IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Advocate, We know it's not working when our country spends a great deal more than other countries on health care, but we have about 47 million Americans withouth health insurance. It's broken. Somebody with the smarts to understand all the different ways to cure this problem will be a hero to all Americans; it's probably a combination of all the universal health systems already in place with some "adjustments" to meet our special needs without destroying the best healthcare in the world.

Quite interesting graphic from Wikipedia (sources at link):

Walter, Your chart showing the percent of health care cost by government tells the whole story. Our country spends too much on "defense" and not enough on medical care for our citizens. After all, the taxpayers should be the beneficiary of government expenditure, and not trying to bring democracy to another country that doesn't want it. It's about right priorities; not about some crazy president's wet dreams.

Walter's chart is pretty dispositive in this matter. For instance, by a considerable margin, we have the lowest life expectancy and the highest infant mortality. This is despite spending by far the highest percentage of GDP on healthcare.

I agree that we spend far too much on defense. We spend more than the next 26 countries combined.

Advocate, you can't be serious to cite a Michael Moore movie as credible evidence concerning this issue?

okie, FYI, Michael Moore's movie is more credible than anything you can say about this issue. Try to challenge anything in the movie that's not true? We'll wait for your answer.

Moore has been accurate in all his films. Sure, he can be nitpicked, but overall he has been on the mark. Do you dispute this?

There's always a problem with anecdotal evidence (even though you, if I remember correctly, are a strong defender of anecdotal evidence).

Have you seen the movie, though? It seems that the reviews of the movie were quite positive, across the media. For example, here's the FOXNews review of the movie.

But I agree that looking at the data would be more convincing than looking at some isolated cases. And the discussion on universal health care should maybe not be exclusively based on a movie.

(However, all the data seems to confirm that the US health care system is not really in such a good shape.)

I plan to see the film soon.

I am not a strong defender of anecdotal evidence. I agree that the film is essentially anecdotal. Moore is a showman who has to amuse and shock. He serves a good purpose by bringing attention to bear on the problem. Certainly, no decisions would be made based on the film.

It is unfortunate that the general public does not read. A big percentage get their news from comedy shows. Since the film is a comedy show, its message may get through to the general public, who, hopefully, will demand action from our leaders.

For the simple reason that I know Michael Moore's film is biased only to project his message, I will not see his "movie." I didn't bother with his other movies, because of his bias-prone message.

I'm an advocate for universal health care, but I want to know both sides of this issue; the pros and cons from the same source; balance.

Moore did bring out facts in his films that most of us did not know. Thus, the films are more than just biased comedic exercises.

I never considered Moore's pictures as "comedic," only one-sided. I'm sure his movie tells a good story about our need for universal health care, and sells it very well. I still believe "balance" is needed.

I'd like to see health insurance, that's afforable for everyone.
Will we ever see that day?

Moore's reporting is one-sided. he stresses what is right with other health plans in other countries, but does he say anything about what's wrong with them?

Does he really think that it's just to expect American MDs to take a 67% reduction in their salaries?

Yes, why wouldn't it be?

Cycloptichorn

Nobody argues that Moore's films present scholarly studies. They are one-sided polemics that are entertaining and instructive.

BTW, physicians took major cuts in compensation due to the actions of insurance companies and Medicare in the '90's, and yet those seeking entry into med schools soared.

One of the best universal systems is that in Germany, and that system served as a model for defeated Hillarycare.

I lied: our friends called us last night to ask if we'd like to join them to go see "Sicko." It was "entertaining," but also very instructive. It is biased, no question about that, but the overall truth of universal health care in other countries were also eye-openers. Many in our country who talks about a) decline in quality by having universal health care, b) we have the best health care in the world, and c) socialized medicine will damage our health care system are all lies. Anybody who believe these lies should go see the film.

First hand interviews with Canadians on their health care was all "positive." Their waiting period for an appointment was 15 to 20 minutes, not months - as often portrayed by the naysayers.
In France, they all get "free" health care. Many Americans interviewed in Paris couldn't say enough good things about their medical care in France. Finally, Michael Moore took people from across America to Cuba, yes Cuba, to get free treatments that American health care system would not. We're talking about people who helped on 9-11 as volunteers, but were refused any medical care after they learned of their health problems. One lady who needs drugs to help her breath has to pay over $100, and she was able to get the same med in Cuba for .05c. In England, they get all their meds free - whether it's one of 100. That's right; free. Their hospitals don't ask for "insurance" or payment before they are treated, because they don't have a billing system; it's all free. As a matter of fact, each hospital has a "CASHIER," but it's to give money to patients for transportation. That's right; they get money from the hospital.

All those countries with universal health care has better health and longevity, and their infant mortality is lower than in the US.

I've always advocated for a universal health care system in the US, and this film confirms why. We have hospitals in the US who take indigent patients on a taxi ride to get rid of them; some are mental patients. It's about money, not about good health. Go see "Sicko:" it's entertaining, serious, and you'll learn something.

CI, our rightwing posters here will have a tough time with your post (and the truth). Thanks!

Advocate, I'd like to see those right-wingers challenge anything portrayed in "Sicko." The only legitimate challenge will be "it's biased."