Badmovies.org Forum

Not to be confused with S.I.C.K.: Serial Insane Clown Killer.  :tongueout:

Granted, Michael Moore haters aren't likely to give this movie/documentery a viewing, but I think everyone should at least see it once. Unlike Moore's last entry, in which everyone accused him of having a left-wing political agenda, I don't feel that SiCKO can be attributed to any self-serving cause. How is Moore showing off the corruption and lobbying of the medical industry going to be construed as some type of leftist self-interest campaign? Sure, there are those who could say Moore went through the effort simply because he intends to make money off of exploiting the unfortunate, and for those who feel that way then I hope you didn't have much faith in me because I "fell for it".

SiCKO taught me a few things, and considering the forum on which I'm posting right now, I thought it appropriate to borrow from Mr. Borntreger's book and do a little "Things I Learned From This Movie" segment of my own:

• When I come back in my next life, I hope it's as a citizen of Canada, Great Britain or, yes, even France.
• If you are part of a terrorist plot against the United States, you're given free health care... I guess to balance out the torture, thus making those Geneva Accords jerks happy.
• There are websites dedicated to helping Americans marry Canadian citizens so they can benefit from free health care on the other side of the border.
• A medical proceedure to help a deaf child hear in one ear is fine, but using it on both ears is considered "experimental".
• Threatening people with Michael Moore will get you what you want.
• Having a yeast infection at some point in your life will void your health insurance after you have expensive surgery.
• A million dollar house in London isn't as fancy as you'd expect and doesn't even include a big screen plasma TV.
• The French government will raise your children and do your laundry for you if you ask them to.
• The cashier in a British hospital is solely there to reimburse people for their ambulance rides.
• In Cuba, prescription drugs cost .00042% of what they do in the US.
• Ronald Reagan once did PSA scare records for the government.
• Richard Nixon needs to be ressurected from the dead, given immortality, then chained to a wall and beaten with his own spinal column for the rest of eternity.
• Michael Moore can save your spouse's life, but only if you hate him more than anyone else does.
• I can no longer support Hillary Clinton.
• George Bush is still an evil moron.

I laughed, I shed a few tears, I balled my fists several times and tried to figure out how long it would take me to move to Canada and get citizenship. If you choose to remain ignorant or just prefer not to trust the guy for whatever reason, don't see the movie. It's not for everybody. But, if you enjoyed any of his prior projects and are open to painful information about why the US is the 37th ranked country in terms of world health care (taking it with a grain of salt of course, as I doubt Moore would want you to blindly follow everything he says anyway), then by all means see it.

I haven't seen the movie and don't know that I will - I frankly regard Michael Moore as a propagandist for America's worst enemies, not to mention a self-righteous jerk.  But the issue of medical care really hits home with me right now.  My daughter has an appointment with a surgeon on Friday, and since we are not covered at the moment we will be paying for the operation out of pocket.

 NOW, if I lived in Britain or Canada, the surgery would be free, and I would not have to sell a significant chunk of my artifact collection to pay for it. That would be nice.
  BUT - I would have to wait about two years to have the surgery done by a state-paid medical doctor.  In that time, the tiny Cholesteotoma on her eardrum would have grown inward, destroying the bones of her inner ear and making her permanently deaf on one side, and might well spread into the bones of the skull, causing partial facial paralysis and possible brain damage.  As it is, the growth on her eardrum will be removed within six weeks of detection and any hearing loss should be minimal.

Yes, people from America go to Britain and Canada to get free care.  But people from Britain and Canada come to the U S to get QUALITY care, and to get it FAST.  Our system sucks, no doubt, but socialized medicine tends to result in mediocre care that takes YEARS to treat problems we deal with in weeks.  I wish there was a way to combine the quality and quickness of the care we get here in America with the low cost of care in other countries . . . but I don't think there is.

Tell you what, though - I will watch SICKO when it comes out on video.  At least he's not propagandizing for Muslim terrorists in this one.

As you can imagine, Moore addresses the "socializing health care leads to waiting so long for service that people die in the process" deal, mostly with the comparison that it's no more realistic than the "red scare" propaganda of the cold war days. Obviously nobody can speculate on that kind of thing without first experiencing it, and I don't hold Moore's presentation in any higher regard than someone who's slanted against the idea would portray it in their own film, but I'd like to think that the concept is more a scare tactic than fact. Especially given the kind of money the medical industry lobbyists toss into the pockets of politicians, Hillary included. If anybody knows of some place online where I can check hard statistical facts relating to the matter of how long people needed to wait for major surgery in nations with universal health care, I'd be interested in checking them out.

For anyone interested in what Moore got right and what he got wrong in SiCKO (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2007/07/03/2003367959)

I envy you big city fellers.  You get to see all the good movies first!

I personally value Michael Moore's muckraking and as a social worker who has been forced to buy her own health insurance in the past for some very expensive health problems, I really can't wait to see this one.  9/11 didn't especially send me, except for all the boss footage of W talking about "armadillas," but Bowling For Columbine rocked my world and this subject?  VERY close to my heart.

You should really envy us because we actually still have a theater that's carrying 5 showings of Hot Fuzz a day and one that's still showing Grindhouse once-a-night.  :teddyr:

Ok might want to look if these if you want, has nothing to do with Sicko just the difference between National and Private health care ...

Cancer survival rates worst in western Europe | Uk News | News | Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/10/ncancer10.xml)
Insurance - UK 'worst' on cancer drug access (http://www.essentialhealthltd.co.uk/news/healthcare-news/uk-worst-on-cancer-drug-access.html)
www.bowgroup.org/harriercollectionitems/HealthStandards.pdf (http://www.bowgroup.org/harriercollectionitems/HealthStandards.pdf)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa532.pdf (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa532.pdf)
Health Affairs Blog (http://www.healthaffairs.org/blog/2006/12/01/coverage-over-half-of-uninsured-americans-can%E2%80%99t-afford-insurance-can%E2%80%99t-get-public-coverage/)
No Oil for Pacifists (http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2005/02/healthcare-smack-down-us-vs-uk.html)

I have to agree with IndianaSmith, our system's not perfect but at least you can get treatment quickly. 

I won't see this until it comes out on video, and even then it won't be a priority because I think Moore is a crappy filmmaker personally.  That's not because of my personal politics, I just think he's seriously overrated.  I am wondering, does he address the costs of people who use hospital ERs for minor issues and the stranglehold that insurance companies have on the whole industry?  I have a brother who is a doctor, and one of the things I've learned from him is that the only people really making money off medicine in this country are the insurance companies and big pharmaceutical firms.

There has got to be an equilibrium between our medical care and socialized medicine.

guys-  I hang around a lot of libertarian forums and there is dead silence on this.  It's like they don't want to admit that the free market has failed. 


and i'd say it has for the reason that here in massachusetts the state insurance that omney started is like 200 dollars cheaper than the regular insurance and it's prety much the same.

The US medical care system needs more government regulation. If you put buisness people in charge of health care, they are going to be focused on making more money than with providing healthcare to customers. The equilibrium would be creating a government agency that monitors the activities of the health insurance companies, and forces them to follow an established set of rules.

According to your links, the problem in the UK is access to new cancer drugs. Not cancer drugs in general. That's due to their drug approval proccess being slow. And I don't see any comparisons between national and private health care. I only see comparisons between UK's health care and the health care of other European countries.

1. Don't opt for HMO unless you want your health in someone elses hands. They're cheap but you get what you pay for. Most of those nightmare stories you hear about where people are turned away or not given the care they need are because they were on an HMO. Look into HSA accounts

2. Read your policy carefully

3. There are numerous reasons why insurance is so expensive. Patients often run a battery of unecessary and expensive 'new technology' tests. Another reason why premiums are high is frivolous lawsuits on doctors and hospitals. And yet another reason is the amount of sick people vs healthy people opting for insurance. Sounds crazy yeah, but many healthy people think 'why do i need it'. More sick people who need medical treatment will pick up insurance so they can get their expenses covered. But that means more out of pocket for everyone, because more claims are filed. So it's actually good for everyone if more healthy people get insured, it's going to lower the cost overall.

Obesity is also on the rise, i think we need to be a healthier nation.

Sure i'd like free health care but i'd also question the real quality i'd be receiving and i'd be wary of all the taxes forced upon me to pay for it. Either way you're going to be paying for it. I like that Michael moore brings certain topics to the limelight for discussion. But I also realize he has a heavy slant

In a nation health system, everyone who works pays into it whether they are sick or not. That means there would be alot more money in the pot.

The obesity problem in the US is a symtom that many Americans don't care about their health. That is the reason why there is no National health service.

Is the extra Tax money really more important than your health?

If you're forced to pay a health care tax, then how is it free?

I'm choosing to wait for the video release for this.  I detest Michael Moore.  And unlike most, I hate him because I tend to agree with his broader perspectives, yet his tactics leave little distinction between him and Ann Coulter on the right.  In essence, I feel there is room for legitimate debate on his topics, yet he chooses to blitzkrieg viewers with manipulative statistics and heartstring bios.

The concept of capitalism, however symbolic it may actually be, is deeply ingrained in the American mindset.  Our consumption lifestyle has, for better or worse, instilled in us a sense of relation between price and quality.  As such, a comparison between our system and, say, Cuba's, is by and large moot.  I believe the desire to care and treat is universal and will not drastically vary between systems with and without competitive/profit incentive.  However, I think an overlooked aspect of the process is the patient's feelings:  safety, satisfaction, confidence.  Communal societies may find comfort in knowing that they can be treated without financial worry.  Americans will find that same comfort in knowing that they are receiving the best, because, well, they are paying for it.  I feel these distinctions are more a matter of perception (subjective) than a tangible variance in the actual quality of care, at least among the industrialized nations.  To each his own, right?

Would universal health care work in America?  Hell no.  The division between rich and poor is so vast that verbose outcry in the extremes is inevitable.  And take a look at social programs we do have.  Things like welfare, disaster relief, and private (non-profit) sexual health clinics.  They are disastrous, floundering failures on all fronts and it is unrealistic to think a health system/medication program would be any different.  America lacks the logistical efficiency to approach such things (hence our fondness of outsourcing).  But we are without rival when it comes to bureaucracy!  We create jobs where none are needed!  The success of excess.

I believe each nation has its strengths and weaknesses.  It is up to us to decide where our ideals best align and what compromises we are willing to make.  I certainly wouldn't move to Britain, land of the Video Nasties Act, just for health coverage.  And as much as I would love to live amidst 350 million smokers and 24-hour noodle stalls, I don't think I could handle China's censorious positions.  Now I have always wanted to move to Holland...  But for the time being, even with an inarticulate cowboy at the helm, I'm glad to be in America.

Its free for those who don't have jobs, and for those who do have jobs all they pay is the tax and nothing else.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Welfare is a competely different animal. With Welfare you are handing out money directly to recipients. In a National Health service the government would be paying Health Care workers to provide health care to the citizens. All the government is doing is managing the money. The Hospitals, and clinics would and could still be private.

With the current system, we have CEOs managing the money and all they care about is keeping as much for themselves as they can at the expense of their customer's health.

If you currently don't have a job you already have free health care via the health department and various social services and we know how great those are. So what is to be gained? For those of us with jobs, or owning a business it will be nothing more than another tax, another handout and another step in the direction of socialism. What about people that never get sick? Do they get a health credit?   
The government screws up everything they get they hands on regardless of party. Do you really with to but your health in their hands?


You can not have a national health care system that remains privatized, that's a pipe dream. Medicare and Medicaid is already ramped with abuse, over spending, over billing and corruption and you want that on a system wide bases?

If you are spending the money are you going to let someone else call the shots? Same with government if they are spending the money they will call the shots they will tell you want you can and can not have, only the super rich will be able to pay out of pocket for elective medical, while the rest of us are taxed into illness as you're paperwork of a biopsy to check for an illness you might have sets on someones deck somewhere far away waiting for approval, meanwhile you continue to get sicker not knowing if you can be treated or not; pending a decision that may be denied, then you file an appeal and wait longer, then it's approved, but it's to late as you're taking a dirt nap. 

Under our current system you already have to pay a premium to an insurance company. Then you have to pay a "Co-pay" before the doctor will even see you. And then the prescription drugs cost an arm and a leg. A health care tax would eliminate the need to pay that premium and the "co-pay", and reduce if not eliminate the cost of the drugs.

No.


Well right now your health is in the hands of a CEO. A CEO who is more interested collecting premiums and then rejecting claims, and there is nothing you can do about it.

The people at least have control of the government. The people have the power to make sure the government uses it's tax money in the best interest of the citizens or face being voted out of office. You saw what happened to the former head of FEMA.

Better a politician than a CEO.

That's a major exageration.




This is alot of nonsense the insurance companies want you to believe. Under a National Health Care System, they would be out of buisness. As it stands now, you have paperwork, things have to be pre-approved, and the insurance companies find excuses to deny coverage. Their way doesn't work. I say we try another way.

Under a National system, everyone would pay into it meaning there would be much more money to go around. Furthurmore, people could get potential health problems taken care of early an possibly avoid expensive procedures all together.

How much is a co-pay? $10? $20? $50 tops ... that's the average of most the plans I'm aware of. You will still pay the premium in terms of taxes, you will just pay more. Is our health care system screwed up? YES! Will government make it better? NO! By the time you cut through all the red tape to get basic services you'll be seeing red. Have you ever dealt with a government agency to any degree at all? I'm guessing not.


Thanks for the laugh that's the funniest thing I've read today. Oh and the former head of FEMA was appointed not elected, as are most government post appointed positions.


And you base that on fact or opinion? Medicare alone cost nearly $384 billion (FY2006) for about 1/10 the population. Based on those numbers the yearly spending for universal health care realistically could be as high as $4 trillion a year. This number is only going to go up with population growth and who's going to pay that? At the current population level that comes to about $13,333.00 per person per year. For my house that would be over $53,000 a year in health care alone, nothing else. Current domestic spending for all households is around $22,000 and that includes roads, services, parks, security, everything including Medicare. Do the math, you won't like the numbers.


No offense, but you're delusional. If you think that using the government means less paperwork and speedy service, I'm speechless. As I've said you've never really truly dealt with bureaucracies have you.

I've had mountains of government paperwork returned to me months later, unprocessed because I submitted a form (Example I don't remember the exact form) DOA FS 626-8b-1 Rev1 and not DOA FS 626-8b-1 Rev 1a ... I had both forms and I looked at them, I had others look at them and the only deference we found was the little "a" on the Revision. I had to start all over and you want to do that with your health.

I understand your desire for cheap health care for everyone, fact are and history proves it. If the government handles it, it's not cheap. Like I said the public not the populous needs to take ownership of what they are charged and fight excessive billing and building a competitive market place that is affordable. Sadly to many people want to throw their hands up and say let government handle it and that's a lose/lose.

The money you would pay in Taxes would be less than premiums, co-pays and the cost of prescription drugs. The reason is everyone would be contributing to the system. That includes the extremely wealthy who would end up paying the lion's share thus reducing the cost for everyone else. There would be more money availiable to use.

With insurance companies, the only money they have is the money paid to it by its costumers and nothing else. So even though customers pay premiums, they still have to pay additional money out of pocket.

I already know the head of FEMA is appointed, but government appointed officials are appointed by elected politicians. The elected politicians have the power to fire anyone the public is not satisfied with.

Fact. Yes healthcare cost. But it's money that has to be spent. What's next? Should be do away with the military as well to save taxes?
I already explained how the government would be more effecient than a private company in this matter. If you want to ignore what I posted that's on you not me. And you don't know what I have and haven't dealt with, so stop trying to change the subject.

You can only build a competative market place for things the public can live without like HD DVD players. If the price is too high, or the quality is bad, the public can choose not to buy one and no one would be any worse off. The public needs healthcare. That puts the insurance companies at the advantage. They can collect premiums and then find excuses to deny claims. Then you will truly have some paperwork to deal with. And what about insurance companies denying coverage for those who already have illnesses? What then?
Using the "free-market" to take care of healthcare doesn't work.

Wrong way on that one, , If everyone is paying, and everyone has coverage, then the usage will just go up. There's no way our scociety as a whole can pay for MORE coverage, for less money. The idea that the rich would pay more is absurd, do you really think that would happen when they have the perfect out for it all: The fact that they would be paying MORE for the same coverage.


And the power to KEEP anyone the public is not satisfied with, or the power to FIRE someone the public IS satisfied with. Not a very good arguement for your case IMO.

If we give health care to the feds, it'll end up like just about every other government entity, Slow, Overpaid, underqualified workers, many of whom got there by "The Good 'Ol Boy" system. I've known about 8 people in my life that work for the USPS, and all of them come from either of two different families, and they're pretty much all idiots. The ALL got hired because of who they were related to, not any specific qualifications. We as taxpayers are paying them more than many of us make and they are largely useless. When I was in the Service, I worked at a civil service shop, same thing there, except they were almost all in vietnam together, and just as worthlessand un-fireable as the USPS knuckleheads. Doesn't sound like it would work out well for health care.

Numbers please, I showed you mine let's see yours.


Really even those with life appointments like the Supreme Court? Having the power and executing the power, isn't the same thing.


Well if you listen to some in Washington (on the left) we should. I'm not going to explain economics 101, taxes cuts create growth, tax increase stifle it, it's been shown over and over again. Nationalized health care would hamstring this economy with way more taxes than we're paying now.


Who's changing the subject, I asked if you've dealt with bureaucracies. That's all government is, is one giant bureaucracy and you want them to control health care, as I said I don't think you've dealt with them much, if you had you'd be singing a different tune. I'm speaking from experience. 


Yes and I'm still not buying it. Government efficiency is an oxymoron.



Yeah and they need food too so should we go to a national food service also? Might kill two birds with one stone, force people to eat health and save on health care. Yep just might work. :thumbup:

CheeseFlix and Him, both excellent comments.  Karma for each of you.


My comparison of welfare and a theoretical national health care is merely that they would both be socialist programs, government run, tax-supported.  My caution comes about in that our government clearly cannot efficiently execute social programs of any sort.  The CEOs you are referring to are only a small portion of the problem.  Far greater expenditures are made supporting a "middle-management" tier, the bureaucracy.  And this isn't necessarily a bad thing in the private sector as it ensures jobs and profit aplenty.  However, Dilbert-esque meetings and paper-pushing are not cost-effective or even necessary, and when profit is not an issue (i.e. social programs), American systems run forth with wild abandon.  And while social programs can be run on a deficit, it shouldn't be obligatory.

I have no problem with the concept of public health care and other governments seem to manage such systems more or less effectively.  But I do not think America can install such a program.  Nor, for that matter, if it did would I expect the American people to appreciate it.  It is completely contrary to how we live every other aspect of our lives.  From the cradle we are indoctrinated with the evils of communism, the merits of hard work and ingenuity.  If something is (symbolically) free, how good could it really be?

Now, on a personal note, I haven't had any sort of medical coverage since I was in high school.  If I get sick, break an arm, contract an STD, etc, I make use of existent community clinics.  My income is laughable and typically I receive services free of charge.  You see, these places already exist.  They aren't the Ritz, but the underprivileged have options.  In essence, a dramatic rewrite of the national health system would not provide further assistance for the lower classes.  If anything, it would just annoy and degrade the quality of care for those who currently can afford better.

Again, I am speaking only of America.  Our attitudes of a people largely determine what will and will not work.


Yes.  :teddyr:  Of course, the military!  The greatest of our socialist programs!  If you really want to honestly evaluate our nation's inability to logistically operate a public program, start here.  I do not in any way wish to belittle the efforts or intentions of our armed forces.  I merely think it is worth pointing out that money and manpower is not effectively spent, and our national debt is an irrefutable quantitative indicator of this.  Now, most would argue that profitability (or even frugality) is not as important as national safety.  And this is a completely valid point.  But at some point, the powers at be decide that enough is enough and pull the plug, which causes all sorts of other problems.  The Iraq war costs too much.  So let's pull out.  Oops, now we've got to go back and fight another war.  It costs too much.  Let's pull out.  Oops...  It's a vicious cycle, and one that wouldn't occur if American-run public systems ran with greater efficiency.  WE ARE SIMPLY NOT GOOD AT IT!  Health care won't be any different.

I wasn't aware that the doctors office and emergency rooms were popular hang outs.

Look, people go to hospitals and emergency rooms when they need to. If they need to they need to. If there is increased usage, so be it. If people can go to the doctor and get things treated early, it would save money on more expensive procedured down the road.

Th rich would pay more. 5 percent of 1 million dollars is a hell of a lot more than 5 percent of 50 thousand dollars. It's simple math. The more money you more money you make, the more you pay in taxes. And for these multimillionares and billionares, considerably more.

That's how public schools are paid for with Property taxes. Buisnesses and people with large estates pay the lions share resulting in a reduced cost for everyone else. The amount of money a middle class family pays in property taxes is far less then what it would cost to send their kid or kids to private school.



no they don't because they run the risk of being voted out of office.


This is about as absurd as the belief that the Atlantic ocean was populated with sea monsters. This is alot of nonsense prepetuated by the insurance companies.

I wasn't aware that one needed to be a rocket scientist to put letters into a mail box.

HA! The public has a memory only slightly longer than that of a goldfish (which BTW is about 3 seconds)


No this is reality, spend a day in a government office and get back to use.


No but you do hope they have logistical sense to insure your government handout .. oops entitlement check gets from point A to point B via point C in a timely manner.  The Postal Service currently handles more than 200 billion pieces of mail a year, or five pieces per address per day. You'll understand if I don't want special Ed working there mucking things up.

In 2004 the United States spent $6,102 per person on health care, 92.7% more than any other G7 country, and 19.9% more than Luxembourg, which, after the US, had the highest spending in the OECD. That's more than Canada, France, Germany and Japan, and they all have National Health care.

The overall performance of the United States health care system was ranked 37th by the World Health Organization.
So our privatized system is costing us more money. We are spending more money for health care that isn't as good.


Yes we would pay more taxes, but we wouldn't be paying premiums, co-pays and outrageous prescription drug cost

People can provide their own food. Which is what people did before supermarkets came into being. People can't perform surgery on themselves.

[In 2004 the United States spent $6,102 per person on health care, 92.7% more than any other G7 country, and 19.9% more than Luxembourg, which, after the US, had the highest spending in the OECD.
That's more than Canada, France, Germany and Japan, and they all have National Health care. So our privatized system is costing us more money.] - according to Him.

Compare their tax burden to ours.  What is the highest bracket, and what percentage of income do the respective classes pay?  I know it's easy to sit here with my middle class income and damn the rich, but the fact is I believe it is immoral for the government to take half of what a person earns, no matter what their income.  I believe in Britain the top marginal tax rate is over 80%.  Assuming you ever became wealthy, would you want government empowered to take that much of your money so that you could wait 12 months to see a doctor who can't even speak intelligible English . . . and who just MIGHT be planning to blow up an airport in the near future?

This is the fundamental dichotomy between the liberal and conservative views of government.  As a conservative, I believe the role of government is to PROTECT - to protect my life, liberty, and property.

Liberals believe the role of government is to PROVIDE - to provide old age pensions, prescription drug benefits,  aid to the poor, free medical care, etc. ad nauseum.  The problems with government as provider are manifold.  First, government tends to encourage mediocrity, bureaucracy, and inefficiency, since government employees are harder to fire.  Second, once government starts providing, the public expects it to provide more and more and more and more, and the level of provision can not EVER go down!  In fact, the projected annual increases cannot even be reduced.  Remember in the 1990's when the Republicans were proposing reductions in the amount of increase in a number of gov't programs?  These reductions were universally referred to in the media as "spending cuts", even though not a single social program was actually CUT - they simply received smaller increases than they had in previous years.  As Plato commented, every democracy has failed as soon as the politicians realize they can bribe the voters with gifts from the public treasury.  The demand for those bribes grows greater and greater, and the treasury can no longer sustain it.

Karma to CheezeFlixz - I like the cut of your giblets, man! :teddyr:

The Brits can keep their national health services.

Those aren't number to explain cost, it's a cut and paste reply. And I find it a little hard to believe that other G7 countries only spend $445.45 on health care per person. (That would be 7.3% of $6102) However, that explains why so many people from other countries come here when they need specialize medical care, their country doesn't have it.


Econ 101, higher taxes slower growth; slower growth, fewer jobs; fewer jobs, less taxes; less taxes, few services   ... continue this cycle until you have another Boston Tea Party. 


LMMFAO ... I grow a big garden and kill my own meats, I can't wait to see Sally Suburbanite or Urban Earl grow a garden and raise cattle in their condo, people USE TO be able to provide their own food. 95% would starve with the modern grocery store or restaurant. There are people out there that can't even cook! And somehow they are going to can and preserve for winter? Every bodies got to eat, not everybody needs surgery. BTW food markets have been around since before ancient Greece, I'd say as long as Doctors it's not a modern invention.

What's more important to you? Your Health or your money? What about your families health?
You talk about paying more taxes, but you are already paying health care premiums to an insurance company. Then you have co-pays and prescription drugs.
Its not about saying damn the rich. The United States is a nation that bends over backwards for the rich. The United States bends over backwards for big buisness. The United States is a nation that protects copyrights and patents allowing people exclusive rights to make money off things. The United States is a nation that creates rich people in the first place. It's not too much to ask to have them give a little bit back If the they don't like it, then they can try getting rich in another country, and of course pay much higher taxes in another country.
And the British don't wait 12 months to see a doctor or any other amount of time. That's a myth.

So what else do you want cut. Should the government stop building roads and bridges? You want some company to build then and then charge you an arm and a leg to drive on them? Should there be no more public schools? No more public parks or national parks? No more post office?
If you think society can function without these things, then you are living in a fantasy world.
The free market is fine for things that people can live without, or can provide for themselves, but things that society needs have to be socialized.

The overall performance of the United States health care system was ranked 37th by the World Health Organization.

You have to be careful when using the word your, as in your family or your health.  This implies that I, CheeseFlix, whomever, is somehow struggling or crippled by the current state of things.  Quite frankly, that is a supposition you cannot accurately make.  You keep mentioning insurance premiums, so let's examine that.  How are they scaled?  You'll find that "at risk" clients are charged larger percentages than others.  For example, smokers will pay more, as will lion tamers.  The reasoning behind this is quite simple.  A minority of the population will utilize the majority of health services.  Enacting a national health service will benefit that minority at the expense of the majority.  While we can argue all day about the ethical obligations to our common man, the fact remains that most Americans have at their disposal adequate care under the current system.  Any change would adversely affect the majority of the population.  And since we the people elect those officials you were talking about, it is unlikely any of them will vote against the interest of the majority of their constituents for fear of being voted out.  :teddyr:


The only feasible way to remove capitalism in America is through a violent overthrow of the government.  Luckily you have at your disposal a second amendment right to bear arms.

I'm sorry for giving you a hard time, but I think it is important to recognize that all ideals have consequences.  It is important to take into consideration the feelings and attitudes of your peers.  Governmentally-run health care is not a bad idea in and of itself.  But if put in practice in America, it would do a lot of damage and hurt a lot of people.

Personally, my beliefs are slanted about as far to the left as possible.  Drugs and pornography for all! is my motto.  However as a nihilist I don't give my beliefs any particular weight.  :lookingup:  Socialism is a wonderful ideal, a compromise between the individual and the community, but that doesn't mean it works for every society.  America just ain't that way.

You do realize those reports focus primarily on the public health care services (i.e. government funded) and not private health care? If your going to give talking points, give the whole story. Not once have I said we've got the greatest most superdy-dupper health care system in the world, I said when people need special medical treatment they often come to the US, they come to private health care, not the clinic on the corner.
You want to control cost, take ownership the your medical bills and stop handling hospitals blank checks. If you don't care how much the hospital charges the insurance company, then why would the insurance company care how much they charge you?
Put it like this I build houses, and I have crew, I'm getting prices together today to build another house; shopping around and haggling over pennies. I'm self insured barring catastrophic coverage. Last week I had a guy cut his arm, not bad but he needed stitches. I got the bill it was $1265.00 for 10 stitches and it wasn't a deep cut. I could have sewed him up myself, or got a vet (DVM) friend of mine to do it. So I look over the bill and I see outrageous charges. I had 16 'mucus removal devices' at $4.00 each ... want to know what 'mucus removal devices' were? Freakin Q-Tips. So I call question every charge on the bill even offered to pay it in $4.00 a piece Q-tips, wasting my time with it. Long story short I get the bill down to $306.00, still to much in my opinion, but better than $1265.
So see Universal Health Care would benefit me if I was to damn lazy to pick up a phone and question charges. But I'm not! See the more I pay in taxes, the less I have for materials and help. So I either raise my prices, cutting the amount of work I'll get or lay people off, resulting in working slower not getting as many job complete every year and still making less money all while paying higher taxes. This is known as recession accompanied by inflation.

I can't make it any simpler for you, you are not seeing the forest for the trees.

No because a health care tax would eliminate the need to pay for insurance. And you would have saved the $306.

How long with that last? Hmmm, 10 guys, myself and partner, equipment, trucks, gas, supplies, overhead, materials, etc ... I'd have to work the math as I'm not sure if it's 8 or 9 minutes.

Drug copays are inexpensive compared to paying the full cost of a non-generic drug. C'mon, i'd rather fork over $20 than pay $250 for a prescription drug.

whether insurance was free and paid for by taxes or if it was cheap because sick AND healthy people opted in - people need to realize there's a choice. Nobody healthy gets in and you got a lot of claims the insurance companies have to cover.


Insurance companies are seeking for excuses to deny coverage,? No -  again with the above - you have to realize they have to take into consideration the risk assessment. If you ran a company and offered insurance and you have a group coming on with two people and one of them has had major hearth bypass surgeries and diabetes, is this a good business decision to just give them a cheap health plan? You adjust their rates or you deny. Coming on an individual plan and having health issues you are a risk, you have better odds at coming on with a group plan which is employer sponsored. You may have to serve a pre-existing wait period if you have a preX condition if you are on a non-HMO plan but this is what the insurance companies have to do to keep from buckling.

If you work for a company and insurance is offered - take it. If you feel it's too high get with the admin person who is in charge and see if they can offer other plans or HSA accounts.

My only concern is with the self-employed which falls within a certain pay range where family coverage would just not be affordable. There problem really lies when your employer doesn't offer healthcare and you are on your own, no employer contribution and you're paying the full cost. I know everyone has the idea that insurance companies are just out to make money and screw the little guy - i hate the system. But i know that the insurance companies do what they can to get by. You as the person responsible for your health have to make important decisions. Do you really want an HMO? Would HSA or catastrophic be in your best interest if you don't see a doctor? Should you pay for the employer sponsored plan even tho it seems like a lot? you bet - because if you get into tens of thousands of dollars of debt because of a health emergency you sure don't want to be footing the bill all by yourself. Should you read the fine print and ask questions on exactly what your insurance covers and does not cover? Yep.

Too many healthy people say "Well i hardly ever go to the doctor so i'm not going to get it". So like i said - more sick people take insurance and then the healthy people only get the insurance when they finally get sick. So they're either denied or they cause everyones premiums to go up. The more healthy people that get on board the better off we'll all be, and stop running all those stupid MRI's and cat scans and full workups just to have an ankle sprain looked at.

This isn't hard to figure out, People take care of themselves for small issues, people learn how to provide basic medical care for themselves because they don't want to have to pay a doctor bill, which even with insurance, we still pay. If you take that bill away, people won't do that, and the society as a whole will pay for their laziness.

BTW, if you have to turn to being a smart-alek, it's a good sign you're going nowhere with your arguement. 

But paid for it and more in taxes, especially since people WOULDN'T have a reason to waste their time agrueing the $1206 down to $306.

They charged $700 for a suture tray, I asked where's the tray I paid for it, where's it at I want it! They said 'sir we reuse those.'
Reuse them? I asked But it's my tray and I want it, that is unless you would like to rent it from me for say $100 day and you've had it 21 days so far, that's $2100 less the $1265 I owe you, so that's $835 you owe me as of today. Would you like to pay that with cash, check or credit card?
So on and on it when until the price got down to $306, took about a hour, $959 an hour ... I can do that. You can fight or fall, it's up to you. (collectively said)

Which is why it's foolish to have private companies cover health care cost. Everyone needs healthcare. It makes no sense to have a system where the people who need it most are denied it.

Nobody says that. Nobody opts out of an employer sponsored plan unless they have health coverage from some other source. The problem is the insurance companies look for excuses not to cover cost even though they are recieving the premiums. If the insurance companies can't afford to cover health care cost then they are worthless.

The last place anyone wants to be is the doctors office or the emergency room. Just because you introduce a National Health care system doesn't mean there is going to be a mad rush to every doctors office in the country. People are only going to go when they need to.

In this country of whiners, if they are not seeing green backs leave their grubby little paws they'll be at the Doctor office for every little boo-boo they get. Want proof take a trip down to your local health department, good friend of mine works there an tells tales of the endless parades of needless visits or as she calls them 'band-aid emergencies.'

So life insurance and car insurance and home owners insurance and all forms of insurance should be free? We all need it. You have to look at the reasons why people are denied. It's a business, and you have to be able to keep your head above water..like it or not it is what it is. 


Each policy varies in what's covered, groups are provided SOB's and it's up to you to read your policy and see what it covers and what it doesn't - you have to make an informed decision on the plans you select. The types of benefits you elect to be covered and plans impact your rates, as well as your group size and type of individuals enrolling and their health. I'm actually speaking from a very knowledgable position on this. I think that everyone needs to take responsibility, sure you're going to have your michael moore stories. But that isn't the majority, it is also a shame that it occurs. You also need to consider who you are insured with, there are some pretty shady companies out there.  There are reasons why insurance is high, there are reasons why people are denied.

I do think there needs to be a system in place, however, for the self employed or 'individual policy holders' - i think there should be an option to form a pool of some kind in order to lower the premiums and enable people who might otherwise be denied the ability to get insured. The good thing is plans like HCA's are making insurance more practical and affordable for those who want a safety net, but it's not a perfect system and instead of b*tching about it people need to really find out what they think would work best and push for it. Take it to your congressmen, call the insurance companies up or hospitals, hell call the president or surgeon general.

No, just health care.

well that makes no sense to me. And on the statement of a mad rush to the ER - oh yes there will be. I know that some people get insured and go to the doctor to get every little thing they can taken care of that insurance will cover. if it was free you bet the doctors office is going to fill up. americans are trained to go to the doctor for every little thing, we advertise prescription drugs on tv (which is illegal in many countries) in order to assure the public that everything under the moon has a drug to help. Restless leg syndrome? lol who thinks of these "syndroms"? Well drug companies of course. the public has been conditioned, children are overmedicated with antiobiotics for every little sniffle which has created some nasty mutated germs that spread in schools and daycares and keep kids sick. Seriously, to cover the costs they would hike taxes for an NHS i would think to cover those costs and for all the expensive high tech tests run. But the NHS has it's own drawbacks too

exerpt from wikipedia

The NHS has frequently been the target of criticism over the years. Examples of such criticism includes:

• The length of waiting lists for consultations and surgical procedures, however, the maximum time anyone person will wait is six months.
• The levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria ("superbugs"), such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Clostridium difficile, in hospitals..
• Many issues with the ongoing NHS IT upgrade..
• The decreasing availability of NHS dentistry and the trend towards dentists accepting private patients only..
• The lack of availability of some treatments due to their perceived poor cost-effectiveness..
• The lack of availability of various treatments either due to waiting lists (in the case of medical procedures) or lack of professionals willing to treat NHS patients (in the case of dentistry), leading to people seeking private treatment in cheaper countries overseas (see medical tourism)..
• Hospitals and trusts running a financial deficit and getting into debt..
• Several high-profile scandals have also been attributed to the NHS over the years such as the Alder Hey organs scandal and the Bristol heart scandal.

But instead of sitting around talking, if people want to make a change they need to do it. You see all the hippie movements of the late 60's and i wonder where are those people now? Nobody in america really stands up for anything and makes a change, we are very passive complainers now

Well it makes perfect sense to me.

Who you know and don't know is irrelevant here. I don't know these people you are talking about, so I can't confirm your story which is very convenient for you.


This is the sea monsters in the Atlantic ocean argument. Anytime anyone suggest change, people who are afraid of change come up with all sorts of excuses as to why the change shouldn't happen. At the end of the day, that's all they are. Excuses.


These are more excuses.

There are plenty of benefits of a universal health care system.

Except from wikipedia.

Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.

Coverage should be provided to all citizens regardless of ability to pay.

Health care is increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals.

Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions.

Providing access to medical treatment to those who cannot afford it reduces the severity of epidemics by reducing the number of disease carriers. Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced.

A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.

Patients would be encouraged to seek preventive care enabling problems to be detected and treated earlier.

Medical professionals could concentrate on treating patients rather than on administrative duties.

Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.)

Managed care networks, with their extensive provisions and guidelines, reduce doctor flexibility and limit patient choice. The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care. If managed care programs and their concomitant provider networks are abolished, then doctors would no longer guaranteed patients solely on the basis of their membership in a provider group and regardless of the quality of care they provide. Theoretically, quality of care would increase as true competition for patients is restored.

The profit motive adversley affects the motives of healthcare. Because an applicant with a pre-existing condition (possibly from birth) would require more care, they are often blackballed from being able to obtain health insurance at a reasonable cost. Health insurance companies have greater profits if fewer medical procedures are actually peformed, so agents are pressured to deny necessary and sometimes life-saving procedures to help the bottom line.

I told you how to confirm the story I gave and Susan gave you, go to the local health department and wait around, I see the needless visits that go in there that we are all paying for. It's only convenient for you not to do it as this would nullify your argument and confront you with reality of what NHS would be like and we can't have that, can we?


So why don't you move to a country that has it? I here Canada has a lot of open space.

You know, outside of Roger and Me, I've never been a huge fan of Michael Moore's work.  I mean I'm not an ultra-conservative or anything, I just find his stuff to be a little too negative and exploitative at times.  I've seen lots of other documentaries, and his style of making them just doesn't seem very objective to me.  So, I have no plans on seeing Sicko anytime soon.

As for health care, I can only tell what I know of my own experiences.  I had a bad sore throat a few months ago.  Not usually a big deal, but this one was keeping me up at night and I wasn't sleeping, so I decided to visit a doctor.  I currently work at a grocery store, and it's a union job, so I get some health benefits.  Anyway, I had to wait nearly an hour in the office before the doctor finally came in, just so she could have a look at my throat.  What this means for our system, I'm not quite sure.

At first I thought health care for all might be a good thing, but I have to look at what I see at work as well.  I see so many people coming through my register who are obviously taking far too many liberties with assistance programs.  I swear sometimes, everyone in my town is either on food stamps, WIC checks, or both, and the systems for handling those are very, very confusing.  I can only wonder what kind of a mess government sponsored health care might make. 

It's a very heart wrenching issue for me, and I'm torn on it. While I can see the potential for inefficiency and abuse,  I also can't just stand back, think about people much less fortunate than I,  and just say "Oh, screw those whiners and deadbeats.  We don't need no commie system to help their lazy asses." which is the impression I get from a lot of opponents to universal health care. 

I don't know what to think about it now, really. I think there's always a compromise that can be reached for anything, and I think there may be a way to compromise on this as well.  But right now, it's clear we have a lot more debating to do before we reach that day.

Let's view information gathered from the wikipedia for what it is: Largely unverified product of the general masses, editable by anyone.


But it's NOT new, it's not a change to something unseen. It's a change to a system that is in place elsewhere, and we can see it's shortcomings there. You're just trying to insult people into agreeing with you.

HUNGER IS ONE HELL OF AN MOTIVATOR!

Barring the elderly, handicap and the very young I think all entitlement programs should be thrown out. These people setting around drawing a check for nothing other than pumping out babies and being lazy is a waste of your and my tax dollars. You stop giving away free money, food stamps and the lot, there won't be any jobs Americans don't want to do. They'll work or they'll starve.
And if they comment a crime instead of working, put them to work in a prison factory where they learn a trade and provides goods to pay for their incarceration.
OK I have to go work now to pay my taxes to support the slackers.

And I'm AT work, and since I work for the State, my contributions to this thread are proof of our government's ineffectiveness and inefficiency.

I have stayed out of this, except to read.  Since I'm military, all of my care comes from a military doctor.  Katie and the kids are seen under the military HMO.  Though most of this is at no cost to us, we do not go to the doctor's office for frivolous things.  And, when the kids are sick and need to be seen, we speak to the doctor before any sort of medication is prescribed.  The only time I want the children getting antibiotics is if their body will not be able to handle the issue on their own.  Katie and I apply the same to our own health.

About two months ago, I am pretty sure that my body fought off a Strep infection on its own - my throat hurt enough that drinking something like cranberry juice would bring tears to my eyes.  It took about 2 or 3 weeks for my throat to get back to normal from the "main part of the infection."

Anyway, a national health care system is feasible if people use the resource wisely (and that is the "if" - I don't think we could do it right now either).  Our current system, as it is today, could be more affordable.  I think one of the main problems we have currently is too many lawsuits, meaning it is rather expensive to have a practice.  People will make mistakes and the human body is amazingly complex when you consider everything going on.  Patients are too quick to sue doctor's over honest failures of judgement.  I am not saying that negligence is acceptable, I am saying that if something happens by accident or just making the wrong call when several possibilities exist, a multimillion dollar lawsuit is not the answer.


I have to comment on the above, as that exact response is one of my pet peeves.  Telling someone who does not like the status to move somewhere else is not a useful part of any discussion about nationwide issues.  

There have been some other "Why was this said?" moments in the more recent posts in this thread.  For a debate on such a sensitive topic, this has been going great and very productive.  Please do not get into mudslinging.

You could move to Massachusetts.  Comrade Romney slapped us with Universal Healthcare before leaving office.  Don't want to get health insurance?  Say goodbye to your state tax refund.

Yep, here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts it's "No Health Insurance, No Problem".  God, I hate this state...

NOTE: I have adequate health insurance.  I HATE it when the government tells me I MUST do something or suffer the consequences (unless it's an evacuation to avoid a hurricane or terrorist attack).  That's not what America was built on.  Thomas Jefferson said it better than anyone, "A government that governs least, governs best"

This is true, but unfortunately, it is for good reason. There are too often problems with doctors that don't listen to their patients, or make quick, lazy diagnosis (read about the number of people with colon cancer, or other colon ailments that are told the blood in their stool is from hemorrhoids before the doctor even looks at them, even after the patient says they never had them). From my experience, doctors come in one of three models: 1) The ones that don't listen because they think they are too smart and too educated. These are the ones that make money because little problems turn into big problems in their presence.  2) Those that are mediocre doctors with a quick-draw on the prescription pad. and 3) Honestly good doctors that care. Unfortunately, #1 gets the most professional references, and #2 gets the most patient references.


Wisely, is pretty much the Holy Grail of the situation. I work in a prison, and a person would be shocked about how many people, IV drug users, derelicts, just simply people that have chosen to be antisocial, go to prison and DEMAND that all the crap they've done to themselves in the years since their LAST stay in prison be FIXED. The guy spends 9 months on a crime-spree, meth-bender, then gets arrested and demands to have their teeth fixed, medicine for their hep-c, demands a "no fried food" diet (often disguised as a religious choice). Since it's on someone else's dollar, they're ALL ABOUT their health. Guy spends the last 4 weeks before being arrested sleeping in a ditch, hiding from the police, then demands an orthopedic mattress in jail. Admit it or not, these people start out as part of our society.

But that's different Andrew, We know you're not a mortal being like the rest of us. I'm all for starting a thread with all those cheesy Chuck Norris jokes, the ones that used to be cheesy Vin Diesel jokes, except now they can be cheesy Andrew jokes. I'll start:

Andrew Borntreger though he had Strep once, but he roundhouse kicked it and it was gone. Some people think this is the same way that the Small Pox Virus was erradicated. . .

I've had Navy doctors and Corpsmen put too many stitches, splints, and bandages on various parts of my body over the years to believe I am anything more than completely mortal.  Somewhere on the site, I think in the random thoughts, I even mention being sewn up without a local because they didn't have any on hand and that was for a gash that went to the bone (and through the tissue sheath around it) on the front of my lower leg.

I think you are overgeneralizing just a little bit here.  There is NO DOUBT that there are too many medical law suits AND that the financial awards are too high.  You used the example bloody stools and a quick diagnosis of 'roids.

Doctors make diagnoses based on two things: differentials and statistics.  What this means is that when a patient presents with "bloody stools" and no other infomation, they try to eliminate the statistically most likely causes first.  To rule out causes, the differential part of the diagnostic procedure, the doctor needs information.  This information comes from only two sources: the patient tells him or he runs tests.

Now, I can tell you that the information pipeline from the patient to the doctor is horribly inaccurate.  Doctors REALLY have to filter what the patient says.  It's not that the doctor is not listening, it's that what the doctor needs to hear is NOT what the patient is saying.  If you present with bloody stool and don't mention the glass you ate yesterday, how is the doctor supposed to know that perhaps one of the causes of the bloody stool MIGHT just be evacuation of broken glass?

Another key source of information from the patient is the 'history.' All those forms you fill out about "have you had" and "did your parents have," as well as all those boring questions doctors ask you while perhaps you think they should be probing you for colon cancer are part of the puzzle.  Again, it's statistics.  People with no family history of colon cancer AND no other medical indicators in the history or presentation that cancer is likely are NOT going to find a good doctor who jumps on Colon Cancer as a diagnosis just because colon cancer is/was on the news every day for the last two years.  Medicine is not about  popular culture - it is an empirical science based on observation and fact.

Note: An empirical science based on observation and fact does not mean it is perfect or always "right."

Okay, so let us suppose that you present with bloody stools and give NOTHING in the history to indicate anything OTHER THAN 'roids.  In this scenario, the ONLY way the doctor can eliminate 'roids and/or find another cause is to conduct tests - to make more observations and collect more facts.

This costs money.  Sometimes, a LOT of money.  There is no way any healthcare system, ANY system, could perform ALL tests for ANYTHING for every patient.  No way, period.

The TV show "House, MD" shows this process pretty accurately.  Given the information the patient provides, the doctor has a list of choices that could be the cause where each choice is 'weighted' by how common it is and how well it fits the data.  If the most common choice also fits the description the best, that's as good a starting point as any.  Only when the patient provides additional information (such as by not getting better), is there a scientific reason reject that choice.

There are relatively few medical law suits happening due to true negligence (such as a drunk surgeon), but a lot happening over stuff like the pharmacist issued the incorrect dose because a decimal point was not clear, etc.  The OB specialty has been decimiated in recent years to the point that if the trend continues, there will not BE OB's within a few years.  It's too expensive, and hospitals are not hiring OB subspecialilsts because offering those subspecialty services causes THEIR insurance to go up.  And many of the OB related law suits are based on pure emotion - that if something happened to A BABY while it was being born, someone has to PAY.  These are often human errors and certainly do not come from a spirit of negligence or intent to do harm.

In the end, going to a doctor is a choice we all make.  You don't HAVE to go to the doctor.  If you don't think the diagnostic and subsequent treatment processes work properly, don't got to doctors.  It's as simple as that. 

If you do go to a doctor, I don't think it is fair to put unrealistic expectations or unattainable criteria of perfection on the medical profession.

Sorry so long..my $0.02.

I wasn't "mudslinging" it was an honest question. If one feels that other systems in other countries are far superior to the one in place in the US then why subject yourself to a perceived inferior system? You have the power and freedom to relocate to an area more in tune with your personal social ideologically? Canada would be a fair choice, it's nearby, speaks mostly English, somewhat like America only with far more taxes.

If that's an over-generalization, then please tell me what other catogories there are.


Read a little about some of these cases, or even experience one yourself. I'm not speaking of a doctor that someone is trying to get a diagnosis from over the phone, I'm speaking of people that GO to the clinic, and the doctor doesn't bother to even look at them. Many doctors are very quick to over-simplify, , it's happened to two people in my family that have since died of cancer. My father couldn't even swallow soup and the doctor was still trying to treat him for acid reflux disease, saying it was causing swelling that prevented him from swollowing. 4 MONTHS later, they finally scoped him, and it was esophageal cancer. When the acid reflux meds didn't work after the first few weeks, the doctor SHOULD have moved on and looked for something else. He didn't.


That's just plainly blaming the patient. I've been there, with myself and my family too many times to even remotely begin to believe that. Many doctors DO NOT LISTEN, and I'm not speaking about one visit, but not listening across months of visits.


And it would be nice if it worked like that, but too often it doesn't. My stepfather is one of those victims of 6 months of hemmorhoid treatment and 2 ER visits before the doctor decided to look into it. As I stated earlier, too many doctors conduct themselves as if their own guess is more accurate than the tests, therefore they don't perform them.

Last year I broke a toe and 2 mid-bones in my foot. When I went to the doctor and told him what happened (stepped on a wet bathroom floor, foot slid into the toilet), the doctor said it was a sprained ankle, because the bruise seemed to be more towards the top of my foot, near the ankle. I said, and showed that my ankle was not hurt at all, but he insisted on x-raying it, and made a point to get my toes OUT of the picture. After 30 minutes of argueing, I got another doctor to look at it, and x-ray it, and you know what, , a broken toe and two broken midbones. The first doctor still insisted that here was no way I could have broke those the way I said I did. He tried blaming ME for his incompetence and unwillingnedd to listen.


Nobody asked for that, the point is, that when a doctor's initial diagnosis is incorrect, SOMETHING ELSE has to be checked. Too often it is NOT, or the checks do not jive with what the patient has described.


Partially because patients often have to sign waivers that prevent it before they are operated on.


Think about what you just wrote there. . .More of a cop-out, as if people ASK to get sick, injured.


Nobody except you stated anything unrealistic, nobody mentioned perfect. Doctors don't get sued for being imperfect, so I'm not sure why you threw that in. Obviously you have some stake in defending medical professionals, else you wouldn't slant everything towards every problem being the patients fault.

Where is that happening on a consistent basis?  What doctors would diagnose an illness without examing the patient? SOMEONE has to examine the patient.

But, what you desribe is probably more common in overworked clinics and ER's - that STILL does not apply to ALL doctors.  Clinics and ER's are absolutely full of people that should not be there.  They triage the best the can; that too is an imprecise endeavor.

My wife is on-call every fifth night.  I hear the kinds of calls she gets.  90+% of them are for stuff we don't call the doctor for ("our child has had a runny nose since this morning" or "his throat hurts after yelling all night at the baseball game" or "his fever of 100.1 has lasted 2 hours" etc).  The normal waiting time at the ER here is about 6 hours, because it is easier (and cheaper) for Medicaide patients to go the ER for 'normal' stuff than go to an actual private practice doctor during business hours the next day. 

Even with all this, though, I cannot believe that there is a widespread, systematic problem of people being diagnosed with diseasess without being seen by a physician.


Here is where we differ.  I don't think they are quick to oversimplify so much as it is that they are making the most likely diagnosis given the information they have available.


I'm sorry to hear that.  My father also died after a rather grueling and painful bout with cancer.  And for some time after, I too was very angry at the doctors that treated him.


Agreed.  Perhaps the concept of getting a second opinion rematerialize.  Doctors are human - they DO make mistakes. 


No, it's not.  It's trying to be objective and looking at the parameters of the problem.  The doctor is not a mind reader, nor can he feel the pain the other person feels.  That has to be communicated to him.  The better doctors are partly better because they are better at eliciting the information they need.  But, often, they are termed rude and uncaring, because they don't let THEIR patients ramble on about football scores or that their grandchild graduated magna cum laude.


Again, tests are expensive, so the doctor has to have a REASON to conduct them.  Believe it or not, a big part of the daily life of a doctor is stupid paperwork done to justify to the insurance companies (and Medicaide is the worst in this respect) that a given test is necessary.  In other words, doctors have to justify why they ordered a test.  That's a professional judgement call, and some are better at it than others.

The way it works is this.  Doctor orders test, which costs HIM money to do.  At the time, he's counting on the insurance company to reimburse him.  If the insurance company later fails to pay, guess what?  No reimbursement.  Doctors cannot practice for free - they have staff salaries, supplies and building leases to pay.   So, before ordering a test, he has to know he's justified - not in a medical sense necessarily, but in the eyes of the insurance company.


Okay, good example.  But you also just proved that not ALL doctors are like that.  Our disagreement is on just how many are like that.  Too many, I'll grant you.  But I don't think doctors that don't listen is as rampant as you made it sound in your first post - where you were justifying the rampant, out-of-control  sue-a-doctor society in which we find ourselves.

Did you sue that first doctor?  Do you think you should?

I would argue that "no" you should not.  Because you asked for a second opinion, got it, and got the problem fixed.  Talk to his boss..maybe get him fired?  Sure, why not.  But sue him and the hospital for 1.2 million in pain and suffering?  No way.

And who cares if he believes how it happened or not.  He's not there to evaluate what you did - only fix it.  Once the other guy proved your foot was in fact broken, and discussion on his part about it being impossible just makes him an idiot.  Okay, I can forgive him to a point for missing it before the x-ray, but holding to his point in the face of evidence DOES make him among the worst kind of Dr.


Yes.  And they do this.  Some may not...statistically speaking they are a small number.  Our whole debate started on whether or not the many medical law suits are frivolous.  I contend they are.  It sounded ilke you were justifying suing doctors for their first guess being wrong.  I contend that such suits are frivolous, and the only people getting rich off them are the lawyers.


Nope - not my point, and I think you know that.  You don't ask to get sick or injured.  You ask for treatment.  That's a choice you make.

There is no natural law that states that when you get sick or hurt, someone with highly specialized training has to be available to make you better.


Sure they do.


I'm not saying the problems are the patient's fault.  I am saying that there are frivolous lawsuits, in response to your initial comment that the lawsuits were justified.  Let's stay on point.

To re-cap the basic facts:

Doctors are human, and make human errors.
Practicing medicine is a VERY complex endeavor.
Patients are very poor at communicating the necessary information to doctors.
Doctors make diagnoses which often are simply a best guess given the information at hand.
When new information comes to light, good doctors modify their diagnosis accordingly.
The doctor cannot guarantee the success of any treatment.

Given these basic facts, you still CHOOSE to go to a doctor when you need help.  To blame the doctor by suing him is completely unreasonable.

You mentioned some specific anecdotal evidence of doctors exercising poor judgement in the diagnostic process.  They were wrong. (Happy?  I agree with you on that point).  But anecdotal evidence does NOT equate with statistics or trends. 

As for having a stake in 'defending doctors,' I'm not really doing that.  But we all have to pay higher costs because of frivolous lawsuits and the higher insurance premiums because of them.

What I am saying is that the real problem is lawyers and insurance companies (which amounts to the same thing), not the doctors.  Go ahead, find the one doctor in 6,000 that should be sued and sue him.  The problem now is that the other 5,999,  EVERY doctor, ALL OF THEM, have to pay crushing malpractice premiums just to practice medicine.

These problems are systemic, however.  If we returned to a system of "user pays" and get rid of health insurance for all but catastrophic injury/illness, I happen to believe a lot of these problems would go away.

ER's and clinics are full of people who don't really need immediate care - in fact particularly the ER room where on a few occasions including one where my mother was bleeding profusely from the head from being struck hard by an attic ladder - they were seeing people before her who just had the sniffles. People with no insurance getting a free ride, the irony is that you can get health care here if you are an illegal immigrant. I even went to a clinic and i hardly EVER go to the doctor unless i'm fall down dying sick. And I was about to pass out - after filling out the paperwork in an almost empty office th lady asked for my cell # so she could call me when they were ready. In...3 hours they might have an opening. This is  WALK-IN clinic, which meant if they were empty they probably had several people on the waiting list. I've never been to a walk-in clinic where i waited more than a half hour.

Give everyone free health care and people will feel like if they're being taxed for it they're going to take advantage of it and go for every little checkup and thing they can. You bet, the mentality is already there that americans have to get treated for everything. Got a hiccup? You might have Restless Hiccup Syndrome and need prescription medicine - see your doctor. Your kid have a runny nose? Instead of letting them build immunities, take them to the doctor to get fed antibiotics and weaken their immune system so they'll be nice and sick for their next visit. And you gotta love the doctors who want to run a full MRI for a pinky sprain.  Is your child moody or doesn't listen to you? Well take them to the doctor for numerous tests and get him on ritilin because they probably have ADD or Difficult Child Syndrome. Can't sleep? You need Ambien! And will we give you results on the phone? No, you have to actually come into the office so you can pay another office visit fee.

Also the amount of malpractice lawsuits directly impact health care costs. Doctors are subject to human error, but the good old american way is to sue. While some are valid there are way too many, so one has to question the validity, the motive and also the doctor/hospital. i know that doctors and nurses are overworked, that to me is a crazy mix trying to get quality care if the hospitals make them do ridiculous shifts.

Also to "Him" - i don't provide excuses, merely examples and scenarios. I'm not easily led to believe our system is perfect, but before turning over to a new system i would have to be convinced that this system would be effective in our country.

You get props for that ... KARMA!

Doctor over medicate people then give them medication to counter act symptom from another med and yet another to counter act those. It's a endless vicious circle of drugs. I'm not a big fan of curtailing freedom of speech, but I'd support putting an end to drug advertisements on TV. I've never seen so many disorders, dysfunctions, and syndromes ... no wonder health care in this country so expensive, the medical profession comes up with a new ailment nearly everyday.   

big pharma actually comes up with made up "syndromes" in order to target an audience of people to use their drug as treatment. Then they run to their doctors with lingo like "RLD" and the doctor who welcomes as many office visits as possible. They actually sit arond in a room shooting ideas of catchy syndromes with good anagrams. Big Pharma is turning us all into patients

this is actually a really funny article - god knows we need a laugh
http://www.newstarget.com/z011506.html (http://www.newstarget.com/z011506.html)

No doubt.

I agree that drug advertisements on TV are not a good idea.

they should make it illegal here - i don't see any difference between them and big tobacco to tell the truth. except that somehow we think smoking is bad is bad for you and drugs are good for you

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_o2YtAUA4o

The ones that think they know it from the start, like the one that diagnosed my Stepfather's bleeding colon as 'roids. . .FOR MONTHS


I would agree, if it weren't for the patient info that is often ignored. . Like I said, when you tell a doctor you've never had 'roids, and the guy still, without anything more than a casual glance says the the large quantity of blood being expelled from your anus is from just that, You CAN'T blame that on the patient like you're trying to do.


Nice Try, , , It's NOT a matter of being mad just because my father died, it's the fact that the doctor didn't take the situation seriously, when we virtually everybody KNEW there was something worse.


Re-Read the part that quiote relates to. . .Jees, you're just trying your hardest to not see it. Nobody said a doctor needed to be a mind reader. Enough with the strawman arguement. That whole "football score" drivel is just you trying to blame the patient. Give it up, it's not working.
 

Months of a treatment not working isn't reason enough? What a joke. .


One more time: I NEVER SAID ALL DOCTORS WERE LIKE THAT, I NEVERSAID ALL DOCTORS WERE BAD. STOP WITH THE STRAW-MAN ARGUEMENTS. IT'S INMATURE.


When did I say that? WHERE. . .Time to stop being so defensive and be honest. .



No, but if they won't listen when a guy explains how his foot hurts, what are they going to do when something isn't as obvious?

This is pointless, there are people here that can't address the simple, direct points I'm trying to make, and I hope to god they're not doctors themselves, but i fear they are. 

My only question to you, ghouk:

When you and everybody else KNEW that you were getting "bad" medical care from a particular doctor, then WHY did you not go to a different doctor?

You keep saying I am blaming the patient.  No, I am not.  I am not "blaming" anybody.  But the patient has a finite set of choices:

(1) Keep going to the same doctor, even though he was unhappy with the service he was being given.

(2) Change doctors; find one who will "listen" as you put it.

(3) Don't go to a doctor at all.

It's really that simple.  That's reality.

I'm truly sorry that you are so embittered with the US medical profession.  But I find it a little more than interesting that someone who is so 'down' on the profession went to a hospital, staffed by doctors, when he broke his foot.  And though it took two tries, you found a doctor that gave you a good diagnosis and proper treatment.

Do you not see the sort of moral dilema you paint yourself into with this argument?

For each anecdotal story that you tell of how a doctor did not listen, someone else could probably tell 40 of above excellent care they have received.  Neither is scientific data that speaks of trends to the current state of the system.

Finally, no, I am not a medical doctor.  But I know a few.  The ones I know work 80-90 hour weeks, including weekends and holidays, and literally give their lives to helping others.  I know some truly crappy doctors, too.  But at least in my circle of acquaintance, which includes probably about 100-200 medical doctors from all over the country, the good ones so far exceed the bad - in fact, I can only think of one that it truly frightens me the thought of her having an MD.

If a doctor/nurse has to work 80-90 hours a week and is responsible for making critical decisions from performing surgery to just adding the right dosage of medicine in a drip or reading a chart to determine if a person has an allergy - how is this a good thing? I've heard many who work in the medical profession complain that this is a big factor in why mistakes are made. My uncle is a pediatric nurse and often walks around like a zombie because of his shifts

I realize the hospital works on a budget but they may have to reduce the salaries in order to provide additional staff. I think even airline pilots cannot fly after a certain amount of hours. Nobody wants a sleepy pilot in charge of their life

Indeed.  And everybody knows it.  In fact, I believe it was 2004 that new Federal Law went into effect that put a maximum hr/wk on residents: 80 hours.  Plus, for the first time, there is now a max number of hours a resident can work in one shift: 30 hrs.  So, in that regard, it's better than it was before (no max's).

This was offered only to exemplify the altruism of these folks.  Working 80 hrs/wk, you literally have no life outside of work and sleep.  And the folks that do this, choose to do it.  And they do it for years at a time.

Even after residency and entering into the cushy world of private practice, it's not uncommon for a working Dr. to still work 60 hrs per week.  The stereotype of Dr's just sitting around or playing golf every afternoon is not reality - ESPECIALLY in rural areas.

For example, I know on pediatrician who after residency started his own practice in a small, rural town.  If you think about this for a moment, you realize it means he is ALWAYS on-call.  No trips out of town, unless he pays someone out of his pocket to work in his place, no "partying" EVER.  He has to 'be there' for his patients 24-7-365.


(1) Well, it's also a question of availability. There are more pilots than there are piloting jobs.  It's a little different in the medical field.  Pretty much everyone who graduates med school gets a job as a resident.  There just are not enough people graduating to staff the positions so they get to work easy 8 hr shifts 5 days a week.  Whe the new Federal Law went into effect, residency programs did have to increase their  program sizes.

(2) Residency is a continuation of on-the-job training.  The idea is that a after X years, a resident should have seen enough of the oddball stuff that they are truly prepared for "anything" in their specialty later.  That means they have to work enough to see enough cases that the odds are high that they will see "everything."  This means a certain total number of hours.

(3) If the program is three years, you then divide the total number of hours it takes for proper training by 153 weeks to get the hours / week (allowing for 1 week per year off).  This is why some residencies are longer than others. 

Okay, you say, just add a year to the program and lower the hours/week.  See (1) above.  Before a person even STARTS residency, they have spent 8-10 years in school.  The residencies currently run 3 - 6 years.  So, take your average high school kid that wants to be a doctor.  At 18, he's looking at being 29 AT LEAST before he even is a doctor able to be fully board certified and practice on his own.  If he wants to be a surgeon, he'll be more like 34-35 for he is ready for his first "job."  If you start adding years to existing programs that have traditionally been 3 years, just that many more people are going to say "forget this..."

Now, let's take a brief look at that 11 or so years of preparation.

Step 1 is getting an undergraduate degree.  To get into medical school, you have to pass the MCAT exam, which pretty much requires you take (and pass, and LEARN) biochemistry and physics.  You don't take biochemistry without organic chemistry.  I've taught organic chemistry and have seen the dreams of many an aspiring young doctor crushed.  You don't take organic without general chem, and ditto that last sentence.  The undergraduate program for a person on the med school track is usually not one with a lot partying and ball games - it's a lot of science classes with labs.

Step 2 is taking the MCAT...which is usually done while an undergrad student.  At least the first attempt is.  Sometimes, to be competitive and get into med school, students will take the MCAT more than once.  It's only offered at certain times per year; one cannot just take it whenever the spirit moves one, AND it costs money to take it.

Step 3 - Med school.  Four years.  The first two years are classroom work and labs.  Classes are 8-5 five days per week, except those afternoons that have 3 hour labs.  To keep up in Gross Anatomy, students typically go into the lab after dinner and may stay until midnight or so.

The second two years are clinical rotations - working shifts at the hospital.

Step 4 is residency.  By this time, a person may be in their mid to late twenties, and they are still considered a "student."  And thus the hard part begins.  As stated above, pretty much everyone graduating from med school gets a position as a resident.  Some don't, but that's actually fairly rare.  In a class of 60-80 med students, there may be one or two that have to 'scramble' for a position - look for an unfilled position somewhere.

Residence is the hardest part of the process, both physically, emotionally and spiritually.  It was not too long ago that the suicide rate during the internship year was high enough that nearly every program had at least one per year (or at least that's what i have read).  Divorce rates were astronomical.

Even now, with the improved laws and more "friendly" programs, it's a tough job.  Many programs are 3 years, and it's a battle of will to survive just that.

My point is the system is a giant equilibrium.  Le Chatlier's Principle states that you don't monkey with an equilibrium without causing a change to reestablish equilibrium.  So, you cannot add a year at the end of the process without changing something.  That something might just be a reduced number of available residents and thus, no more people to work the shifts.  Back to square one, long work hours for those that ARE there, plus, you've added a year to their committment.

Maybe it is not ideal.  The alternative is to force people to become doctors and make sure the costs are covered.  The Soviet Union tried it this way; it did not work out too well.

Ya know, I think that's true, and it makes me sad.  I have heard stories of that sort of person occasionally being a problem in the UK, but I certainly think it would be far worse in the US.  The amount of over-medicalized and drug using paranoid people around the places I've lived in America continues to astound me.  Hypochondriacs are good for business, after all.  Good point.

Maybe we should go for a German system of non-profits (which basically results in you having to pay for insurance, it just costs less).  It's such an interesting idea, I think, and might be more workable in America.  I dunno, I don't know a huge amount about it either.




BTW, on a very small sidenote, is this new Michael Moore film, "Sicko" I think, worth seeing?   :tongueout:

The whole notion of there being a mad rush to the doctors office due to universal Health care is just nonsense. If there are people who go to the doctors office for minor things it's because that's what they are told to do by people in the medical profession.

It's not nonsense, we're a nation conditioned to seem medical attention for everything and overmedicate. I have seen people who have gotten extremely cheap insurance milk everything they could out of it because of the dirt cheap cost, they wanted to get every penny's worth and more. In fact I know someone who was trying to figure out if she could fake a hernia because if you had one during elective surgery she was considering for weight issues then it would be covered, free.

I've seen people wrap an enormous line around Kohl's just to be the first in line to receive a crappy radio worth less than $10....just because it's "free". It's just a reality check, i really don't want to be on any 6 month waiting list.

Yep you start giving away health care employers will have to start re-evaluating their sick leave policy because everything some one doesn't want to go to work they'll go to the Doctor instead (at least a percentage of the population will) and why not, it's so-called free right. In this nation of hypochondriac were 90% of the population is medicated they'll be a line around the block for nonsense visits, meanwhile people that really need attention right now, set and wait. Hell every other commercial on the TV is "See your Doctor" from dry eyes, restless legs, acid reflux, limp tallywhacker and who knows what else, never fear there's a pill for you, just ask your Doctor about it.
Even if you did away with the commercials, did away with the big money, did away with the kick backs, it's to late. you already have a conditioned society to believe they have something a pill can fix.     

It's true - when I was a kid we hardly EVER went to the doctor. I think the only times i remember going were to get my vaccinations when we travelled overseas and once i dropped a juice jar on my toe. But my mom swears my brother had meningitis now that she looks back, because back then you just didn't go to the doctor unless you broke something or were bleeding profusely. People doctored themself at home, they rode out the flu bug, they only went when it was necessary. My entire family came down with the Hong Kong Flu and nobody saw a doctor. Now, parents take their kids to the doctor more times a year than mcdonalds so they can medicate their colds and sniffles. You can get your moles lasered off, seems like everytime you turn around there's another annual test you're supposed to get. We drug ourselves up on cold medication or allergy season, then we take more drugs to counter the drugs. Then we feel like crap and go back to the doctor.  I know someone determined to take her child to every doctor until somebody told her something was wrong with her because she was 4 and throwing tantrums. She wanted someone to tell her that it wasn't her, it was the child and they need medication. At some point in the past 30 years there was a definate shift in mentality when it comes to doctors. Maybe then we were scared of them, it meant something was really wrong.

It's amazing to me that I'm surrounded within a 5 mile radius by 3 hospitals. And there are TONS of these little medical clinics and emergency care for children clinics and the like popping up all around me. There's one strip that looks like a shopping district around the corner but it's nothing but specialized care for spines, specialized care for kids, dermatology and cosmetic surgery clinics, private practitioners, dentists who specialize in zoom whitening and more. Why not, we are such regular patients it's become a really profitable place to be for some doctors.

You guys are going to come up with every lame excuse in the book not to have universal healthcare.  I've only been to the doctor twice in the past 10 years, and my employer pays for my health insurance.

Perhaps we should have a private police force too. You have to pay a premium everymonth so that if you need a police officer one will come. Oh but before the police officer will do anything you have to pay a co-pay. Then you have to pay for the gas the police officer used to drive to where ever you were. If the officer fires his gun you have to pay for his bullets. If you live in a high crime area, you have denied police insurance because it just wouldn't be profitable.

Or perhaps a private fire department. You have to pay a premium every month so that if your house is on fire, the fire department will come. Oh but before the firemen lift one hose, you have to pay a co-pay. Then you have to pay for the fuel the fire truck uses, you have to pay for the water the firemen use to put out the fire. If your house contains flamible materials, then you can't get fireman insurance, because it just wouldn't be profitable.

Guess what ... if you live in the county and have a volunteer Fire Department you do a pay a service premium and if you don't, they'll still come and stick you with a $1000-$10,000 and up service fee for a call.

But alas you're try to derail the topic with outlandish proposals.

You can not project what you would do and what you have done on the entire population, I haven't been to the Doctor but once in the last 20 years and that was an employment physical. But my eyes are open enough to see what many people actually do go at the least little sniffle, I seen a lot of people that will go to the Doctor at a drop of a hat for next to nothing. You really should go spend a day at the health department, because that is pretty much what you'll get with UHC.   

^I'm not spending a day at the health department! I don't need to spend a day at the health department. If you can't make your point on the board then you must not have much of one.

You talk about knowing people who go to the doctor for just  a sniffle, well I know someone who had a fever of over a 100 accompanied by a loss of appetite, who lived with it for 3 weeks before finally seeing doctor (who consequently discovered he had an infection in his liver). And he had free healthcare. The bottom line is, most people do not want to go to the doctor, free or not free.

Yes choose to remain in the dark, you might not like what you see.

And for every person that doesn't go for something serious there are others that do go for something minor. The REAL bottom line is it's not free, it will not ever be free, news flash nothing in life is FREE. And for those that think it's FREE they will abuse it.

That's your friend, that's not the general public. We spend more money on health care than we do food, more than any other country. We go to the doctor a lot.

The people i know with cheap insurance go to the doctor on average more frequently than those who pay higher prices. Those who don't have insurance even less. And if you have children your frequency of doctor trips will increase, which is also a growing problem among daycares and these drug resistant strains of viruses that float around because of the increased use of antibiotics because of overparanoid parents.

Well, your thread has received one heck of a reception!  Karma for you!  I avoided this thread, though I've been lurking, because it is so politically charged.  I have not yet seen SICKO, but I'd like to!  I can't look at any programming regarding September 11, 2001, so I have not looked at FARENHEIT 911 or the myriad programs about that terrible day.  But I have seen Michael Moore's first film the awesome ROGER & ME and also BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, which was a kind of sequel to that first Moore film.  They were both stunning. 

I wasn't suggesting, personally, that people's habits would really change that much.  I just know a lot of people who already abuse the insurance they have.  With wider coverage everyone would pay for, I could see it getting worse.  I don't really think there'd be a huge rush that would cripple the entire system though.

Either way, I do think we need a new health care system.  Preferably one without a profit motive.

Just to throw this out there, what exactly is WRONG with making a profit?  Throughout history, doctors have received payment for their services, just like any other 'tradesman.'  Maybe the issue is WHO is making the profit?

I find it very interesting that the same bunch of politicians that rammed HMO's down our throats 20-30 years ago are now saying they don't work and they need to fix the system.  (Yes, I'm looking at YOU, Ted Kennedy).  I remember starting a new job and being faced with a choice between HMO and 'traditional' catastrophic medical coverage, I was wondering who on earth would want this HMO thing.  It just seemed like a bad idea to me at the time.

I contend that the problem is NOT as simple as profit motive.  I think it is FAR, FAR more complicated than that.  But there are people in power, on all sides of the issue, that have a personal stake in pushing the system they want.  It sounds feely-good to want everyone to have "free" health care (nothing is free, by the way), but that just shifts the burdens of providing that service to another segment of society.

Hell there's no problem with a doctor making a profit. It's just that a simple broken leg could run upward of $1000 when you figure in ambulance, using emergency room and other things. There's no way it should cost a man that much money. So they could make a profit just not that much.

If Americans would quit looking for shortcuts and actually DO THE WORK of taking care of themselves, a lot of the cost of healthcare would just go away.

If people would eat less, move more, never, ever ever ever smoke, drink in moderation, and get enough sleep, much of what I do would be just gone.  Poof!  Many fewer diabetics, fewer persons with coronary artery disease, less hypertension, less hyperlipidemia, and fewer whiny-ass questions about how to lose weight. 

Fewer cases of COPD and of stroke.  Fewer cases of cancer.  Fewer colds, even, if  the smokers would really get their acts together and quit. 

Less acid reflux (fewer obese people).   Less insomnia (more exercise, better sleep).  Fewer morbidy obese people = fewer cases of back pain, and believe me, I could go the rest of my life and not see one more person for back pain, and that'd barely be the start of long enough.

So I would say this:  rather than following the time-honored American tradition of "if it doesn't work, throw more money at it," how about instead some personal accountability?  You'd be amazed at how far personal accountability and personal investment (the non-monetary kind) can carry people who even have incurable diseases... much less the tremendously preventable problems that, by and large, comprise the majority of what we're dealing with now.

Karma on that Zapranoth. If what people are going through (putting themselves through) these days happened 1000 years ago or more, we would call it "natural selection".

I've not seen any "excuses" nor anything I would consider "Lame". One could reply with "You are going to be as insulting as you can in order to push your agenda". It works both ways. .


Very convenient, and NOT the established norm, therefore irrelevant.

Somehow you imply that police, firemen, and the resources are altogether free, and that they would only cost people anything if privatized. Those comparisons are fairly irrelevant, but, the same as privatised health care, privatized Fire and Police service would motivate people to take whatever precautions they could to prevent the use of those services. The difference, which is the part you convienently ignored, is the Fire and Police service also service public areas, which would go untouched if they were privatized. That was a classic straw-man arguement you made.


And you know this how? You (through your own admission), obviously haven't been in a doctor's office or emergency room much. Hang around one for an hour or so and see what people show up for. . . My doctor told me that over 80% of the time someone comes in saying they broke some bone, the x-rays showed no fracture. He spoke of how people don't come in for follow-up appointments a week later, because the supposed "broken-bone" injury was all but forgotten about within that week.

All of you who think universal healthcare is unessessary have a hard lesson coming.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113385/site/newsweek/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113385/site/newsweek/)



 :bouncegiggle:

Are you digging this up again ...

Please from PMSNBC ... yeah no agenda there.

Micheal Moore loves the attention, he's a narcissistic weeble that won't fall down. He wants the anti Moore site (Moorewatch) there up and running, it's great PR; it's the old adage bad press is better no press. If this was an anonymous donation then how do we know about it? People make anonymous gifts all the time and it never LEAKS out, this is nothing more than a calculated move by Moore to get free PR for his film. Isn't it odd that this info came to light at the same time his little movie hit the theaters, no not that odd at all since it was likely planned that way.

All the free press easily justifies the $12K so called "anonymous donation." Man don't be so gullible.

Him: Lol, ,, THAT really convinced me. . . :question:

Kudos on dodging all the real points though.

I didn't bring this thread back up. Someone else did.

and the point is the irony. A guy sets up an anti-Michael Moore site, and then has to shut it down to pay his wife's overwelming medical bills. Medical bills that he wouldn't have if the United States had universal healthcare.

And you are the one who is gullible. Universal healthcare would put HMO's and other health insurance companies out of buisness. These companies make large donations to politicians in exchange for giving the American people alot of bullsh!t reasons why Universal Healthcare shouldn't happen. And you buy it. Hook, line and sinker.

Yea, it'd be paid by that MAGIC MONEY, the stuff that comes out of thin air, so NOBODY would have to pay ANYTHING.


Apparently you believe gullible means "To see a system fail elsewhere for others, and see no reason it would be sucessful for ourselves."

Gullible is when someone finds out someone like MM makes an "anonymous donation" that miraculesly becomes public, and still believes there was no alterior motive.
Gullible is when a person thinks the U.S. Government can do something more efficiently and effectively than private businesses.
Gullible is when a person believes they know who is seeking medical attention, and for what and why, after only being to the doctor twice in the last decade.
Gullible is believing that paying for something through taxes would be LESS costly than paying for it outright.
Gullible is believing providing free healthcare would NOT bring more patients to the doctors, and that it would NOT be for more frivolous reasons.
Gullible is believing that a Government entity would be better at keeping the healthcare industry honest an in check than a private person with a vested intrest.

Socialism doesn't work very well. . .

Here's another thought . . . .

one of the worst things about ALL entitilement programs is that once created, they are eternal.  You cannot ever reduce or discontinue them without being branded as a heartless fascist who wants to kill old people and children.

Suppose we enacted socialized medicine and found that it was not to our taste - that the quality of care really did diminish, and the waiting periods lengthened, and our medical profession was taken over by a bunch of foreigners of dubious motivations, whom we could not even understand?  In other words, if all the negative predictions came true?

We couldn't get rid of it.  The minute anyone tried, the media would blanket us with interviews with passionate liberal activists screaming about how anyone who wanted to take away our system of FREE health care just wants the sick and elderly to die, doesn't care about minorities, the environment, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.  In other words, we would be stuck with this thing forever.

Forgive my skepticism, but I am just not that eager to embrace a system that has so many unanswered questions hanging over it.  True love is fleeting, goverment programs are forever!

That's very true, and another place where America's "if it doesn't work, throw more money at it" reputation comes from. It's nearly impossible to go backwards, , so, , which way do we go?

 

I was watching "Ice Road Truckers" the other night and it's in Canada, eh. Well long story short one of the Trucker had to go to the hospital for an abdominal injury. And Moore sites Canada as one of the magical universal health care systems where it free for every Tom, Dick and caribou. This Canadian trucker in Canada got a bill for C$21,000.00 which just about wiped out his earning thus far, so my question is if universal health care is that great, why did this guy get a $21K bill in a tax paid so called free system?

Again you are jumping out of the frying pan into the fire to trade private health care to a government ran system.

You need to turn off that Rush Limbaugh and start getting yourself some real facts and use your own brain.

Universal Healthcare works. It's working right now in several other Nations including, the UK, France, Canada and Japan. All 4 of those nations have higher life expectancies than the United States, and they don't have anywhere near the amount of problems with their system as we have with ours.

Taxes are cheaper because everyones money is placed into the pot. That includes the extremely wealthy who would end up paying the lion's share thus reducing the cost for everyone else. There would be more money availiable to use. The only money a private insurance company has available are the premiums from its customers. Because the super rich don't need health insurance, and because everyone's premium is the same regardless of what they make, their is limited money to use. Thus insurance companies have to think of excuses to reject claims. Either that or raise everyones premiums to a level that is already greater than the taxes they would pay under a Universal Healthcare system.

The amount of money middle class parents pay in taxes for public schools is far less than what they would pay to send their kids to private schools.

And the only vested interest a CEO has is putting more money into his or her pocket. Remember Enron?

I'll take your need to turn to insult as evidence you're irretrievably wrong.

I have done research, Thank you for your list of half-truths. You're idea that the rich would pay more for the same service is laughable at best, especially since the politicians that make those decisions fall into that category. You're comparison between public school and private school proves that you expect a system with lower standards.
Your straw-man arguement about CEO is as transparent as it gets, I never mentioned CEO performing this task. "Private person" is the key word you ignored.

If you're not going to be honest, I have no further stake in educating you. Goodbye.

^In otherwords, your argument is too weak to continue.

And where do they get a better education? Public or Private?

Now apply that to health care.

I'd say that depends on the district.  I know some of the private schools around where I grew up had and still have inferior education to the public in that area.  The Catholic schools in my area, for instance, while they gave out a lot more homework, the actual quality of education was worse (well, from my point of view of what they were learning, it's pretty subjective). 

Were some of the most expensive, extremely elite private schools better?  Well, they had a larger variety of classes, and better teacher-to-student ratios than most public high schools (though not my second public high school, which averaged 10 students per teacher), so I guess so, but it wasn't an enormous difference.

However, I lived outside Detroit, in a fairly affluent suburb, and inside of Detroit the public schools AND private schools were mostly awful.  I'd say the lesson there is the financially well off are just giving themselves better education regardless of the type of system they do it in.

In any case, there's an important distinction between the way each system is paid, since public schools are paid largely by local property taxes (meaning the rich areas get the best funding), and a national health care system would be paid into by everyone and output to everyone.


You really don't think the US government can do ANYTHING better than private business?  In other words, you think the government shouldn't, say, insure banks or control transportation systems and the military anymore since private business could do a better job of it?


It's not inherently less, it just has the possibility to be less - as it is in other countries.  You can't deny they pay far less for health care per person than America does.

If that is the case, I feel you will find that more the extreme exception, than the rule. I find it difficult to believe a tuition based private school would survive in the educational marketplace if taxed funded educational institution was superior.

Probably my area was exceptional, I will admit..  I know the public schools were ranked very high in the state at least.  People sent their kids to private schools because they wanted stricter discipline, dress codes/uniforms, sex separation, and/or religious instruction involved. 

Which it COULD be argued, from their perspective at least, constitutes "better" education.

Not all public schools are completely broken, but the public school SYSTEM most certainly is.  I heard the other day that H. Clinton is now claiming that if elected, she will institute government academies - training for future government workers, and has put forth the idea that private day care should be federalized.

Federal control of public education is arguably the single biggest hurdle to effective public education.  With federal funding comes federal control, and therein lies the crux of the WHY the above mentioned parents chose private school.  In some areas, dress codes or sex separation may not be 'favored,' but in others, that may be important.  With federal control, there is no community level choice.

I like to make the strip-club analogy.  If one community does not want a strip club in their neighborhood, I personally think it is perfectly reasonable for that community to ban them.  But, they should not have the power to ban them outright if other (nearby) communities want them.  Likewise, the communities that want them should not be able to force them on the neighborhoods that don't want them.

To me, public schools are like that.  If we all agree that public education is important to have, I believe each community (school district) should govern itself - to a greater extent than is done now.  Federal money should not be tied to accepting ideology agreeable to communities thousands of miles away if those ideologies contrast with the local community (within the framework of common sense caveats).  For example, in my area, church is a big deal - why should the schools not be part of that instead of adopting the views of a community on the opposite side of the country?

But then again, we are homeschooling in one of the best homeschooling states in the nation.  In fact, we have turned down job opportunities in states that have what we call 'weak" homeschooling laws.  And yes, we still pay taxes to finance the local school district AND pay for our children's education directly.  That's the choice we've made to have the level of control over that education we want.

No, I don't. The Government does all the things nobody else WANTS to do, and does them sometimes for LESS than it would cost a private firm, but not BETTER. They do have the advantage of having a network of resources, which is nessisary when it comes to large, long-term projects like the military or our transportation infrastructure. As for the military, the government creates it's own need for a military to some degree, so who knows how well that would work once you took all that out.


Yes I can, because 1. I don't have reliable numbers of how much of their taxes go to health care, and 2. Their treatment and system is different, so it's an apples and oranges situation.

No, it's impossible to win an arguement against someone as dishonest as you. .

Gents, this debate has gone on for a long time and not turned into a flamewar, which is quite impressive.  Please keep the posts out of the realm of personal insults.