U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind Archive (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/)
-   -   Michael Moore - brilliant and uplifting (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/michael-moore-brilliant-and-uplifting-176456.html)

joyfulgirl 07-04-2007 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by anitram


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.

VintagePunk 07-04-2007 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by U2Scot


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:

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

Quote:

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.

struckpx 07-04-2007 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by joyfulgirl


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.

struckpx 07-04-2007 01:18 PM

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 07-04-2007 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx
...such as Canada ... where you have to wait months for the most basic of health care.
That is SO simply not true.

struckpx 07-04-2007 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VintagePunk


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.

VintagePunk 07-04-2007 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx


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.

struckpx 07-04-2007 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VintagePunk


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.

VintagePunk 07-04-2007 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx


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?

struckpx 07-04-2007 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VintagePunk



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.

BVS 07-04-2007 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx

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.

financeguy 07-04-2007 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx
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.

struckpx 07-04-2007 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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.

BVS 07-04-2007 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx


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.
Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx

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.

struckpx 07-04-2007 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

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.

BVS 07-04-2007 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx


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.

VintagePunk 07-04-2007 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by financeguy


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

:wave: Comrade

:wink:

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx


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.

struckpx 07-04-2007 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VintagePunk


: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.

BVS 07-04-2007 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by struckpx


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...

struckpx 07-04-2007 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com