Sicko

[Gafgarionn]

I'm jumping in!!!

CNN posted a really good review of the movie that seems to straddle the fence of praising Sicko vs. bashing Moore for selective information presentation (which he does in abundance). it's at

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/28/si ... html?imw=Y

I hate to see a couple things in this thread, especially the prevailing notion that one should leave the US strictly due to health care concerns. We may not have an excellent system, but our country is pretty poor in making good health care decisions on an individual basis, which affects the "rankings" that people seem to base much of their opinion on. The systems Moore cites in other countries are not the idyllic state-run entities that he would have you believe, and cover the only the basics. Imagine the debate we would be having if congressmen and doctors put together a national health care plan? What treatments will be covered for obesity/dementia - which are hazy treatment areas as is? Certainly the middle ground on treatment for many conditions will be far from ideal, and people would no doubt complain just as vehemently as they are now for services not recieved that they consider "basic".

Also, this debate really is a bit spoiled. A hundered years ago many of the "basic" treatments we take for granted did not exist, and many of us would be dead or in constant pain/suffering. Your pacemaker, MRI, surgery, even antibiotics are NOT basic human rights. They came at the GREAT expense of taxpayers (some) and private companies/hospitals/universities (most) who MUST see a profit on a few drugs/procedures to encourage development of MANY more. American biotech and academic medical research institutions are the envy of the world. To be sure there are problems, the pharm industry has steadfastly aligned itself with the republican party via donations and continues to spend private dollars on lobbyists, all of which contribute to mismanagement of health care funds through middlemen. But the answer is definately not a complete overhaul, or even complete socialization of health care (see the CNN article, we're already 50% gov't health care anyway). I went without health care for a while while changing jobs, and I still pay out of pocket for dental (which sucks if you have my crappy teeth), and it was scary but I always considered health care a benefit to living in a western industrialized country rather than a fundamental human right.

In short, health care is too expensive to make everyone happy through a universal program, there will always be barriers based on income and there will always be an argument about what constitutes "basic" health care.

A quick rush to judgement on a Michael Moore film is a poor judgement, as he only uses his celebrity to point out problems and make people even more angry about an issue that people are already very angry about, not a difficult or admirable job. We know the problem exists, and making it better will most likely require legislation that regulates health care spending and support. It's a difficult road, and it will be slow, but we're doing better than this movie would have you believe.

Thanks, seriously.

[Nibe]

A

[Ivve]

Why should we the people have to rely on our government for our healthcare? I think it would be great to have supplements or something in place to support big expenses, But the majority of it should be left to private parties to handle. Governments are great at being inefficient, its scary when they get efficient, see: Nazi Germany. Do you really want an inefficient government handling your healhcare? Do you really want to make our national debt(trillions lol) worse? Do you want to encourage laziness even more among the already lazy on welfare and other public assistance?

Wow. I guess that settles it, guys.

[MF Perm]

Why should we the people have to rely on our government for our healthcare? I think it would be great to have supplements or something in place to support big expenses, But the majority of it should be left to private parties to handle. Governments are great at being inefficient, its scary when they get efficient, see: Nazi Germany. Do you really want an inefficient government handling your healhcare? Do you really want to make our national debt(trillions lol) worse? Do you want to encourage laziness even more among the already lazy on welfare and other public assistance?

Wow. I guess that settles it, guys.

Eh, at this point it's just people getting their two cents in which is fine.

There's enough information in this entire thread and the stem cell thread which just demolishes these two arguments without effort. If people want to be ignorant about the benefits of universal care, that's their prerogative.

Any argument against it can look at the UK who started it in what, 1945? They applied this right after WW2, and are one of the top thriving economies in the world. One of the top pharmaceutical companies, AstraZeneca, is even based in the UK. Imagine that. But to be fair they're likely only one of the top because they can sell pills for $200 each to Americans.

[Yangsing]

lol nazi germany? wow