Michael Moore's films are probably the most biased/slanted pieces of work you can find that claim to be documentaries.

all documentaries are slanted- there is no way around that. Moore is just slanted in the correct direction.

Firstly, fuzmeisther didn't argue that only Moore's films are slanted, only that they are the "most" slanted.

Secondly, I haven't seem the film, but from what I've gathered, it's an advocate of universal healthcare. This isn't the solution. Policing of billing and insurance practices is.

Healthcare shouldn't be free, it should just be obtainable.

"Healthcare shouldn't be free, it should just be obtainable."

That's just silly. Socialized medicine doesn't make health care "free". It just shifts the cost to those who can afford it, and guarantees access.


"Moore's films are slanted, only that they are the "most" slanted."

Triumph of the Will, anyone?

I might add that, although I am very much in favor of socialized medicine, if the choices were between private third party payer systems (like the one we use now) and a system in which everyone is completely responsible for their own health care (with no outside intervention at all), I would choose the latter. Sure, it would be anarchy, but at least market forces would create some downward pressure on prices.

"Socialized medicine doesn't make health care "free". It just shifts the cost to those who can afford it"

No, that's just silly. If it shifts the cost to those that can pay for it, then how much did the recepient pay? If I don't pay for something, I get it for...how much?

And what does Triumph of the Will have to do with anything? Changing lanes, now?

It was stated that Moore's Documentaries are the most slanted of all docs. One viewing of Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will negates that premise.

"No, that's just silly. If it shifts the cost to those that can pay for it, then how much did the recepient pay? If I don't pay for something, I get it for...how much? "

If you and I go to McDonalds and I buy you a big mac, it isn't a free lunch. Ask McDonald's. They didn't give it away, the cost was just shifted from the recipient to some one else.

Of course, that isn't a fair comparison- with universal healthcare very few people get their medicine "for free". Most people pay a portion of the cost through the taxes that they pay. Only the poorest in society have the cost completely offset. Most of us will still pay, we're just guaranteed to get it even if something should happen to remove our ability to pay.

So, a better illustartion would be: Me, you, Terry, and Archi go to McD's. Archi pays for his Big Mac. Archi and me buy ours and split the cost of yours with you. Me you and archi buy terry's. McDonalds gets paid the same- but we all agree that we each cover what we can of ours and what we need to of each other's.

"It was stated that Moore's Documentaries are the most slanted of all docs. One viewing of Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will negates that premise."

Actually, the statement included a probably, but that's neither here nor there. My initial point was that he made a statement, and you made an unrelated counter statement. Now your trying to bust some Nazi jive to Tony Snow yourself away from that.

"If you and I go to McDonalds and I buy you a big mac, it isn't a free lunch."

It is for me.

"They didn't give it away, the cost was just shifted from the recipient to some one else."

My position wasn't that healthcare was given away with no payment to the provider in a universal healthcare system. My position was that the recepient, however poor, should have some liability, however that liability should not preclude their receipt of said healthcare.

"Of course, that isn't a fair comparison- with universal healthcare very few people get their medicine "for free". Most people pay a portion of the cost through the taxes that they pay."

So universal healthcare then increases our tax amount to offset it's cost? So we're still paying for it, unless we are so poor that we have no tax liability. Wait, then that cost has to go somewhere, right? Well, who picks that up? You? Me? So our taxes will increase by an amount greater than our healthcare costs? This is a good thing?

"So, a better illustartion would be: Me, you, Terry, and Archi go to McD's. Archi pays for his Big Mac. Archi and me buy ours and split the cost of yours with you. Me you and archi buy terry's. McDonalds gets paid the same- but we all agree that we each cover what we can of ours and what we need to of each other's."

Let's assume that McDonald's costs are as grossly inflated as current healthcare and pharmaceutical costs (due largely to insurance companies and marketing efforts of drug companies). Wouldn't we be better served to first attempt to lower the cost of a Big Mac, before we start pooling our money to buy them?

Also, if I need you and Don to help me buy my Big Mac, where am I getting money to kick in for Terry's?

David: "It was stated that Moore's Documentaries are the most slanted of all docs. One viewing of Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will negates that premise."

Actually, the statement included a probably, but that's neither here nor there. My initial point was that he made a statement, and you made an unrelated counter statement. Now your trying to bust some Nazi jive to Tony Snow yourself away from that.

Me: What? Unrelated? Fuzzy said: “Michael Moore's films are probably the most biased/slanted pieces of work you can find that claim to be documentaries.” The implication being that although Moore’s films are called documentaries, they aren’t really, because they contain bias. The use of “called” is the key here. My reasonable reaction was to point out that documentaries ARE biased- like all films. You were so helpful to suggest that he meant that Moore’s Films were simply the most biased of all documentaries. I counter that films like Triumph of the Will (Or Dr. Death, for that matter) are more heavily biased than any of Michael Moore’s films. It all seems related to me.

Oh, and the Tony Snow crack was a low blow. It would have been more clever to say ‘Michael Moore yourself out of it’


“My position was that the recipient, however poor, should have some liability, however that liability should not preclude their receipt of said healthcare.”


Under your system if a person could not pay then they would receive free medical care?

Addendum:

So, you agree that healthcare “…costs are as grossly inflated as current healthcare and pharmaceutical costs (due largely to insurance companies and marketing efforts of drug companies)” Yet, you would want to maintain a private payer system that continues to include those greedy corporations?

“So universal healthcare then increases our tax amount to offset it's cost?”

Actually. most estimates show costs decreasing under universal healthcare, but that is really beside the point.

“Wouldn't we be better served to first attempt to lower the cost of a Big Mac, before we start pooling our money to buy them?”

And how would you suggest we do that?

On a related note: I think that private health insurance is largely a scam. It’s basically useless unless you have a catastrophic illness, and if you do have such an illness you don’t qualify for insurance. The plan available where I work is a big money hole. I ran the math- in order to break even on the cost of insurance I would have to have $8,300 in medical bills in a single year. So far this year my medical bills have reached $600 (due in large part to being attacked by a dog). At that rate (assuming I don’t get really sick) I’d lose $140,000 for every 20 years I work.

ok... Nathan, Jest, My brother and I go out for lunch. We are told that we can have the tacos for free(paid for by the taxpayer). Normally I can eat 3 tacos and be reasonably full, but free tacos allow me to order 4 and throw half away. Can you see how this system could lead to massive waste?

When something is free it isn't valued. When it isn't valued, it isn't conserved. If a jackass with no money wants to take up skateboarding and breaks his arm do I have to pay for that?
I don't want a "free" healthcare system forcing me to pay for anything someone else wanted to do.

I might entertain the idea if it were only for life threatening conditions.

So you wouldn't be willing to pay for antibiotics to treat a child's ear infection that could cause deafness, but not death?

"Under your system if a person could not pay then they would receive free medical care?"

No they would have a liability, but immediate repayment of that liability would not preclude their receipt of the care. They would owe a debt. It may mean less nights out to dinner and cases of beer in the future.

"Actually. most estimates show costs decreasing under universal healthcare, but that is really beside the point."

So is that a "yes" or a "no" to the whether universal healthcare would increase taxes?

"And how would you suggest we do that?"

A full answer to this question is beyond readability, and not worth doing without pay. However, I urge you to look at the difference between how much you are billed for healthcare, and how much the insurance company actually pays for it. Medical bills are grossly inflated so they can get as much out of the insurance company as possible. The insurance companies, however, use their clout to pay less (after you pay any deductibles on the initial amount). Policing how much medical services are truly worth with fair costs and markups and creating a situation where insurance companies pay their full share is a start.

"I would have to have $8,300 in medical bills in a single year."

$160/week? That's shitty. You sure that isn't bi-weekly?

"It may mean less nights out to dinner and cases of beer in the future."
You are aware that we have people in this country who can't afford to buy cases of beer and dinners out, right? Actually, medical bills can mean no college tuition for your children, or, even worse, not enough to eat.

"So is that a "yes" or a "no" to the whether universal healthcare would increase taxes? "

For some yes. Of course, Americans are undertaxed. Don't get me wrong, I don't think your taxes should go up- you likely pay enough (possibly too much), but the wealthiest among us pay far too little in taxes. That needs to change-

Of course, I could suggest that the cost of the current war (now approaching $1B a day) could easily cover a system of universal health care.

I could also suggest that we shouldn't care what it costs. Whatver the cost, it's worth it.

"Medical bills are grossly inflated so they can get as much out of the insurance company as possible. The insurance companies, however, use their clout to pay less (after you pay any deductibles on the initial amount)."

I know. That's why we need a system that takes the insurance companies out of the equation and allows the federal government to limit prices- I honestly can't think of a way of doing that without a government takeover of the system.

"You are aware that we have people in this country who can't afford to buy cases of beer and dinners out, right?"

Yes. I'm also aware that many of them still buy them. I've worked at Pizza Hut on Tuesday night. It's fun around the first of the month.

"Actually, medical bills can mean no college tuition for your children, or, even worse, not enough to eat."

Which is why the pricing structure needs to be addressed, not how we can get somebody else to pay the prices. I'm a firm believer in capitalism, but not to the detriment of the lowest class when it comes to basic needs. Capitalism needs to continue to drive the healthcare system, but controls need to be put in place. This should be done through legislation and not takeover.

"Of course, I could suggest that the cost of the current war (now approaching $1B a day) could easily cover a system of universal health care."

Of course, but you would be wasting your breath. One blatant waste of money does not justify another.

"I could also suggest that we shouldn't care what it costs. Whatver the cost, it's worth it."

I could suggest that "Rooster: Spurs of Death!" is the greatest film ever made.

"I honestly can't think of a way of doing that without a government takeover of the system."

Then you need to go back to the drawing board. History shows that communism fails.

"History shows that communism fails."

Communism is a political system, I'm talking about a use of socialism within a capitalist system. Socialized medicine has been working quite well for decades in almost all of the industrialized world. It's cheaper, more efficient, and better than what we have here. Communism may have failed (although, to be fair, it's never really been tried), but socialism has been succeeding for quite some time (France, The Netherlands, etc).

"Of course, but you would be wasting your breath. One blatant waste of money does not justify another."

While I agree that the war is a waste of money, I find it hard to call providing decent medical care to children a waste as well.

"Yes. I'm also aware that many of them still buy them. I've worked at Pizza Hut on Tuesday night. It's fun around the first of the month."

So? Social programs aren't there to protect the lazy- but they do. That's an unavoidable cost of protecting the weak. I'd rather see 1000 lazy bums chug beer on my dime than one dead kid. Maybe I'm weird.

"not how we can get somebody else to pay the prices."

You do realize that 'getting someone else to pay' is the system we are under now? You already pay for the poor to see doctors (in a lot of ways, both directly and indirectly). Now you pay for the poor to get crappy healthcare-
I'd like to see a system in which it's cheaper, and you pay for the poor to get excellent healthcare.

"I could suggest that "Rooster: Spurs of Death!" is the greatest film ever made. "

And you would be right! Long Live Stoke!


As long as healthcare is a for profit business the poor will get fucked and big corporations will get rich.

An interesting point to be made is this: In every industrialized nation with a system of socialized medicine life expectancy is higher and infant mortality is lower than in the U.S. In addition, costs of healthcare (measured as a percent of GDP) is also lower. Most of the antipathy that Americans have to socialized medicine stems from a knee jerk response: Say socialism and we think of the Soviet Union

"Communism is a political system, I'm talking about a use of socialism within a capitalist system."

From your friend and mine, Wikipedia: "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production." Sounds like what you're describing re:government run healthcare to me.

"I find it hard to call providing decent medical care to children a waste as well."

Geez, me too. I'm not arguing that the poor should not get health care, yet you continue to insinuate that I am. I am merely stating that they should shoulder some liability for it, and that would be easier on them if we regulated costs, while still allowing for reasonable profits for providers. (Perhaps profit margins should be adjusted by income).

"I'd like to see a system in which it's cheaper, and you pay for the poor to get excellent healthcare."

I'd like to see a system in which it's cheaper, and the poor pay an adjusted price for excellent healthcare.

"As long as healthcare is a for profit business the poor will get fucked and big corporations will get rich."

Without profit there is no mass incentive for quality. That's a non-debatable, and I refuse to pursue anything along this line further.

"In every industrialized nation with a system of socialized medicine life expectancy is higher and infant mortality is lower than in the U.S."

Did you know that global warming is caused by the declining number of pirates?

Yes, I’m familiar with the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. However, there is a causative link between improved access to health care and improved health (longer lives lower infant mortality).

“"Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production." Sounds like what you're describing re:government run healthcare to me.”

No. I don’t give a fuck if the gov’t runs the means of production when it comes to gasoline or pork pie hats. Nor do I care if we have a classless society. We’re talking here about the medical industry exclusively. And we’re talking about running it under a socialist system.

“Geez, me too. I'm not arguing that the poor should not get health care, yet you continue to insinuate that I am.”

No, I haven’t insinuated that at all. I’m simply saying that (as you seem to be saying) you don’t want to pay for it.

“Perhaps profit margins should be adjusted by income”

Then would you accept that hospitals get no profit for treating the destitute?

“I'd like to see a system in which it's cheaper, and the poor pay an adjusted price for excellent healthcare.”

What about those that lack the means to pay at all? Should they be straddled with a debt that they may never be able to settle? An interesting side note: medical bills are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in this country. And this brings me to another point: what about roads? You and I pay for roads that we don’t use (through our tax dollars). poor don’t pay taxes, but they get to use our roads for free. Isn’t that unfair? Shouldn’t everybody have to pay out of pocket for using roads?

“Without profit there is no mass incentive for quality. That's a non-debatable, and I refuse to pursue anything along this line further.”

Non-Debatable? Really? I’m tempted to start talking about non-profit organization that do excellent work. I’m also tempted to talk about people who create wonderful things all the time for free. Charities, Gov’t organizations, etc. But all of that is beside the point. Individual profit is certainly a part of the sort of system I am describing. Doctors are still paid well. So are technicians, researchers, etc. Everybody gets paid. I’m simply talking about taking the corporations (and the corporate profits) out of the equation. People still make money- and still have that as a motive to strive for excellence. Pfizer and Traveller’s don’t get any profit anymore, but then they wouldn’t be in the loop anyway.

Forgot to respond to this earlier:


"I would have to have $8,300 in medical bills in a single year."

$160/week? That's shitty. You sure that isn't bi-weekly?


Premium : $75/week
Deductible $500
Percentage of medical bills covered: 50 (until the bills have exceeded some massive amount)

So I pay $3900 in premiums. Plus the $500 deductible that I must pay before the coverage starts working = $4,400. And I already notice that I miss figured before- If they pay half, then to get them to pay as much in medical bills as I pay for the insurance, then I would have to have $8,800 in medical bills.

Of course, that has little bearing on the ‘value’ of the medical care, but that is another discussion…

Let's start at the end and work back.

"I’m tempted to start talking about non-profit organization that do excellent work. I’m also tempted to talk about people who create wonderful things all the time for free."

I said mass incentive. I'm not talking about feel-goods.

"What about those that lack the means to pay at all?"

Who are these people?

"You and I pay for roads that we don’t use"

I use roadways everyday. I'm sure the amount I pay "for roads" is much less than the upkeep costs for just the stretches I drive.

"poor don’t pay taxes, but they get to use our roads for free. Isn’t that unfair?"

This is a silly comparison, but I'm curious how toll roads fit into your equation.

"Then would you accept that hospitals get no profit for treating the destitute?"

I don't think that they should be forced to get no profit for treating the destitute. If a hospital treated the destitute for no profit, I wouldn't complain.

"No, I haven’t insinuated that at all. I’m simply saying that (as you seem to be saying) you don’t want to pay for it."

No. I don't want to be forced by the government to pay for it.

"No. I don’t give a fuck if the gov’t runs the means of production when it comes to gasoline or pork pie hats. Nor do I care if we have a classless society. We’re talking here about the medical industry exclusively. And we’re talking about running it under a socialist system."

You're talking about a classless, stateless healthcare system based on government (common) ownership.

"there is a causative link between improved access to health care and improved health"

That wasn't your initial claim, and while this would seem obvious, all other things equal a system does not exist to prove it.

Maybe lower life expectancy is related to our higher obesity rate? Is that the fault of a non-socialist health care system. Will this new system make me un-fat? I think I just found a causative link.

Percentage of medical bills covered: 50 (until the bills have exceeded some massive amount)

Surely this doesn't apply to every covered medical expense. If it does, it may be the worst health insurance policy I have ever seen. What about doctor visits, pharmaceuticals, tests, etc.

But of course, the idea is for you to spend more in premiums in the long run than you would get in payouts. It's not a savings account, it's insurance. I'm not planning on cashing in on my life insurance anytime soon either, but I think I'll keep paying it just the same.

Of course, if I develop cancer, I'm gonna be really fucking happy I have both health and life insurance. I'll take the "risk" that I won't come down with these and pay my premiums.

“I use roadways everyday. I'm sure the amount I pay "for roads" is much less than the upkeep costs for just the streches I drive.”

And, what you would pay in taxes for healthcare would likely be less than the current cost of the healthcare you receive.

“but I'm curious how toll roads fit into your equation.”

I’m opposed to toll roads. Always have been.

And backing up: “This is a silly comparison”

But it’s not. Roads, Police, etc are things that benefit society. As a society we pay for these things through taxation. If one of us can’t pay our share we don’t lose access to those things; instead we get them for “free”. It’s part of the social contract. We would never except a system under which one could only have the protection of the police if they could pay the freight, as it were. Instead we accept that those who can pay do, and also pay for those who can’t. I happen to think that good health care is just as beneficial to society as cops (more so, in fact) and that the benefits of providing it far outweigh the costs.

“I said mass incentive. I'm not talking about feel-goods.” The Army is a non-profit org. But a general makes more than a colonel. Perform and you move up and make more.

Again, though, that is beside the point. Do you think that the bulk of doctors would quit giving a damn about patients if they had their pay cut by 20%?

“Who are these people?”

Well, estimates vary, but the lowest I’ve seen states that there are about 800,000 homeless and some estimates put the number as high as 3.5 million. Of course, one does not have to be homeless to lack the means to pay. Lets look at it like this:

Say I make minimum wage. That would mean that I earn about $850 dollars a month (that’s before taxes, but nevermind). Now subtract from that (conservative estimates here)

Water: 50$
Electricity: 100$
Rent: 400$
Car Insurance: 100$
Groceries: 200$

And.. oops, something doesn’t get paid this month. You might be surprised how many families live in just this sort of situation.

“I don't think that they should be forced to get no profit for treating the destitute.”

That seems like a contradiction, though. You say that care should be obtainable, but if hospitals can’t be forced to treat people for free, then some people will not be able to obtain health care.

“That wasn't your initial claim, and while this would seem obvious, all other things equal a system does not exist to prove it.”

But that was my claim (or rather, one of them). And, it is too obvious. Could there be other factors? Sure, the French smoke more than us and live longer, so maybe smoking increases life span. They eat more fat, too. And Drink more. Come to think of it, other than better health care, there’s no reason why the French should be healthier than us. Hmmm…

"Surely this doesn't apply to every covered medical expense. If it does, it may be the worst health insurance policy I have ever seen. What about doctor visits, pharmaceuticals, tests, etc. "

No. It pays 100% for a yearly physical, and 80% on some generic medicines. I'm not counting any of that in the cost of my medical bills, though.

"But of course, the idea is for you to spend more in premiums in the long run than you would get in payouts"

I know. That was my point. Why, mister capitalist, would I spend more for a thing than its value? That seems strange to me. It sounds a bit like a ponzi scheme.

According to the USCS (United States Cancer Statistics) and our closest neighbor with universal health care(Canadian Cancer Society) numbers for 2003, Canada has a higher mortality rate for cancer patients. I use canada to compare us to because we have more in common regarding diet, environment, etc.
Canada also takes longer to adopt newer medical technology.

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle of pure socialism and pure capitalism. Have you guys ever looked at the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program?

I'll just throw my two cents in here, seeing as it is my post and all ;)

In "Sicko," Moore points out that our "socialized" police, fire departments, post office (he admits there's a charge to send stuff, but receiving and whatnot is all paid by taxes), and schools (he may have had more examples) are all working out fine. I think better than the example of roads, would you deny a child proper schooling because his parents don't have any cash left to send him after paying all the other bills? There's nothing inherently wrong about turning a profit in most cases, but when it comes to health care, maybe there is. The current system encourages the companies to deny as many claims and as much coverage to people who are likely to file claims as possible. There are people who have insurance but the company won't pay for their treatment. Essentially, with the goal of making money in mind, insurance companies deny the patient the treatment they should receive and are already paying for by having their insurance policy.

One way or another, there ought to be changes. Personally, I think necessary, life-saving procedures should be available to those who need them, without politics or profits playing into whether they get them or not. Like the metric system and "football" being a game where you use your feet, it's working for a lot of people, but America's still dragging its feet.

Using only cancer patients seem a narrow focus. According to the World Health Organization life expectancy at birth in Canada is 79.8 years, versus 77.3 in the U.S. Like I said.

"I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle of pure socialism and pure capitalism." That depends on what the question is. If it's 'how should we run our health care system?' then I think you are wrong. If it's 'how should we run an economy in general?' then I think you are right.

"Have you guys ever looked at the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program?
"

I've read a little about it. It's certainly much better insurance than you or I are likely to get. Still, I don't think it's a panacea.

"Moore points out that our "socialized" police, fire departments, post office (he admits there's a charge to send stuff, but receiving and whatnot is all paid by taxes), and schools (he may have had more examples) are all working out fine. I think better than the example of roads, would you deny a child proper schooling because his parents don't have any cash left to send him after paying all the other bills? There's nothing inherently wrong about turning a profit in most cases, but when it comes to health care, maybe there is. The current system encourages the companies to deny as many claims and as much coverage to people who are likely to file claims as possible. There are people who have insurance but the company won't pay for their treatment. Essentially, with the goal of making money in mind, insurance companies deny the patient the treatment they should receive and are already paying for by having their insurance policy. "

Good points

You guys should just start a forum somewhere for comment explosions like this.

That old chestnut...