Michael Moore - brilliant and uplifting

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
anitram said:


This is a large misconception: that there is no waiting in line when you have privatized healthcare.

Exactly. As I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, and which I'll repeat in case struckpx didn't read it, last fall I waited three months here in the US for surgery that was critical for me. During those three months, I was in the emergency room three times. During one of those trips to the emergency room, I was in such excruciating pain I could not stand up straight (literally). I then waited three hours to be seen by a doctor. On top of that, my cash out-of-pocket for the surgery, the three trips to the emergency room, etc., added up to close to $10,000. And I have what is considered excellent health insurance.
 
U2Scot said:


I've lived under the NHS system in the UK for many years; first employer who got me a discount on private health care I jumped all over it. Will never go back if I can help it/afford it.

From the (albeit brief) reading I've done, I haven't seen where the UK has a two-tiered health care system. Here's what I found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_systems

Private health care continued parallel to the NHS, paid for largely by private insurance, but it is used only by a small percentage of the population, and generally as a supplement to NHS services.

If I'm understanding correctly, that's how it is here in Canada, as well. Our health care system covers all doctors visits, hospital stays, surgeries and treatments, and medical testing.

Supplemental health insurance that is available here from many employers covers things like dental care, prescription drugs, eyeglasses, and alternative health care services such as chiropractic, registered massage therapy, podiatry, etc.

Obviously, you're better off, and have a wider range of options available if you have supplemental insurance, but regardless of that, at least we're not dropping in the streets or going facing financial disaster, because either our private insurance companies are denying coverage for essential medical treatments, or because we're not insured in the first place.

If I'm misunderstanding the situation in the UK, please elabourate.
 
joyfulgirl said:


Exactly. As I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, and which I'll repeat in case struckpx didn't read it, last fall I waited three months here in the US for surgery that was critical for me. During those three months, I was in the emergency room three times. During one of those trips to the emergency room, I was in such excruciating pain I could not stand up straight (literally). I then waited three hours to be seen by a doctor. On top of that, my cash out-of-pocket for the surgery, the three trips to the emergency room, etc., added up to close to $10,000. And I have what is considered excellent health insurance.

I am sorry and feel for your pain, but the average wait time in the US for surgery and other health care conditions is severely less compared to other countries mentioned in the movies, such as Canada and Cuba, where you have to wait months for the most basic of health care.
 
i forgot to mention how michael moore tries to come across as a liberal who is open to this socialistic idea, yet he is making a higher percentage on this movie than tom cruise and other a-list actors make on any of their movies. he is very hypocritical and you really need to do your research b/c he twists the truth on a lot of his stuff. while it may be true, there is another side to it as well that he very clearly forgets to state.
 
VintagePunk said:


That is SO simply not true.

my personal experience was different then. i am not saying the healthcare system there is bad, but canada also has a lot less people than the US.
 
struckpx said:


my personal experience was different then. i am not saying the healthcare system there is bad, but canada also has a lot less people than the US.

So you've had to wait for months and months for basic treatment in Canada? Do tell.

I've lived here all my life, so I'm going on my experience, the experiences of friends and family, and what I see in my own area, over the course of decades.

Canada having fewer people has nothing to do with it. It's the medical professionals and services per capita that counts. For that matter, we also have a smaller base of taxpayers to draw from, too.
 
VintagePunk said:


Canada having fewer people has nothing to do with it. It's the medical professionals and services per capita that counts. For that matter, we also have a smaller base of taxpayers to draw from, too.

It has everything to do w/ it. The more the people, the more complicated and more organization, workers required. Its not just the doctors that are required to run a universal health care system.
 
struckpx said:


It has everything to do w/ it. The more the people, the more complicated and more organization, workers required. Its not just the doctors that are required to run a universal health care system.


Yes, there would be more people required to run it, but the vast disorganization that you allude to is a piss poor argument. It's not like the entire nation's health care would be run out of one small office, with a few staff members pulling their hair out while striving to provide health care to the nation. It would be distributed and administered by area, I would imagine. :huh:

Again, what was your experience where you had to wait in Canada?
 
VintagePunk said:



Yes, there would be more people required to run it, but the vast disorganization that you allude to is a piss poor argument. It's not like the entire nation's health care would be run out of one small office, with a few staff members pulling their hair out while striving to provide health care to the nation. It would be distributed and administered by area, I would imagine. :huh:

Again, what was your experience where you had to wait in Canada?

Do you know the history of our government run organizations? If so, you will find that they, as you say, are run "piss poorly." There is not one government agency currently that is run well. Amtrak is running on bankruptcy, post office is bankrupt. Every government agency is bankrupt. There needs to be a return somehow for this health care. There is just too many people otherwise. You have to realize that the US's population is bigger than Britain, France, Canada, and every other socialist country that has systems similar.
 
struckpx said:

You have to realize that the US's population is bigger than Britain, France, Canada, and every other socialist country that has systems similar.

Why do you keep returning back to population? You haven't explained what that has to do with it.
 
struckpx said:
You have to realize that the US's population is bigger than Britain, France, Canada, and every other socialist country that has systems similar.

I wasn't aware that any of these countries had embraced socialism.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Why do you keep returning back to population? You haven't explained what that has to do with it.

look at the structure of a company. when a company is smaller, the organization is much more centralized and tight-knit. as it grows, usually, the structure and organization of it loosens and that is why you see many large companies have audit problems and other things b/c it is hard to manage and have checks and balances.

when it comes to healthcare, canada and france and these small countries are the small companies. they can keep everything closely managed, keeping an eye on most of it. however, the US population is about 300 million, Canada's 33 million, Britain's 60 million (CIA Factbook). W/ all of these extra citizens, the organization is going to require so many more workers, and the costs are just going to go so high. Plus w/ our current government, it would just be disastrous. Our government can hardly handle the health care system as it is today.
 
struckpx said:


look at the structure of a company. when a company is smaller, the organization is much more centralized and tight-knit. as it grows, usually, the structure and organization of it loosens and that is why you see many large companies have audit problems and other things b/c it is hard to manage and have checks and balances.
Wow, that's a poor analogy. I know of many large companies that work better than small companies and vice versa.
struckpx said:

when it comes to healthcare, canada and france and these small countries are the small companies. they can keep everything closely managed, keeping an eye on most of it. however, the US population is about 300 million, Canada's 33 million, Britain's 60 million (CIA Factbook). W/ all of these extra citizens, the organization is going to require so many more workers, and the costs are just going to go so high.

:huh: You do realize that with larger populations you have more workers and costs available? I mean that's how it works.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

Wow, that's a poor analogy. I know of many large companies that work better than small companies and vice versa.


:huh: You do realize that with larger populations you have more workers and costs available? I mean that's how it works.

whatever you say buddy. all of my arguments are weak to you. notice how i haven't said any of your arguments are weak. i respect you enough to at least respond to them and keep personal thoughts to myself.
 
struckpx said:


whatever you say buddy. all of my arguments are weak to you. notice how i haven't said any of your arguments are weak. i respect you enough to at least respond to them and keep personal thoughts to myself.

:huh: What's your problem? Where did I say your argument was weak?

The analogy didn't work, that's all I said.

And then I asked you a question.
 
financeguy said:


I wasn't aware that any of these countries had embraced socialism.

:wave: Comrade

:wink:

struckpx said:


all of my arguments are weak to you. notice how i haven't said any of your arguments are weak. i respect you enough to at least respond to them and keep personal thoughts to myself.

That's because they are weak. The business one wasn't a very good analogy, many large businesses function very well, and are extremely profitable.

Your argument has gone from putting down universal health care to focusing on the incapability of your government to administer it. That's not a fault of the health care model. If your faith in your government is that weak, then you and others who feel similarly need to find a way to hold them accountable.

Also, Michael Moore's body weight and income have nothing to do with it, either.
 
Last edited:
VintagePunk said:


:wave: Comrade

:wink:



That's because they are weak. The business one wasn't a very good analogy, many large businesses function very well, and are extremely profitable.

Your argument has gone from putting down universal health care to focusing on the incapability of your government to administer it. That's not a fault of the health care model. If your faith in your government is that weak, then you and others who feel similarly need to find a way to hold them accountable.

Also, Michael Moore's body weight and income have nothing to do with it, either.

No, they are not weak, you just don't want to answer them.

And those countries have socialist traits to them.
 
struckpx said:


No, they are not weak, you just don't want to answer them.

And those countries have socialist traits to them.

Well, then why don't you show us, because you haven't yet, not even close.

Why don't you answer my question?

I won't even touch the rest of your argument...
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Well, then why don't you show us, because you haven't yet, not even close.

Why don't you answer my question?

I won't even touch the rest of your argument...

you haven't touched it. you just say it isn't good. how so? give me what you think is an alternative. i have given you mine
 
struckpx said:


you haven't touched it. you just say it isn't good. how so? give me what you think is an alternative. i have given you mine

:huh: What? I say what isn't good?

You are the one that came up with the argument that it won't work due to population, well now back it up.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


:huh: What? I say what isn't good?

You are the one that came up with the argument that it won't work due to population, well now back it up.

i did. more population, more workers, more costs, higher taxes, more confusion. where did you not get that?
 
struckpx said:


i did. more population, more workers, more costs, higher taxes, more confusion. where did you not get that?

:banghead: And it's been said, that it only makes sense that with larger populations you automatically get more workers and more costs, why do you keep ignoring that?

Your more confusion argument is just an opinion, you haven't backed that up, your larger company analogy didn't work.

Sorry, but you just don't have a great grasp on this one.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


:banghead: And it's been said, that it only makes sense that with larger populations you automatically get more workers and more costs, why do you keep ignoring that?

Your more confusion argument is just an opinion, you haven't backed that up, your larger company analogy didn't work.

Sorry, but you just don't have a great grasp on this one.

you aren't backing your side up as well, simply saying that you don't think that. proof? where is an example of a large country the size of the us having universal health care, population wise?

look at what happened w/ the various oil companies a few years ago.
 
struckpx said:


i did. more population, more workers, more costs, higher taxes, more confusion. where did you not get that?

How much real experience have you had with health care?

Are you paying for health insurance now?

I am 3 times your age.

And when I needed a hernia repair operation I had to wait 3 weeks to get it done.

and I had to pay around $4000 - $5000.

I live in California, Newport Beach to be exact. And I can tell you that having Health Care controlled and dealt out by for- profit insurance companies is about the least cost effective way to do it.
 
struckpx said:

look at what happened w/ the various oil companies a few years ago.

What
with favorable legislation from the Bush Administration the have made the most obscene profits in history?
 
struckpx said:


you aren't backing your side up as well, simply saying that you don't think that. proof? where is an example of a large country the size of the us having universal health care, population wise?

What? That's your argument? Because there isn't one, it won't work? Moscow once didn't have a McDonald's...


This is how it works, you made the argument it's the burden of proof for you to back it up.


struckpx said:

look at what happened w/ the various oil companies a few years ago.

So because some large companies had problems they all have problems? Sorry but you just aren't making sense.
 
i backed my idea up w/ governmental agencies, all which have flopped. you haven't mentioned those.
 
Back
Top Bottom