Enough Gushing over Moore to Make You 'Sicko'
Media use Michael Moore's new film to fuel campaign for socialized health care in America.

By Amy Menefee
Business & Media Institute
6/27/2007 11:36:03 AM


“Every fact in my films is true. And yet how often do I have to read over and over again about supposed falsehoods? The opinions in the film are mine. They may not be true, but I think they are.”



– Michael Moore in Time magazine interview, May 28, 2007





Michael Moore is a documented liar who uses “omission, exaggeration and cinematic sleight of hand” to make his political points. But that doesn’t seem to matter to the media who cover his movies.



Now journalists are using “Sicko,” which opens June 29, to make a giddy, unabashed case for socialized health care in America – and even urging Moore to run for office.



He shows “compassion” and “generosity,” he’s a great “campaigner” and an “adroit politician,” reporters have declared.



He’s “taking on America’s deeply flawed health care system,” said Terry Moran on ABC’s “Nightline” June 13. And “… the point his movie ultimately makes: fixing health care is a moral, even a religious obligation.”



Moran led Moore into a dialogue about “Sicko” as a statement of “faith.”



“Father Michael Moore – hard to imagine, maybe, or maybe not,” Moran said, after learning Moore once ventured to seminary. “Well, try this one: Senator Michael Moore.”


The media have been in awe of Moore’s film and Moore’s charisma, and enthusiastic about the idea of socialized medicine. Overall, coverage has glossed over Moore’s distortions in favor of keeping the snowballing policy discussion going.


News Lobbying



A May 2007 CNN poll indicated 64 percent of respondents “think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes.” Compare that with November 2006, when Gallup asked whether people would maintain the current U.S. insurance system or would replace it with a government-run system. Only 39 percent said they would welcome the government-run system.



Media health hype has certainly increased this spring, using “Sicko” as a jumping-off point.



“Americans may be inching toward the idea that a truly universal system may be the only way to guarantee that we can all afford some coverage,” wrote Howard Fineman in the June 18 Newsweek.



Some journalists couldn’t hold back the gushing praise for Moore and the film:



· “The film emerges as a fascinating exploration and powerful indictment of a pressing national problem,” wrote Claudia Puig in the June 22 USA Today. Puig praised Moore’s “biggest, best and most impassioned work,” claiming it was not “too politically charged.”



· “There’s something different about this Michael Moore movie,” said ABC’s Terry Moran on the June 13 “Nightline.” “For all the laughs, it’s very serious and laced with qualities not usually associated with his films: pity, compassion, generosity, sorrow.”





Using Extreme Examples to Push Socialized Medicine



Moore is hardly making his case for socialized medicine alone. In addition to coverage of him and “Sicko,” the media have taken the ideas in his movie and run with them.



In just the two weeks before the opening of Moore’s movie, ABC, CBS and NBC have done numerous health care stories including: the “national disgrace” of children who don’t have health insurance; children of illegal immigrants who don’t get health insurance; baby boomers caring for aging and sick parents; how the Dutch are taller than Americans because of better health care; a homeless patient who got kicked out of a hospital; and failures of the military’s mental health system.



ABC used one extreme, tragic example in the wave of stories advocating a health overhaul. The network did two segments on a Los Angeles emergency room where a woman in urgent need of treatment was ignored by ER personnel and died.



“It is stories like this that have led us to take on health care as a major focus for us here on ‘GMA,’” said reporter Chris Cuomo on the “Good Morning America” June 13. But those stories weren’t a coincidence – they were tied in with ABC’s coverage of “Sicko.”



Cuomo: “It’s an election year; this [health care] is a big issue facing everyone. We want you to go to the Web site at ABCNEWS.com, tell us stories about what has gone wrong, about what has gone right, because obviously this is a situation that we need to change. Robin?”

Robin Roberts: “Yeah. And right, and your talk with Michael Moore. More of your conversation in our next hour.”

Cuomo: “He is certainly taking on the issue.”

Roberts: “Yes, he is.”





Socialism: Bad or ‘Just Different’?



When they weren’t using examples of bad hospitals to advocate socialism, reporters were acknowledging critics of “Sicko” existed – without including their criticisms.



On the June 22 “CBS Evening News,” reporter Jeff Greenfield said “Sicko” “champions more or less uncritically a government-run health care system,” describing the film as “affecting stories of personal suffering at the hands of indifferent corporations” and a celebration of Canada, France and Britain.



“The film does not include critics of those systems,” Greenfield said.



Neither did Greenfield.



Greenfield featured health analyst Paul Ginsburg of the Center for Studying Health System Change, who was supposed to explain why no presidential candidate has thus far announced a Michael-Moore-style health care policy.



The reason? “Americans are just different,” Greenfield said.



“We’re much less willing to have government make decisions for people than is the case in Canada and Europe,” Ginsburg said. “It’s a cultural difference.”



Greenfield could have interviewed a health expert who had facts to compare the countries’ health programs – in economics, availability and quality.



Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, has written about some of those differences.



For example, the National Health Service (NHS) in Britain – which Moore showed in a glowing portrait in his film – has about 850,000 people waiting for admission to its hospitals, Tanner wrote.



“Every year, shortages force the NHS to cancel as many as 50,000 operations,” Tanner said. “Roughly 40 percent of cancer patients never get to see an oncology specialist.”



Though Moore used life expectancy as a main measure of U.S. care compared to Canada, France, Britain and Cuba, Tanner explained that wasn’t a measurement experts would choose.



“Most experts agree that life expectancies are a poor measure of health care,” Tanner said, because so many outside factors affect them – including violent crime, poverty, obesity, tobacco and drug use.



“When you compare the outcome for specific diseases such as cancer or heart disease, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the world,” Tanner said.





So This Is All Free, Right?



Throughout “Sicko,” Moore referred to health care in Canada, France, Britain and Cuba as “free.” That notion has been only nominally challenged in the majority of media coverage.



Chris Cuomo questioned Moore on the June 12 “Good Morning America” about the “huge tax burdens” of the countries with “free” health care in his movie. But when Cuomo asked, “Do you think you pay too little attention to that in your film?” Moore said “No,” and Cuomo left the topic.



Just as ABC’s Cuomo paid lip service to the taxes that fund socialized medicine, Moore’s film dismissed it with a ludicrous example.



In “Sicko,” Moore visited what he called an “average middle-class family” in France to prove that taxes weren’t a burden to them. The couple, who had two children shown on the video, said their combined income was $8,000 per month. That’s almost $100,000 per year – not exactly “average middle class.”



But Moore expected viewers to be satisfied with this well-off couple’s smiles and nice house, accepting that “free” health care wasn’t really costing anyone anything.



USA Today’s Richard Wolf provided some refreshing honesty in his June 22 piece, reporting the drastic difference in countries’ tax rates: “In France and Britain, the tax burden is 42% and 27% respectively, as opposed to 12% in the USA, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.”



Wolf also noted Moore’s exclusion of insurance industry and U.S. health care representatives from his film and said “‘Sicko’ uses omission, exaggeration and cinematic sleight of hand to make its points.”





Castro Knows the Truth about Cuban Care



Cuban dictator Fidel Castro himself had to admit his surgery was “botched” by Cuban doctors last year, as The New York Times reported May 27. Moore left that detail out of his film, which depicted Cuba as one of the supposedly utopian health care sites.



In a rare display of enlightening context, NBC’s Matt Lauer addressed Cuba’s “free” health care system with other information about the country on the June 5 “Today” show. Far from Moore’s free-prescription paradise, he told viewers “the typical Cuban family uses the black market for even basic goods.” People aren’t exactly free there – “most Cubans are not free to use the Internet.”



“Dissent in any form is not tolerated by the Cuban government, which limits outside influence,” Lauer explained.



Yet, in a June 13 “Nightline” interview on ABC, Moore had the audacity to say Cubans enjoy “artistic freedom.”



“I hung out with artists who, who are critical of Castro, and very freely speak their minds,” Moore said. ABC’s Terry Moran added that “human rights groups, like Amnesty International, say Cuba continues to repress nearly all forms of dissent.”



Clearly, Moore had spoken from ignorance or outright lies – but the media at large didn’t hold him accountable for such statements.



A rare source showed up in Anthony DePalma’s New York Times article May 27: Dr. Leonel Cordova, who has practiced medicine in both Cuba and the United States.



Cordova said Cuba has two health care systems – “one is for party officials and foreigners like those Mr. Moore brought to Havana,” DePalma wrote. “But for the 11 million ordinary Cubans, hospitals are often ill equipped and patients ‘have to bring their own food, soap, sheets – they have to bring everything.’”



In his movie, Moore said he had asked the Cuban doctors to give the Americans with him the same care they would give anyone else. He acted as though that disclaimer was enough to make it true.





Will the Real Michael Moore Please Stand Up?



Despite Moore’s omissions and misleading portrayals in “Sicko,” at least one journalist suggested he might make a good candidate for office.



ABC’s Terry Moran, who had teased his audience with “try this one: Senator Michael Moore,” gushed about the “unmistakable political energy” surrounding Moore: “… a press conference in the [California] Capitol, where Moore sounded very much at home … then, it was off through throngs of supporters, just like a campaign …”



Moran couldn’t contain himself and urged Moore to run for office, mentioning the filmmaker’s long-past stint on a local school board. This exchange with Moore followed:



Moran (ABC News): “Would you run for political office again?”

Moore: “No. … I can’t imagine doing anything like that.”

Moran (ABC News): “Seriously, you got pretty good name recognition out there, a lot of people who agree with you, and it looks like you enjoy it out there. Would you do it?”



While mainstream media have fawned over Moore and his films, others have dug up facts that are less widely known.



The Los Angeles Times reported on two other filmmakers, Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine, who made a Michael-Moore-style film – about Moore. Not surprisingly, they haven’t been able to find a company that will distribute the film to U.S. theaters.



“They were kicked out of Moore’s Traverse City (Mich.) Film Festival after questioning his nonprofit’s investments in defense contractor Halliburton and drug maker Eli Lilly,” Gina Piccalo reported June 24.



That’s right – Moore, a loud critic of Halliburton and drug companies, has invested in both. Peter Schweizer wrote extensively about Moore’s investments in his book, “Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.”



“The year Moore claimed in Stupid White Men that he didn’t own any stock, he reported to the IRS that his foundation had more than $280,000 in corporate stock and close to $100,000 in corporate bonds,” Schweizer wrote. He listed energy companies, health care companies and even McDonald’s as stocks Moore had held at some time.



According to Piccalo’s Los Angeles Times article, however, Moore has even denied his foundation’s existence. The article said that in Melnyk and Caine’s movie, “Manufacturing Dissent,” “when Melynk confronts him over his nonprofit’s investments, Moore first denies having a personal foundation.”



That’s not open for debate, as anyone can view the IRS Form 990-PF online for his Center for Alternative Media and Culture at GuideStar.org.


http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070627113019.aspx

will socialized health care mean that my 3:00 appointment will be at 3:00, and not 4:15? if so, sign me up!

will socialized health care mean that my 3:00 appointment will be at 3:00, and not 4:15? if so, sign me up!

No... and if you read his whole fucking post... I will personally pay for your next appointment.

sorry, I don't read long copy and paste articles

If we can afford trillions in nation-building in the Middle East then we can afford health care coverage for every American. It's a no-brainer. And I didn't need to see the movie to figure that one out.

how much will this universal health care cost us per month? I pay about 160 bucks a month right now for full coverage for my family of 4. If it more then that then forget it.

how much will this universal health care cost us per month? I pay about 160 bucks a month right now for full coverage for my family of 4. If it more then that then forget it.

I gather that your plan is through your employer?

it is. They cover part of the cost. I am curious to know how much this universal health care will cost those of us who are employed? I am sure there has to be a ball park figure out there by now.

it is. They cover part of the cost. I am curious to know how much this universal health care will cost those of us who are employed? I am sure there has to be a ball park figure out there by now.


No one can put out that kind of guess until they develop a real plan, rather than a concept. A concept is all any of them have at this point.

it is. They cover part of the cost. I am curious to know how much this universal health care will cost those of us who are employed? I am sure there has to be a ball park figure out there by now.

Every estimate I've seen is in the area of 30%-50% less than it does now...of course that's the total cost, which your employer probably pays half. The savings would largely be in the areas of overhead, and advertising.

No... and if you read his whole fucking post... I will personally pay for your next appointment.

I read the entire post.

Twice.

At the beginning, it made a huge production out of saying ""Moore is a liar" ........and ......""Moore's film uses “omission, exaggeration and cinematic sleight of hand” to make his political points"".

Then I read the rest of the long article, expecting to be shown innumerable places where Moore said something untrue.

Then I read it again. And looked some more.

But what's this?!?!?!?.............does Menefee get to the "lies" and tell us what they are? No, first she feels compelled to inform us--


--journalists are using “Sicko,” which opens June 29, to make a case for socialized health care in America

Which has NOTHING TO DO WITH the film and whether or not the points it makes are true.

Surely though, she will get to it soon.

What next?? Surely NOW Menefee will get to the "lies" and tell us what they are? Right?

No, now she has to stop to inform us--

---The media have been in awe of Moore’s film and are enthusiastic about the idea of socialized medicine.

Which has NOTHING TO DO WITH the film and whether or not the points it makes are true.

Surely though, she will get to it soon.

What next?? Surely NOW Ms Menefee will get to the "lies" and tell us what they are? Right?

No, now she has to stop to inform us--


A May 2007 CNN poll indicated 64 percent of respondents “think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes.” Compare that with November 2006, when Gallup asked whether people would maintain the current U.S. insurance system or would replace it with a government-run system. Only 39 percent said they would welcome the government-run system.

Which has NOTHING TO DO WITH the film and whether or not the points it makes are true.

Surely though, she will get to it soon.

What next?? Surely NOW Menefee will get to the "lies" and tell us what they are? Right?

No, now she has to stop to inform us--


Media health hype has certainly increased this spring, using “Sicko” as a jumping-off point. “Americans may be inching toward the idea that a truly universal system may be the only way to guarantee that we can all afford some coverage,” wrote Howard Fineman in the June 18 Newsweek.[/quote]

Which has NOTHING TO DO WITH the film and whether or not the points it makes are true.

Surely though, she will get to it soon.

What next?? Surely NOW Menefee will get to the "lies" and tell us what they are? Right?

No, now she has to stop to inform us--


[COLOR="Red"]In just the two weeks before the opening of Moore’s movie, ABC, CBS and NBC have done numerous health care stories including: the “national disgrace” of children who don’t have health insurance; children of illegal immigrants who don’t get health insurance and baby boomers caring for aging and sick parents

Which has NOTHING TO DO WITH the film and whether or not the points it makes are true.

Surely though, she will get to it soon.

What next?? Surely NOW Menefee will get to the "lies" and tell us what they are? Right?

No, now she has to stop to inform us--




ABC did two segments on a Los Angeles emergency room where a woman in urgent need of treatment was ignored by ER personnel and died. “It is stories like this that have led us to take on health care as a major focus for us here on ‘GMA,’” said reporter Chris Cuomo on the “Good Morning America” June 13.

Which has NOTHING TO DO WITH the film and whether or not the points it makes are true.

Surely though, she will get to it soon.

What next?? Surely NOW Menefee will get to the "lies" and tell us what they are? Right?

Well, sort of.


I finally located --in the huge volume of words that Ms Menafee made use of-- the 3 instances she came up with to demonstrate her point of this "misleading" movie that is filled with untruths.


1st example given---

In “Sicko” Moore referred to health care in Canada, France, Britain and Cuba as “free.”

Ms Menefee's refutation --

The countries mentioned where the people receive free health care have "huge tax burdens".

Chris Cuomo questioned Moore on the June 12 “Good Morning America” about the “huge tax burdens” of the countries with “free” health care in his movie.

Wow. Menefee comes out guns 'a blazing, determined to expose all the supposedly huge "lies" in the film Sicko.....and that was her opening shot.....?!?!?!

Moving on.

2nd example given by Menefee--

""Cuban dictator Fidel Castro himself had to admit his surgery was “botched” by Cuban doctors last year.""

Ms Menefee's refutation --

""Moore left that detail out of his film. Moore depicted Cuba as a supposedly utopian health care site.""

Oooooooooh, Ms Menefee....you're really rolling NOW!!!!! What a HUUUUUGE falsehood.

Oh wait!.....it was not a falsehood. The film did not state that Castro had to admit his surgery was “botched” by Cuban doctors.

THAT is Menefee's best example of the "lies" in the film......?!?!?!?

This is fucking hilarious.

Moving on.

Example 3.

According to Menefee, in the film, Michael Moore declares Cuba to be a -- free-prescription paradise.

Menefee's refutation -----

NBC’s Matt Lauer stated --- “the typical Cuban family uses the black market for even basic goods.” People aren’t exactly free there – “most Cubans are not free to use the Internet.”

WTF?!?!?!

What the imbecilic Ms Menefee imagines that Matt Lauer stating that Cubans "cannot use the internet" has to do with her claim that Moore asserted in the film that Cuba was a 'free-prescription paradise', I cannot figure out.

But then, she continues with her "refutation" by......what?? .....by proving that people in Cuba do not get free prescriprtions??.....No.

She "refutes" Moore's (supposed) claim that ""Cuba is a free-prescription paradise"" by going into great detail about what Matt Lauer said about Cubans being free to do other things.

""Moore had the audacity to say Cubans enjoy “artistic freedom.” .....""

Menefee's refutation........ ?!?!?!


ABC’s Terry Moran said that “human rights groups like Amnesty International have said that Cuba continues to repress nearly all forms of dissent.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is hard for me to imagine an article LESS about what Moore says in the movie than the one that Ms Menefee has written.

But then, taking on the actual facts that the fimlmdelivers might be a task that Menefee is not prepared to tackle. IOW, typical Rightwing horseshit.

Well now, thanks for the analysis Free. I quite enjoyed the read.

I think from what you've said, the fear from some such as her, is that the people may begin to demand health care and that will scare big business. The bigger the business the greater the contribution they are expected to make. Gonna piss some shareholders off.

I do not always like Moore's tactics as he can be journalistically sleazy sometimes, but for the most part, he gets the big points correct. I hope with this movie he keeps things on the straight and narrow because they are going to attempt to shred this movie if at all possible. It is threatening in the extreme to the current system. I think it is important that people see that health care CAN be done in an affordable manner. No system we currently have is perfect but that should not be an excuse to bypass the whole thing.

how much will this universal health care cost us per month? I pay about 160 bucks a month right now for full coverage for my family of 4. If it more then that then forget it.

Yes you are paying $160 and your employer is paying the rest $ 640 or so probably. Still, this is coming out of what could have been paid to you. Your employer just pays you a lesser salary because he/she has to pay the rest of your health premium. You definitely are a real "employee", because you don't know what the hell is going on!

It might be at 3:00 but it will be a year late under Socialized health care!!

Why don't you ask France or Canada?

will socialized health care mean that my 3:00 appointment will be at 3:00, and not 4:15? if so, sign me up!

Why don't you ask France or Canada?
Sal, astra: Have you ever been made to wait 12 months for a doctor's visit?

No?

Oh dear, sisko's terrible argument just fell to pieces! Everyone panic!

Sal, astra: Have you ever been made to wait 12 months for a doctor's visit?

No?

Oh dear, sisko's terrible argument just fell to pieces! Everyone panic!

Actually my current doctor is very punctual.. although I did have a four hour wait one time with my last one. It was a medical emergency at the hospital. Rather than anger me, I thought it was comforting to know that had I been the medical emergency he would have done the same for me.

No there are not 12 hour wait times to see your doctor. But people who do not want universal health care for others to ensure equal access will latch onto any fallacy to scare monger.

Now the thing we are considering here in Ontario is a dual system where you could possibly be allowed to pay for some things. Supposedly this would free up our current system a bit. There are many positives and negatives to going dual. I am not for it at this point but if they could iron out the wrinkles I would not be opposed.

There are people here that do go to the States to bypass our medical system. They would be the very rich or very desparate who have access to a lot of money. But then we take in some very rich from the States here too so I am not sure how that works but they would be paying customers. I guess it would depend upon what you were seeking.

Every estimate I've seen is in the area of 30%-50% less than it does now...of course that's the total cost, which your employer probably pays half. The savings would largely be in the areas of overhead, and advertising.

wait a minute, nothing the government does will reduce overhead. I have worked for the federal government for 11 years, and one thing I know is what overhead is. here is how government handles it: doulbe the cost of EVERYTHING, that covers the overhead.

wait a minute, nothing the government does will reduce overhead. I have worked for the federal government for 11 years, and one thing I know is what overhead is. here is how government handles it: doulbe the cost of EVERYTHING, that covers the overhead.

Tiresome partisan rhetoric aside, the Government does not have to worry about marketing costs or excessive executive salaries so they are more efficient at providing services right out of the gate.

wait a minute, nothing the government does will reduce overhead. I have worked for the federal government for 11 years, and one thing I know is what overhead is. here is how government handles it: doulbe the cost of EVERYTHING, that covers the overhead.

Tiresome partisan rhetoric aside, the Government does not have to worry about marketing costs or excessive executive salaries so they are more efficient at providing services right out of the gate.

thats weird, I only his post once. Why did it publish a duplicate?

wait a minute, nothing the government does will reduce overhead. I have worked for the federal government for 11 years, and one thing I know is what overhead is. here is how government handles it: doulbe the cost of EVERYTHING, that covers the overhead.

Ain't that the truth.

But remember they will not profit from the health care system and they do not price set. The problem though that needs to be addressed is the executive/administrative positions. Somehow that ends up being very lucrative for the individuals involved while not so great for the system.

thats weird, I only his post once. Why did it publish a duplicate?

hehe...double the impact?

Tiresome partisan rhetoric aside, the Government does not have to worry about marketing costs or excessive executive salaries so they are more efficient at providing services right out of the gate.

we are talking about the US government right? I have never heard anyone use the words efficient and government together before. If anything, the government is less efficient because they dont have to worry about making profit or pleasing and keeping customers.

Ain't that the truth.

But remember they will not profit from the health care system and they do not price set. The problem though that needs to be addressed is the executive/administrative positions. Somehow that ends up being very lucrative for the individuals involved while not so great for the system.

show me one government service or agency that runs more efficiently then the private sector? sure, they dont have to worry about making a profit, but they also dont care about waste.

If anything, the government is less efficient because they dont have to worry about making profit or pleasing and keeping customers.

That is where your "logic" falls apart Trav. "Making a profit" is in no way an indicator of efficiency of providing a service. As we see in the health insurance industry today, "making a profit" means denying human beings needed health care.

Making profit a primary goal of the health insurance industry decreases the quality of the care provided because giving care is an expense and they must minimize expenses in order to maximize profits.

A public agency is more accountable to the public (their customers) because the public still posesses the power of the ballot to inflence them.

Making agencies private means increased secrecy and a decreased ability of the customers to redress grievences. Neither of which are good for society.

:thumbs:

show me one government service or agency that runs more efficiently then the private sector?

Police and Fire services. Do you really want the fire dept putting making a profit above protecting your life and property from fires?


sure, they dont have to worry about making a profit,

They also don't have to worry about market costs or executive salaries in the hundreds of millions, or more recently Billions.... in the health insurance industry ironically enough.


but they also dont care about waste.

They care more than private industry. Private industry externalizes the cost of their waste onto us, the private citizens, to pay for cleaning up after them.

The government is more accountable to the people and thus more responsive... when it is working correctly of course, which our broken democracy is currently not doing.

:thumbs:

say what you will, but I work for the government and have my whole life. I see first hand how they operate and I can tell you this, it isn't efficient or cost effective. It is the opposite of those things. Nine times out of ten I find myself saying "WTF?" whenever they impliment something designed to make things run more smoothly. It never works. And here is another thing that I find interesting. When the government tries to save money and make things run smoother, what do they do? they try to find ways to get some of the work out to the private sector. Why? because private sector can fire people. we got incompetant morons working for the government who can not be fired. Unless they are literally caught red handed, they are untouchable. That is ony one reason.

I admit I do not know much about the plan for socialized medicine, but I do know saying the government will run something better or more efficiently is a pipe dream. Just look at immigration reform and what a fiasco that turned out to be.

And what are you going to do, make all the doctors government employees? tell em all they wont be rich anymore? no one will want to be doctors anymore, at least none of the good ones. Sad but true. Making the government twice its size by adding all the trappings of the entire nations health care system will not fix the problem.

How many of our national health care advocates want the Cuban health care style system adopted here?
You know the one where the party elite, and the rich, and foreign tourists, get first class treatment, while the average person has to bring his own food and bedding to the hospital. Where the average person has to have a family member there to provide such things as baths, changing bed linens, helping the patient eat, all the things currently done, in our system, by a nursing staff.
I really don't think many of you would tolerate this type of service, even if its was free. In fact I don't think our currently uninsured would put up with it either.
But, your buddy, Moore didn't mention that aspect of the system, so it doesn't exist. Does it?

How many of our national health care advocates want the Cuban health care style system adopted here?

Why does it have to be the Cuban system?
Why not Norway's system? Or Switzerland's? Or England's? Or Canada?

The rest of the industrialized world is full of examples we can draw from.

:thumbs:

I admit I do not know much about the plan for socialized medicine,

Since you know and admit that fact, you should refrain from making false statements like this:

And what are you going to do, make all the doctors government employees? tell em all they wont be rich anymore? no one will want to be doctors anymore, at least none of the good ones. Sad but true.

If you ever do watch Sicko you will see the interview with a young doctor in England's National Health Service who lives in a Million dollar home that proves the lie of what you just claimed.


Making the government twice its size by adding all the trappings of the entire nations health care system will not fix the problem.


1. It won't double the size of government, as you claim. That is unsubstantiated fearmongering. From what I have read (http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php), merely repealing Bush's Paris Hilton tax giveaways will pay for half of a national health care system.

2. Providing coverage for everyone certainly will fix the problem of 50 million uninsured Americans. What is your solution?

:alien:

Why does it have to be the Cuban system?
Why not Norway's system? Or Switzerland's? Or England's? Or Canada?

The rest of the industrialized world is full of examples we can draw from.

:thumbs:


Switzerland - The Swiss health care system is of a very high standard, but healthcare costs are expensive. There is no state-run public health service in Switzerland, and no reciprocal arrangements for healthcare with other countries, so health insurance is essential. Although all medical provision is private, it is heavily regulated by government, as is the health insurance system. http://www.expatfocus.com/expatriate-switzerland-healthcare-medical

England - There exists in England today a sometimes uncaring, often unresponsive and typically disrespectful health care system. This system, as well as other global socialized systems, not created in regard to the patient's best interest, continue to be considered as worthy of emulation by many in the United States government. http://www.burtonreport.com/InfHealthCare/BritNatHealthServ.htm

Norway - Anyone who is living and working in Norway is required to contribute through the income tax system to the Norwegian Social Insurance Scheme, which covers health insurance. They will be issued with a health card and are entitled to register with a GP on the 'Regular GP Scheme', or to choose another doctor. http://www.expatfocus.com/expatriate-norway-healthcare-medical


Gee, none of these seem to be the "Single payer" health care you advocate. They depend on government regulated "health insurance". Knowing how you feel about the insurance industry, I'm supprised you mentioned them.

Gee, none of these seem to be the "Single payer" health care you advocate. They depend on government regulated "health insurance". Knowing how you feel about the insurance industry, I'm supprised you mentioned them.

Silly "Moderate"... I never said they were perfect. :rolleyes:

But they are all examples of different national health care systems and they are all a good sight better than ours.

:thumbs:

Norway - Anyone who is living and working in Norway is required to contribute through the income tax system to the Norwegian Social Insurance Scheme, which covers health insurance.That silliness about actually paying for government programs by generating revenues only applies to unsophisticated Euro-weenies. Americans don't have to "pay" for anything. We just pack it into the deficit. Other than that the Norwegian system looks pretty good to me.

Silly "Moderate"... I never said they were perfect. :rolleyes:

But they are all examples of different national health care systems and they are all a good sight better than ours.

:thumbs:


I'm sorry you health is so poor that you have had to experience medical care in so many different countries. That being the case I suggest you stop traveling.

I'm sorry you health is so poor that you have had to experience medical care in so many different countries. That being the case I suggest you stop traveling.

My health is not "poor" Kiddo.

But when you travel, accidents can happen.

You would know that is your worldly experience extended any farther than your mother's basement.

:thumbs:

Sorry to disappoint you there dip stick. But I travel extensively. Fortunately I have only experienced the medical care offered by three countries. Greece, Mexico, and the United States.
Since the care I received in Greece and Mexico were both limited to one incident, each, I would not presume to declare their systems any better, or worse, than that of the U.S. Different, yes.
But I guess thats the difference between you and I. I want to "see" something before I make those types of comparisons.
Can our medical care system be improved? Well there is room for improvement. However, based upon past, and current, performance, control by the federal government will not result in improvement. Only increased waste and mismanagement.

Can our medical care system be improved? Well there is room for improvement. However, based upon past, and current, performance, control by the federal government will not result in improvement. Only increased waste and mismanagement.I have a few questions about this. I've asked them several times before and no one has ever been able to answer them for me.

Maybe you can.

Please look at the charts below:

Total Health Expenditures as a Share of GDP, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2003

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/ex-4.gif


Total Health Expenditures Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2003

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/figure-1.gif

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

Every country on these charts, with the exception of the US, has some form of universal coverage. Please notice that they all pay less per capita and as a percentage of GDP for health care than we do, and yet they cover everyone. So I've got to wonder: is it because their government workers are so much better than ours that they can do it and we can't? Are America's civil servants so much less efficient than those in, say, Japan or Denmark? Is this really the one thing that the rest of the world can do but America can not?

So as not to single you out, moderate, I invite any and all who claim waste and mismanagement will ruin a universal plan to answer these questions.

I have a few questions about this. I've asked them several times before and no one has ever been able to answer them for me.

Maybe you can.

Every country on these charts, with the exception of the US, has some form of universal coverage. Please notice that they all pay less per capita and as a percentage of GDP for health care than we do, and yet they cover everyone. So I've got to wonder: is it because their government workers are so much better than ours that they can do it and we can't? Are America's civil servants so much less efficient than those in, say, Japan or Denmark? Is this really the one thing that the rest of the world can do but America can not?

So as not to single you out, moderate, I invite any and all who claim waste and mismanagement will ruin a universal plan to answer these questions.


As stated before, I have based my opinion upon the U.S. Federal Government's current, and past performance record, in regard
govt. controlled programs. Do you deny that the record is abysmal? What makes you think the govt. will do any better with health care, than they have with the environment, or any other govt. program?
As I have not followed the performance of other governments, or their employees, I can not comment on their proficiency, or standards.

We should model our healthcare after the system used in Lichtenstein. In fact, we should just call ourselves New Lichtenstein and be done with it, then all of our worries will be over!

It also may be related to our "over-indulgences" that we as an society incur. I would assume that the above numbers include drugs also, we are by far the most "over-medicated" country (what % of kids take drugs for A.D.D. in Japan? or what % take anti-depressants in Denmark?) I know people that rush to the Doctor 4 or 5 times a year because of hay fever. "Hey I want that new purple pill, I don't know what it's for but I think I need it badly". My mother in-law is currently on 8 different presciptions (and only needs half or less) but they make her feel better?

We are also the most spoiled group on the planet... just look at our expenditures versus the rest of the world on gasoline, cars, entertainment, soft drinks, etc.

I'm not saying that the current health care system doesn't need lots of work, it does, but there are other factors that play into this.

Just curious too, about the legal system in these countries. Do they allow the extensive litigation (esp.frivolous crap) that we do? If you sue Dr. XXX for malpractice, and lose, do you have to pay the court costs AND his lawyer's fees? We don't.

And who pays for this? The insurance company...and who pays the insurance company?... the doctors/hospitals (malpractice and liability insurance) and the patients (health coverage and increased cost of services).

Add to this the tremendous influx of illegals over the past 20 years, that strains our medical, schools, and social services systems, and you have the current recipe for our mess.

I don't know the answer, but the less the government is involved, the better I tend to like it.

Do you deny that the record is abysmal?

Yes, absolutely. The evidence points to the opposite being true, that government has proven very competent and effective at providing services.


What makes you think the govt. will do any better with health care, than they have with the environment, or any other govt. program?

You aren't making any sense.
"The environment" is not a service provided by the government.

It also may be related to our "over-indulgences" that we as an society incur. I would assume that the above numbers include drugs also, we are by far the most "over-medicated" country (what % of kids take drugs for A.D.D. in Japan? or what % take anti-depressants in Denmark?) I know people that rush to the Doctor 4 or 5 times a year because of hay fever. "Hey I want that new purple pill, I don't know what it's for but I think I need it badly". My mother in-law is currently on 8 different presciptions (and only needs half or less) but they make her feel better?

It also used to be illegal to market drugs that you need a prescription for directly to the general public, like we see today.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/b/A/limbaugh_oxycontin.jpg

Doctors hate that because then they get people coming in to ask for a prescription for a drug because they saw an ad for it on television, suddenly the doctor is no longer diagnosing problems as much as he is dispensing drugs on demand.
Why? Because it leads to better health care? No. Because it leads to higher profits for Pharma. Why? Because in a for-profit system profit is given a higher priority than the health of human beings.

The health of human beings is not a commodity to be taken advantage of for profit.
It is a moral issue.

.

What makes you think the govt. will do any better with health care, than they have with the environment, or any other govt. program?


You aren't making any sense.
"The environment" is not a service provided by the government.

Come on, dharma.

He is obviously making a reference to this government's failure to protect the environment.

Something at which ---as he suggests-- they have been abysmal.

When you look at the argument from that perspective --"Why should we think the government will do a good job of running a universal health care system, when they have demonstrated themselves to be such miserable failures things like protecting the environment??" -- ..........well, it's very hard to refute that argument.

He is obviously making a reference to this government's failure to protect the environment.

Is he? I don't know. According to Brooks we can't make assumptions like that about things people say. He might have meant the government's failure to provide man-made lakes and rivers to people in non-waterfront properties for all we know. That is just as likely as Ann Coulter not meaning a homosexual when she called John Edwards a "faggot".

According to our friend Brooks, we can't be too sure about these things.

:banana:

When you look at the argument from that perspective --"Why should we think the government will do a good job of running a universal health care system, when they have demonstrated themselves to be such miserable failures things like protecting the environment??" -- ..........well, it's very hard to refute that argument.

Yes, it is pretty much impossible because it is a logical fallacy. It is comparing apples and oranges with a straw man thrown in for good measure.

It is like declaring our police services a "failure" since so many crimes go unsolved and then arguing "Why should we think that the government will do a good job of providing a military to protect us from hostile nations when they have demonstrated themselves to be such miserable failures at things like protecting us from common criminals?"

The details of the two situations and the services provided are completely different. They are not comparable to each other and they are not indicators of effectiveness for either. Especially when the claim of "failure" is such an extreme exaggeration. The EPA has not "failed". It was purposely sabotaged by the Republicans. It can't really fail when it is never allowed to work in the first place.

It is the same logic in the argument that says there is a correlation between global warming and the decrease in the number of pirates.

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

As stated before, I have based my opinion upon the U.S. Federal Government's current, and past performance record, in regard
govt. controlled programs. Do you deny that the record is abysmal?The record of the insurance industry is far more abysmal than that of the government when it comes to controlling health care spending. Here's an example:

Per capita spending for an adult Medicaid beneficiary in poor health would rise from $9,615 to $14,785 if the person were insured privately and received services consistent with private utilization levels and private provider payment rates. For an adult in excellent health, a shift from Medicaid to private coverage would increase per capita spending by $675 (Figure 10). The results for children are generally similar, but less dramatic because the spending per person is so much lower.


http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/6138/test4lk0.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://www.kff.org/medicaid/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=33829
What makes you think the govt. will do any better with health care, than they have with the environment, or any other govt. program?I've posted this before but no one has ever responded to it. Let's see how you do:

The cost advantage of public health insurance appears to arise from two main sources. The first is lower administrative costs. Private insurers spend large sums fighting adverse selection, trying to identify and screen out high-cost customers. Systems such as Medicare, which covers every American sixty-five or older, or the Canadian single-payer system, which covers everyone, avoid these costs. In 2003 Medicare spent less than 2 percent of its resources on administration, while private insurance companies spent more than 13 percent.

At the same time, the fragmentation of a system that relies largely on private insurance leads both to administrative complexity because of differences in coverage among individuals and to what is, in effect, a zero-sum struggle between different players in the system, each trying to stick others with the bill. Many estimates suggest that the paperwork imposed on health care providers by the fragmentation of the US system costs several times as much as the direct costs borne by the insurers.

The second source of savings in a system of public health insurance is the ability to bargain with suppliers, especially drug companies, for lower prices. Residents of the United States notoriously pay much higher prices for prescription drugs than residents of other advanced countries, including Canada. What is less known is that both Medicaid and, to an even greater extent, the Veterans' Administration, get discounts similar to or greater than those received by the Canadian health system.

We're talking about large cost savings. Indeed, the available evidence suggests that if the United States were to replace its current complex mix of health insurance systems with standardized, universal coverage, the savings would be so large that we could cover all those currently uninsured, yet end up spending less overall. That's what happened in Taiwan, which adopted a single-payer system in 1995: the percentage of the population with health insurance soared from 57 percent to 97 percent, yet health care costs actually grew more slowly than one would have predicted from trends before the change in system.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18802
As I have not followed the performance of other governments, or their employees, I can not comment on their proficiency, or standards.Fair enough. I'll just keep asking if our government workers are the worst in the world until somebody gives me an answer.

It also may be related to our "over-indulgences" that we as an society incur. I would assume that the above numbers include drugs also, we are by far the most "over-medicated" country (what % of kids take drugs for A.D.D. in Japan? or what % take anti-depressants in Denmark?) I know people that rush to the Doctor 4 or 5 times a year because of hay fever. "Hey I want that new purple pill, I don't know what it's for but I think I need it badly". My mother in-law is currently on 8 different presciptions (and only needs half or less) but they make her feel better?I'm sure that's part of it, and I'd love to discuss the pharmaceutical industry in greater detail, perhaps in another thread. For now, though, did you know they spend as much on advertising as they do on research? Or that there is one sales representative for every three doctors in this country? It's absurd.We are also the most spoiled group on the planet... just look at our expenditures versus the rest of the world on gasoline, cars, entertainment, soft drinks, etc.I'm not sure how what we spend on other things has anything to do with the 15% of GDP we spend on health care. If anything, you'd think we'd rather have more money to spend on luxuries and entertainment.I'm not saying that the current health care system doesn't need lots of work, it does, but there are other factors that play into this.Hard to argue with that.Just curious too, about the legal system in these countries. Do they allow the extensive litigation (esp.frivolous crap) that we do? If you sue Dr. XXX for malpractice, and lose, do you have to pay the court costs AND his lawyer's fees? We don't.Britain does. I don't know about other countries.And who pays for this? The insurance company...and who pays the insurance company?... the doctors/hospitals (malpractice and liability insurance) and the patients (health coverage and increased cost of services).Ultimately, we always foot the bill.Add to this the tremendous influx of illegals over the past 20 years, that strains our medical, schools, and social services systems, and you have the current recipe for our mess.Even factoring in illegals our per capita spending outstrips the rest of the world.I don't know the answer, but the less the government is involved, the better I tend to like it.That seems to be a popular sentiment. For myself I'd rather put up with a government system than be bled to death by the parasitic insurance industry.