
Entelechy on June 23, 2007 at 2:00 AM
Nothing is gratis in this world, except death - and it costs you your life - therefore someone paid for your education.
Plus the 25% VAT, plus the 12% on food, or as it is in Germany 19% VAT on everything, including food. See same in Canada and Australia.
Having worked for years in the cardiology/medical device industry, I could write novels on specific and documented, not ficticious M. Moore, cases of (mal)treatment in Canada and other soci*list healthcare ‘heavens’. Not to speak of where all the good Canadian doctors are, or are going.
This system needs adjustments but socializing is not the answer. And no one, but no one, not even the roaming undocumented aliens (those who don’t even have an address, meaning they’ve just crossed the border into the U.S.), by law can’t be turned away Seixon. I have posted the specific regulations in the past. There are myriad of programs which provide for them, government and private.
Entelechy on June 23, 2007 at 2:19 AM
Clarification, above post refered to healthcare provisions for the poor/undocumented/roaming.
Entelechy on June 23, 2007 at 2:31 AM
Why would anyone take a film about health from bloated, unhealthy pig, seriously?
Physician, heal thy bloat!
profitsbeard on June 23, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Awesome question.
Yakko77 on June 23, 2007 at 11:35 AM
That’s great, but I don’t live under a communist system, so what’s your point? You get convulsions from every man, woman and child being able to get health care no matter if they are rich or poor?
Yes, strawmen questions are awesome. Golf clap.
Seixon on June 23, 2007 at 12:02 PM
No, I get convulsions from socialist- and communist- leaning drivel, every single time. I lived it to the bone for too long.
Every person here, rich or poor already get healthcare. The cluster-bleep here is not on who gets it and who doesn’t (all do), it’s on how it gets paid, or ‘eaten’ by the hospital as a charity, the administration, conflicting regulation, insurance, and much more. I work with this every single day. The rest is made up socialist filth, supported by blind- media and ideology.
No need to spar ad infinitum. We’ll just politely agree to disagree. You keep yours and we’ll work hard to improve ours. Our differences, Europe and here, are greater than healthcare - it’s an entire philosophy and way of life, individual and as a society. When the U.S. goes that way, it will be the End.
Entelechy on June 23, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Entelechy,
This is just a blatant lie. If someone needs health care and can’t pay for it, they are more than likely not to get it. That’s just like saying anyone can get themselves a house or a Ferrari - if only they’d put themselves into many thousand dollars in debt they can! Yeay! Ferraris for everyone!
Riddle me this, someone who makes less than $15,000 per year, and cannot afford health insurance, if they get cancer - how are they going to pay for treatment? They can’t.
What in the hell is wrong with you people? I will say it again and again, do we want to live in a nation where people need to steal from each other to stay alive? Because that’s what’s going on now, and you, the typical Hot Air reader, might one day end up being robbed or murdered because of it.
Your indifference costs many people their lives every day.
Yes, because Norway is nearing the End. Oh wait, not it’s not. Oh well. It’s not like you care about the truth or facts. Keep the faith!
Seixon on June 23, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Seixon, I help them get treated and paid for every single day of my life, in ways you can’t even imagine. This is the last comment from me to you, as calling me a liar based on your ideology, and nothing else, and claiming that I cause suffering and deaths, makes it futile to continue.
p.s. I never claimed that Norway is the end.
Entelechy on June 23, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Entelechy,
And for every one of them, there are countless others that don’t get it.
My ideology? So you deny the FACT that many millions of Americans cannot afford health insurance, health care, and thus have no way of being treated?
You stated: “Every person here, rich or poor already get healthcare.”
This is untrue. False. You know that it is. Thus, a lie. I’m sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but defending your ideology with lies is not something I take lightly to.
OK, so if Norway isn’t nearing its end, why would the US near its end if it adopted some of the health care practices from Norway?
Seixon on June 23, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Seixon,
I have to disagree with you 100% (And that also sent me into convulsions).
I for one do not want the government making sure I get food health and shelter. If that is all I need and the government provides it for me (socialism BTW) at what point do I become responsible for my own needs and what is the incentive for me to better myself?
Even when I was young and poor, I never had to worry about treatment in an emergency room. There is a hospital in Maine that wrote off a $5,000 debt approx 15 years ago because I could not afford to pay it. (makes me wonder if they take cash).
Entelechy,
It is always an honor reading your posts.
While I love this country, after reading your posts I somehow feel…like a slug, it makes me realize I do not appreciate the US as much as I should.
For that I thank you.
F15Mech on June 23, 2007 at 7:33 PM
F15Mech,
I don’t know, why don’t you ask most Norwegians? For most people, barely scraping by on the help of the government isn’t exactly what one would call fulfilling. But I guess so you’d rather pretend the people who are in that situation don’t exist?
Familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs? Having the government ensure that the lowest rung of that is provided for everyone isn’t exactly “all” a human needs, but it’s the bare necessities.
And again, I will ask you as others, what is the leading cause of crime in the United States? Would that cause be alleviated if most people got the bare necessities and could focus on a fulfilling life?