SiCKo by Micheal Moore

[taks]

You know Taks, you have a point here. I've never met an engineer who was a liberal. They are all somewhere between libertarian or conservative. I wonder why? (Thats liberal/conservative of the american definition to all you euro folks who are thinking wtf?)

a) only doctors and lawyers have higher average salaries (considering traditional jobs, not rich stockbrokers or banking execs, etc.) and b) engineers are fueled by logic, not compassion. face it, socialist policies require compassion as they logically do not work. engineers also don't end up in liberal colleges, and if they do, the engineering sections are usually isolated from the rest of the campus (we tend to spend a lot more time drinking and studying than our liberal arts counterparts).

 

Anyway, it took 8 pages but we won the point! Yea! *slaps hi-five to Taks*

we can share a short bus then!

 

taks

[Guard Dog]

taxes would essentially have to double in order to make it work, and that doesn't count the extra layer(s) of bureaucracy for an already bloated system.

As I posted back on pg 2, we will not allow that to happen. Not even for health care. It would literally crush the economy.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Gfted1]

The US government has far more money than it lets on. If they cut into their blag bag proft (drug traffiking) or started releasing some of the advanced technologies they gained from Roswell, it would be easy to make the difference between $B and $T.

 

I once read that the population of the US is about 15 years behind the government, technoligically. I wonder how true that is.

[Tale]

They are all somewhere between libertarian or conservative. I wonder why?

 

It's easy to figure out. In any system there should be variation. If there isn't, then there's only one logical conclusion. Control. The government is preventing either preventing people with opossing views from getting these positions (most likely) or is preventing people in these positions from having opposing views (not impossible).

[taks]

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/4/37504406.pdf

 

I thought this was interesting. Tax income only accounts for 25% of US's GDP.

GDP is not what the government makes. GDP is what the entire country makes, private industry included. it's actually more like 20% since our current GDP is $13T and tax revenues are $2.4T. the US _can_ afford health care, and we are already paying for it. the question is whether or not the government can, and the answer is no, at least not with out resorting to even more socialism.

 

taks

[taks]

The government is preventing either preventing people with opossing views from getting these positions (most likely) or is preventing people in these positions from having opposing views (not impossible).

yeah, right. hehe...

 

taks

[Tale]

The government is preventing either preventing people with opossing views from getting these positions (most likely) or is preventing people in these positions from having opposing views (not impossible).

yeah, right. hehe...

 

taks

I guess I'll accept that. I've been messing with you since "conglomoneofascidictatorialism." I wanted to see how far I'd have to go before you just stopped arguing.

 

You didn't even blink at the mention of Roswell.

 

edit: not taks

Edited June 28, 2007 by Tale

[Guard Dog]

They are all somewhere between libertarian or conservative. I wonder why?

 

It's easy to figure out. In any system there should be variation. If there isn't, then there's only one logical conclusion. Control. The government is preventing either preventing people with opossing views from getting these positions (most likely) or is preventing people in these positions from having opposing views (not impossible).

I KNEW it! Were is my tinfoil hat?!

[Sand]

In capitalistic control of medicine only those with money will get medical care. That is the truth of it.

[Tale]

I'm tempted to side with Sand. He has what I think is a Doctor Who reference in his signature. It shows he has culture.

[Guard Dog]

In capitalistic control of medicine only those with money will get medical care. That is the truth of it.

Are you still here?

 

Just kidding Sand. I'll repeat one of my last posts:

 

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Every one here agrees the problem is prohibitive costs. Get the government and the insurance companies out of the way and the market forces will bring the costs to heel. Once thats done, then we work on a way to ensure low income people can afford health care. I have a few ideas. Making ALL medical expenditures a tax deduction (as opposed to a percentage now). Tax exempt medical savings accounts. There are other ways to do it without directly involving the government.

[Sand]

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Every one here agrees the problem is prohibitive costs. Get the government and the insurance companies out of the way and the market forces will bring the costs to heel. Once thats done, then we work on a way to ensure low income people can afford health care. I have a few ideas. Making ALL medical expenditures a tax deduction (as opposed to a percentage now). Tax exempt medical savings accounts. There are other ways to do it without directly involving the government.

 

Sorry, but I disagree. Drug companies and hospitals care only about money. Without regulation or controls they will charge even more money than they do now. Also they would make more money treating a disease than actually curing it. You put too much faith in capitalism whose whole purpose is to satiate greed.

[Tale]

The whole purpose of capitalism is to give consumers power in the market.

[Sand]

The whole purpose of capitalism is to give consumers power in the market.

That is the ideal but the ideal never truly happens.

[Tale]

The whole purpose of capitalism is to give consumers power in the market.

That is the ideal but the ideal never truly happens.

Let's compare this with your suggestion.

 

Socialism's purpose is to ensure collective wellfare. This is the ideal. The ideal never truly happens. What do we end up with? Government doing everything you claim the medical industry will do on their own. While the consumers don't even have a tiny fraction of power.

 

As long as consumers have choice, they have power. Socialism will take away that choice, and power, completely and leave nothing.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Tale

[Guard Dog]

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Every one here agrees the problem is prohibitive costs. Get the government and the insurance companies out of the way and the market forces will bring the costs to heel. Once thats done, then we work on a way to ensure low income people can afford health care. I have a few ideas. Making ALL medical expenditures a tax deduction (as opposed to a percentage now). Tax exempt medical savings accounts. There are other ways to do it without directly involving the government.

 

Sorry, but I disagree. Drug companies and hospitals care only about money. Without regulation or controls they will charge even more money than they do now. Also they would make more money treating a disease than actually curing it. You put too much faith in capitalism whose whole purpose is to satiate greed.

 

Not to be reptitive but see my previous post on fear of corporations vs fear of government. I would argue you place too much faith in government whose sole purpose is to control (not to mention expand and perpetuate it's own power).

 

But thats fine. You and I are not going to agree on this. Thats why you vote for democrats and I don't. My only consolation there is, more Americans agree with me on this one. It is easy to say "I think everyone should have health care". It is much harder to confront the realities behind that sentiment and not many are willing to do what would need to be done.

[Gorgon]

Captialism is the way the world works, it doesen't have any inate miraculous power to better society, all we can do is decide on a set of rules that will make it function the best it can.

 

Cartels, pricing agreements, protectionism are sides of capitalism that work against the interest of the consumer. Unregulated we would be back in the 1900s. In China babies die because the baby milk formula has the nutritional value of sand. Private blood drives infect the donors with AIDS. In Africa fake maleria medication kills people who think they are curing themselves.

 

Simply depending on corperations to be ethically responsible is naive in the extreme, Capitalism and government regulation go hand in hand, they must in any sane country.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Gorgon

[Enoch]

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Every one here agrees the problem is prohibitive costs. Get the government and the insurance companies out of the way and the market forces will bring the costs to heel. Once thats done, then we work on a way to ensure low income people can afford health care. I have a few ideas. Making ALL medical expenditures a tax deduction (as opposed to a percentage now). Tax exempt medical savings accounts. There are other ways to do it without directly involving the government.

First off, tax deductions don't help the poor much at all-- if you make under $30K/year or so, the standard deduction is usually better (and easier) than itemizing. Also, there are reasons to suspect that, even if there weren't the insurance moral hazard problem, price competition for medical services would be less than robust. First off, people often don't have time to shop around for needed medical services. Second, behavioral economics suggests that, with things like health care, consumers tend to overpay dramatically for very marginal increases in efficacy, due to oversensitivity to the possibility of a negative outcome. (I.e., pill A is $100 is effective for 80% of the population. Pill B is $200 and is effective for 81% of the population. Most people pick pill B, even though, for 99% of them, the two will have identical effects.)

 

 

As to the increased costs of government operation, I'm not sure that a government bureaucracy could possibly be less efficient than the system we have now. The key benefit of a single-payer system (where the gov't pays all the bills) is that every doctor's office can fire the half of their support staff who currently do nothing but send paperwork back and forth between their offices and a dozen different insurance companies. Also, all the informational costs associated with the competition between private insurers would go away. (If you've ever gone through the piles and piles of plan summaries, provider directories, and cost schedules when picking out a new health plan, you know what I mean.) Advertising by insurance plans is also a huge cost that is eventually borne by enrollee premiums. Executive salaries and shareholder profit figure in here, too. In terms of % of costs spent on "overhead" items like this, gov't-run Medicare & VA systems are far more efficient than the private sector.

 

That's the dream scenario for many American liberals like Moore. It is also still a political impossibility. And it comes with risks that quality of care will be sacraficed too much, that centralized control of funding will stifle innovation and research, and that consumers still lack incentives to moderate their use of the system. Some middle-ground proposals are out there, but I'm not really up to speed enough to talk about them.

[Sand]

Cartels, pricing agreements, protectionism are sides of capitalism that work against the interest of the consumer. Unregulated we would be back in the 1900s. In China babies die because the baby milk formula has the nutritional value of sand. Private blood drives infect the donors with AIDS. In Africa fake maleria medication kills people who think they are curing themselves.

 

Simply depending on corperations to be ethically responsible is naive in the extreme, Capitalism and government regulation go hand in hand, they must in any sane country.

 

Exactly, Gorgon. Why can't trust companies and hospitals when they care only about the bottom line. How much money can they make off of people. If they can make more money selling snake oil than help people then they will. Companies would then band together to remove choice from the consumer as well.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Sand

[Gfted1]

Oy, Sand. I guess this needs to be pointed out, dead people spend no money.

[Sand]

Oy, Sand. I guess this needs to be pointed out, dead people spend no money.

 

With the rate of the human population is growing, that is not a problem.

[Gorgon]

What does that matter, if they get some chronic ailment they start costing more money than they put into the system. Hence, the incentive to limit the people who generate losses.

[Tale]

Oy, Sand. I guess this needs to be pointed out, dead people spend no money.

 

With the rate of the human population is growing, that is not a problem.

What are we, India? In the US, we're not experiencing the same population boon.

[Sand]

What are we, India? In the US, we're not experiencing the same population boon.

 

Not in births, but in immigration. Legal or otherwise.

[Rosbjerg]

While Michael Moore can be just as manipulative as those he's 'attacking', I still think he's a better person - he helped those 911 firefighters, he wrote a check to his most adament advisery to save his wife's life .. It's most likely in order to gain sympathy for his cause (why else would he mention it?) - but he did it - and he made someones life better.. and I have the deepest respect for that!

 

His message isn't hate or war, it's not a personal vendetta against a country or a system - it's a fight against what he believes is unfair.. He may have struck gold by doing so and this is somewhat contrary to what he tries to portray himself as - but I honestly don't care - it was great to see how happy those people were at the end. As long as he is advocating peace, justice, liberty (yes I believe a social program can be considered liberty), free speech and actually try to help those he involve himself with, he has my utmost respect. No matter what cause he chooses to represent.