Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 20, 2014, 05:37:09 AM
539622 Posts in 40876 Topics by 5157 Members
Latest Member: AttackDonut
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Good Movies  |  SiCKO « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
Author Topic: SiCKO  (Read 18678 times)
DodgingGrunge
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 67
Posts: 434


Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.


WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 17, 2007, 09:30:22 AM »

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.
Logged

++josh;
Him
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 1
Posts: 258


« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2007, 09:38:37 AM »

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.

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

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.
Logged
Him
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 1
Posts: 258


« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2007, 09:46:22 AM »

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.


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.
Logged
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 3723


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2007, 10:23:29 AM »

Quote
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.

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?

Quote
All the government is doing is managing the money. The Hospitals, and clinics would and could still be private.

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. 
« Last Edit: July 17, 2007, 10:25:16 AM by CheezeFlixz » Logged

Him
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 1
Posts: 258


« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2007, 10:54:00 AM »

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.
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.

What about people that never get sick? Do they get a health credit?   
No.


The government screws up everything they get they hands on regardless of party. Do you really with to but your health in their hands?
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.

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?
That's a major exageration.



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. 

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.
Logged
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 3723


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 17, 2007, 01:30:12 PM »

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
That's a major exageration.

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.

Quote
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.

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.
Logged

Him
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 1
Posts: 258


« Reply #21 on: July 17, 2007, 02:05:00 PM »

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.
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.

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.
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.

And you base that on fact or opinion?
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?
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 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.

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.
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.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2007, 02:08:36 PM by Him » Logged
ghouck
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 583
Posts: 3750


Afro-Mullets RULE!


WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 17, 2007, 02:31:45 PM »

Quote
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.


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.

Quote
The elected politicians have the power to fire anyone the public is not satisfied with.

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.

Logged

Raw bacon is GREAT! It's like regular bacon, only faster, and it doesn't burn the roof of your mouth!

Happiness is green text in the "Stuff To Watch For" section.

James James: The man so nice, they named him twice.

"Aw man, this thong is chafing my balls" -Lloyd Kaufman in Poultrygeist.

"There's always time for lubricant" -Orlando Jones in Evolution
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 3723


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 17, 2007, 02:32:29 PM »

Quote
The money you would pay in Taxes would be less than premiums,

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

Quote
The elected politicians have the power to fire anyone the public is not satisfied with.

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

Quote
Should be do away with the military as well to save taxes?

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.

Quote
And you don't know what I have and haven't dealt with, so stop trying to change the subject.

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. 

Quote
I already explained how the government would be more effecient than a private company in this matter.

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


Quote
The public needs healthcare.

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
Logged

DodgingGrunge
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 67
Posts: 434


Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.


WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 17, 2007, 02:34:31 PM »

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

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.


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.

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.

What's next? Should be do away with the military as well to save taxes?

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.
Logged

++josh;
Him
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 1
Posts: 258


« Reply #25 on: July 17, 2007, 03:02:35 PM »

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.

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.



And the power to KEEP anyone the public is not satisfied with, or the power to FIRE someone the public IS satisfied with. .
no they don't because they run the risk of being voted out of office.


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.
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'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.
I wasn't aware that one needed to be a rocket scientist to put letters into a mail box.
Logged
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 3723


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 17, 2007, 03:29:52 PM »

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

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

Quote
Quote from: ghouck
government entity, Slow, Overpaid, underqualified workers,
This is alot of nonsense prepetuated by the insurance companies.

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

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

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.
Logged

Him
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 1
Posts: 258


« Reply #27 on: July 17, 2007, 03:36:43 PM »

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


Nationalized health care would hamstring this economy with way more taxes than we're paying now.
Yes we would pay more taxes, but we wouldn't be paying premiums, co-pays and outrageous prescription drug cost

The public needs healthcare.
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. 
People can provide their own food. Which is what people did before supermarkets came into being. People can't perform surgery on themselves.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2007, 04:03:03 PM by Him » Logged
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 1427
Posts: 8396


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #28 on: July 17, 2007, 04:01:46 PM »

[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.


Logged

"Carpe diem!" - Seize the day!  "Carpe per diem!" - Seize the daily living allowance! "Carpe carp!" - Seize the fish!
"Carpe Ngo Diem!" - Seize the South Vietnamese Dictator!
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 3723


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 17, 2007, 04:15:30 PM »

Quote
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.

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.

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

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. 

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

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.

Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Good Movies  |  SiCKO « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: osˇmoˇsis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is Š 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.