"Sicko" is a revelation.

Why didn't the author mention Mitt Romney's
Universal Health Plan, now the law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?

0 Replies

Good question. In addition, why didn't he also acknowledge that the behavior of insurance companies serving the health care systems in Germany, the Netherlands and other countries also very likely involve some of the same lapses, abuses, and missteps as were reported in the article about American insurers?

Finally, why didn't he address the fact that all systems, whether mandated insurance, single payer, or even free market individual choice involve some form of the rationing of available care and services. Government-operated or single payer systems do it by the limitations of the government's funding for care or facilities and practicioners. Insurance programs do it by the well-known caps, limits and administrative process. Free market systems do it through raw economic action and individual choice. One may find moral or ethical diffwerences in the character of these limits. but the limits all exist nonetheless, and theior action on an affected individual will feel equally arbitrary in every case.

0 Replies

Miller, why don't you just go see it instead of posting the opinions of others. I really think you find it interesting, even if you hate Moore, you might understand why he has hit a raw nerve in this nation.

By the way, I willing to reimburse you the cost of the movie ticket if you don't mind giving me an address.

0 Replies

Why is referencing the opinions of "others" is articles such as that Miller posted above any less beneficial or meaningful than referencing the opinions and propaganda of Michael Moore?

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Why didn't the author mention Mitt Romney's
Universal Health Plan, now the law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?

This may not be the place to ask, but I've always wondered how his program is fundamentally different from a single payer system. How is forcing someone to buy a policy different from a tax?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Miller wrote:
Why didn't the author mention Mitt Romney's
Universal Health Plan, now the law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?

This may not be the place to ask, but I've always wondered how his program is fundamentally different from a single payer system. How is forcing someone to buy a policy different from a tax?

As far as a tax is concerned, those residents of Massachusetts who do not buy health insurance this year, will lose their State tax credit 0n the 2007 tax form.

If an individual continues to avoid getting health insurance the penalty will increase dramatically.

0 Replies

Maybe so, but my question remains unanswered.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Good question. In addition, why didn't he also acknowledge that the behavior of insurance companies serving the health care systems in Germany, the Netherlands and other countries also very likely involve some of the same lapses, abuses, and missteps as were reported in the article about American insurers?

I haven't commented in the other MM/Sicko thread about this, but O'George's point is well taken. Moore paints a completely unrealistic picture of health care in Canada--so much so that it has been discussed at length on Canadian radio and television; so much so, that Moore has cut short interviews in which Canadian journalists ask him about it; so much so, that Moore no longer gives interviews to Canadian media outlets.

I never had a brief to defend Moore, and neither did i ever anything against him. However, the evidence keeps coming in that Moore starts with a point of view, and then proceeds to film a documentary the purpose of which is to make his point of view out to be the truth--even if it means hiding facts or distorting them. The evidence keeps coming in that Moore ignores or even attacks anyone who criticizes him by digging up the actual facts and then having the temerity to question his films.

I am glad that i've never wasted a penny of my money on this clown.

0 Replies

Gotta go buy a lotto ticket - I agree with Set...

0 Replies

In Entertainment Weekly, Moore tacitly admitted that "Sicko" lies about wait times, saying, "Well, OK, let's set up a system where we don't have the Canadian wait."

On his webpage, he also admits his film is a comedy.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Maybe so, but my question remains unanswered.

Quote:

How is forcing someone to buy a policy different from a tax?

In Massachusetts, if this was to be applied as a tax, it would
discriminate based on age. In the Commonwealth, for instance, above the poverty level, a 30 yr old individual would pay
about $3600/year, while someone who's 60 years old would pay a tax of about $8500.

Thus it could never be applied as a flat tax, not with age as the variable, and all individuals, regardless of health eligable for enrollment.

0 Replies

What I mean is how is a system where you force all citizens to purchase health insurance different from government insurance which is paid for by taxing everyone? How is it really different from a single payer system other than the fact that insurance companies get to make a profit?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

What I mean is how is a system where you force all citizens to purchase health insurance different from government insurance which is paid for by taxing everyone?

The former is a graduated tax, determined by age of participant, while the latter is a flat tax, independent of age, gender, income,
health.

0 Replies

What would make it a flat tax? Social security isn't a flat tax -- it's based on income. Income tax isn't flat. We don't pay for other programs with a flat tax, why would a tax to pay for universal health care be flat?

0 Replies

There is absolutely no reason, why above the poverty level, a tax for health insurance should be determined by income. Private insurance surely isn't, as it depends on the health of the individual and the age of the individual, depending on the State in which the policy is purchased.

0 Replies

But in Mitt's system it's also determined by income, is it not? The very poor will pay very little as their coverage is provided by state sponsored programs or medicaid. The very old (and poor) will have medicare and any other state sponsored program. So what you end up with is nothing more than a mandate for the middle income earners to foot the bill for health insurance. Many middle income earners already have employer sponsored plans, so this would only affect those who earn a decent wage but don't have the employer sponsored plan (which is cheaper and paid for with pre-tax dollars). So though there may be some variation in the cost of the policies within middle and upper income groups, it's still primarily a graduated tax.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

But in Mitt's system it's also determined by income, is it not?

Above the poverty level, the premium is determined by age and locale of residence withini the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Indivduals in the age range of about 20-30 years, with incomes above the poverty level will pay in the ball park of $300/month ( this level has been adjust lately upward ) and for example an individual in the age 60-64 years, for example would pay about $700/month ( or more depending on the insurance plan ).

At age 65, the anyone who's paid into SS and qualifies for SS can get medicare benefits. Most if not all insurance plans in the Commonwealth refuse to issue private insurance plans to those at age 65 and up. Thus, this person must go on medicare, or if extremely poor he/she must go on medicaid.

Physicians are not obligated to take medicare/medicaid individuals as patients and as matter of interest, increasing numbers of MDs are refusing to take these patients because of the low re-imbursement rates paid to the doctors for these patients.

0 Replies

Ok, but it's still not looking any different different to me than a single payer system. Everybody who can HAS to pay in (just like a tax) and in return everyone is covered. The nature of insurance is that you are paying into a pool, which means the risk and cost for very expensive illnesses is spread across all members. Again, that to me sounds exactly like a single payer system except that the insurance companies get to turn a profit, and the pools are generally smaller (keeping premiums higher). I don't know why you would be okay with this program but not one where the government acts as the insurer.

0 Replies

In the information age insurence doesn't mean what it once did. The ready access to individual costs has gradually broken down the notion of pooled risk. My company offers a fairly generous array of choices for medical menefits to our employees. The premiums we pay are directly and immediately related to the demographics of our employee population, and, more significantly, to the actuual costs for services recently incurred. These cange continuously and our charges are adjusted on a quarterly basis.

What this means for an individual is that, absent legislation to limit it, insurance premiums will accurately reflect the actual costs of the applicant.

0 Replies

"Sicko" is a revelation.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know