Sicko movie review

[SUBMAN1]

Can Micheal Moore move to a Socialistic Communism state like China or Russia? He might be more happy there.

Look at this link - he is inciting rebellion in my country!!!!:
'I Really Want Young People To Rebel' (http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?vid=159434)
http://www.mtv.com/shared/promoimages/movies/m/moore_michael/intv_06182007/seg3/70x53.jpg

-S



Jun 29 2007 12:34 PM EDT
'Sicko': Heavily Doctored, By Kurt Loder

Is Michael Moore's prescription worse than the disease?


Michael Moore may see himself as working in the tradition of such crusading muckrakers of the last century as Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair — writers whose dedication to exposing corruption and social injustices played a part in sparking much-needed reforms. In his new movie, "Sicko," Moore focuses on the U.S. health-care industry — a juicy target — and he casts a shocking light on some of the people it's failed.


There's a man who mangled two of his fingers with a power saw and learned that it would cost $12,000 to save one of them, but $60,000 to save the other. He had no health insurance and could only scrape together enough money to salvage the $12,000 finger.


There's a woman whose husband was prescribed new drugs to combat his cancer, but couldn't get their insurance company to pay for them because the drugs were experimental. Her husband died.


Then there's a woman who made an emergency trip to a hospital for treatment and subsequently learned her insurance company wouldn't pay for the ambulance that took her there — because it hadn't been "pre-approved." And there's a middle-aged couple — a man, who suffered three heart attacks, and his wife, who developed cancer — who were bankrupted by the cost of co-payments and other expenses not covered by their insurance, and have now been forced to move into a cramped, dismal room in the home of a resentful son. There's also a 79-year-old man who has to continue working a menial job because Medicare won't cover the cost of all the medications he needs.


Moore does a real service in bringing these stories to light — some of them are horrifying, and then infuriating. One giant health-maintenance organization, Kaiser Permanente, is so persuasively lambasted in the movie that, on the basis of what we're told, we want to burst into the company's executive suites and make a mass citizen's arrest. This is the sort of thing good muckrakers are supposed to do.
Unfortunately, Moore is also a con man of a very brazen sort, and never more so than in this film. His cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews (with lingering close-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18 million people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools. The American health-care system is in urgent need of reform, no question. Some 47 million people are uninsured (although many are only temporarily so, being either in-between jobs or young enough not to feel a pressing need to buy health insurance). There are a number of proposals as to what might be done to correct this situation. Moore has no use for any of them, save one.


As a proud socialist, the director appears to feel that there are few problems in life that can't be solved by government regulation (that would be the same government that's already given us the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles). In the case of health care, though, Americans have never been keen on socialized medicine. In 1993, when one of Moore's heroes, Hillary Clinton (he actually blurts out the word "sexy!" in describing her in the movie), tried to create a government-controlled health care system, her failed attempt to do so helped deliver the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives into Republican control for the next dozen years. Moore still looks upon Clinton's plan as a grand idea, one that Americans, being not very bright, unwisely rejected. (He may be having second thoughts about Hillary herself, though: In the movie he heavily emphasizes the fact that, among politicians, she accepts the second-largest amount of political money from the health care industry.)


The problem with American health care, Moore argues, is that people are charged money to avail themselves of it. In other countries, like Canada, France and Britain, health systems are far superior — and they're free. He takes us to these countries to see a few clean, efficient hospitals, where treatment is quick and caring; and to meet a few doctors, who are delighted with their government-regulated salaries; and to listen to patients express their beaming happiness with a socialized health system. It sounds great. As one patient in a British hospital run by the country's National Health Service says, "No one pays. It's all on the NHS. It's not America."
That last statement is even truer than you'd know from watching "Sicko." In the case of Canada — which Moore, like many other political activists, holds up as a utopian ideal of benevolent health-care regulation — a very different picture is conveyed by a short 2005 documentary called "Dead Meat," (http://onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/) by Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg. These two filmmakers talked to a number of Canadians of a kind that Moore's movie would have you believe don't exist:


A 52-year-old woman in Calgary recalls being in severe need of joint-replacement surgery after the cartilage in her knee wore out. She was put on a wait list and wound up waiting 16 months for the surgery. Her pain was so excruciating, she says, that she was prescribed large doses of Oxycontin, and soon became addicted. After finally getting her operation, she was put on another wait list — this time for drug rehab.


A man tells about his mother waiting two years for life-saving cancer surgery — and then twice having her surgical appointments canceled. She was still waiting when she died.


A man in critical need of neck surgery plays a voicemail message from a doctor he'd contacted: "As of today," she says, "it's a two-year wait-list to see me for an initial consultation." Later, when the man and his wife both needed hip-replacement surgery and grew exasperated after spending two years on a waiting list, they finally mortgaged their home and flew to Belgium to have the operations done there, with no more waiting.


Rick Baker, the owner of a Toronto company called Timely Medical Alternatives, specializes in transporting Canadians who don't want to wait for medical care to Buffalo, New York, two hours away, where they won't have to. Baker's business is apparently thriving.


And Dr. Brian Day, now the president of the Canadian Medical Association, muses about the bizarre distortions created by a law that prohibits Canadians from paying for even urgently-needed medical treatments, or from obtaining private health insurance. "It's legal to buy health insurance for your pets," Day says, "but illegal to buy health insurance for yourself." (Even more pointedly, Day was quoted in the Wall Street Journal this week as saying, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years.")
Actually, this aspect of the Canadian health-care system is changing. In 2005, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in favor of a man who had filed suit in Quebec over being kept on an interminable waiting list for treatment. In striking down the government health care monopoly in that province, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said, "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care." Now a similar suit has been filed in Ontario.


What's the problem with government health systems? Moore's movie doesn't ask that question, although it does unintentionally provide several answers. When governments attempt to regulate the balance between a limited supply of health care and an unlimited demand for it they're inevitably forced to ration treatment. This is certainly the situation in Britain. Writing in the Chicago Tribune this week, Helen Evans, a 20-year veteran of the country's National Health Service and now the director of a London-based group called Nurses for Reform, said that nearly 1 million Britons are currently on waiting lists for medical care — and another 200,000 are waiting to get on waiting lists. Evans also says the NHS cancels about 100,000 operations each year because of shortages of various sorts. Last March, the BBC reported on the results of a Healthcare Commission poll of 128,000 NHS workers: two thirds of them said they "would not be happy" to be patients in their own hospitals. James Christopher, the film critic of the Times of London, thinks he knows why. After marveling at Moore's rosy view of the British health care system in "Sicko," Christopher wrote, "What he hasn't done is lie in a corridor all night at the Royal Free [Hospital] watching his severed toe disintegrate in a plastic cup of melted ice. I have." Last month, the Associated Press reported that Gordon Brown — just installed this week as Britain's new prime minister — had promised to inaugurate "sweeping domestic reforms" to, among other things, "improve health care."


Moore's most ardent enthusiasm is reserved for the French health care system, which he portrays as the crowning glory of a Gallic lifestyle far superior to our own. The French! They work only 35 hours a week, by law. They get at least five weeks' vacation every year. Their health care is free, and they can take an unlimited number of sick days. It is here that Moore shoots himself in the foot. He introduces us to a young man who's reached the end of three months of paid sick leave and is asked by his doctor if he's finally ready to return to work. No, not yet, he says. So the doctor gives him another three months of paid leave — and the young man immediately decamps for the South of France, where we see him lounging on the sunny Riviera, chatting up babes and generally enjoying what would be for most people a very expensive vacation. Moore apparently expects us to witness this dumbfounding spectacle and ask why we can't have such a great health care system, too. I think a more common response would be, how can any country afford such economic insanity?


As it turns out, France can't. In 2004, French Health Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told a government commission, "Our health system has gone mad. Profound reforms are urgent." Agence France-Presse recently reported that the French health-care system is running a deficit of $2.7 billion. And in the French presidential election in May, voters in surprising numbers rejected the Socialist candidate, Ségolène Royal, who had promised actually to raise some health benefits, and elected instead the center-right politician Nicolas Sarkozy, who, according to Agence France-Presse again, "plans to move fast to overhaul the economy, with the deficit-ridden health care system a primary target." Possibly Sarkozy should first consult with Michael Moore. After all, the tax-stoked French health care system may be expensive, but at least it's "free."


Having driven his bring-on-government-health care argument into a ditch outside of Paris, Moore next pilots it right off a cliff and into the Caribbean on the final stop on his tour: Cuba. Here it must also be said that the director performs a valuable service. He rounds up a group of 9/11 rescue workers — firefighters and selfless volunteers — who risked their lives and ruined their health in the aftermath of the New York terrorist attacks. These people — there's no other way of putting it — have been screwed, mainly by the politicians who were at such photo-op pains to praise them at the time. (This makes Moore's faith in government medical compassion seem all the more inexplicable.) These people's lives have been devastated — wracked by chronic illnesses, some can no longer hold down jobs and none can afford to buy the various expensive medicines they need. Moore does them an admirable service by bringing their plight before a large audience.
However, there's never a moment when we doubt that he's also using these people as props in his film, and as talking points in his agenda. Renting some boats, he leads them all off to Cuba. Upon arrival they stop briefly outside the American military enclave on Guantanamo Bay so that Moore can have himself filmed begging, through a bullhorn, for some of the free, top-notch medical care that's currently being lavished on the detainees there. Having no luck, he then moves on to Cuba proper.
Fidel Castro's island dictatorship, now in its 40th year of being listed as a human-rights violator by Amnesty International, is here depicted as a balmy paradise not unlike the Iraq of Saddam Hussein that Moore showed us in his earlier film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." He and his charges make their way — their pre-arranged way, if it need be said — to a state-of-the-art hospital where they receive a picturesquely warm welcome. In a voiceover, Moore, shown beaming at his little band of visitors, says he told the Cuban doctors to "give them the same care they'd give Cuban citizens." Then he adds, dramatically: "And they did."


If Moore really believes this, he may be a greater fool than even his most feverish detractors claim him to be. Nevertheless, medical care is provided to the visiting Americans, and it is indeed excellent. Cuba is in fact the site of some world-class medical facilities (surprising in a country that, as Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar noted in the Los Angeles Times last month, "imprisoned a doctor in the late 1990s for speaking out against government failure to respond to an epidemic of a mosquito-borne virus"). What Moore doesn't mention is the flourishing Cuban industry of "health tourism" — a system in which foreigners (including self-admitted multimillionaire film directors and, of course, government bigwigs) who are willing to pay cash for anything from brain-surgery to dental work can purchase a level of treatment that's unavailable to the majority of Cubans with no hard currency at their disposal. The Cuban American National Foundation (admittedly a group with no love for the Castro regime) calls this "medical apartheid." And in a 2004 article in Canada's National Post, writer Isabel Vincent quoted a dissident Cuban neurosurgeon, Hilda Molina, as saying, "Cubans should be treated the same as foreigners. Cubans have less rights in their own country than foreigners who visit here."


As the Caribbean sun sank down on Moore's breathtakingly meretricious movie, I couldn't help recalling that when Fidel Castro became gravely ill last year, he didn't put himself in the hands of a Cuban surgeon. No. Instead, he had a specialist flown in — from Spain.

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml

[SUBMAN1]

Another thought, how can this weirdo criticse the Walter Reed medical center for example, and then ask for government run health care in the same movie??? Is he nuts? Walter Reed is a government funded and government run hospital!!! Hahahahaha! What an idiot.

-S

[waste gate]

Another thought, how can this weirdo criticse the Walter Reed medical center for example, and then ask for government run health care in the same movie??? Is he nuts? Walter Reed is a government funded and government run hospital!!! Hahahahaha! What an idiot.

-S

That was my question back in March.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=107355&highlight=Walter+Reed

[P_Funk]

Another thought, how can this weirdo criticse the Walter Reed medical center for example, and then ask for government run health care in the same movie??? Is he nuts? Walter Reed is a government funded and government run hospital!!! Hahahahaha! What an idiot.

-S Well the logic behind that isn't as stupid as you make it seem. Like the article you posted above you make the either/or statement.
As a proud socialist, the director appears to feel that there are few problems in life that can't be solved by government regulation (that would be the same government that's already given us the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles). Italics added.

Government run programs aren't evil because they're often poorly run. They're bad because they're... poorly run. The difference however is that private programs that don't work for the average American in health care are actually being run brilliantly... they're only running on a different model than actual benefit to the patient.

And of course theres also the question of the ailing Canadian Health Care system. Well its true that we have problems up here with our system. However these are problems created by poor management of the changing health and age demographic of our population and of course because funding is often not sufficient. The solution that many people are suggesting is a two tiered public/private system where those with the means can skip the line to get better treatment. The problem with this is that private clinics are hiring the same doctors that work in public run hospitals and since private clinics can pay the doctors better the public hospitals suffer. In addition to that theres been plenty of research done to show that privatizing the health care system would only make it less efficient and actually bloat the buraucracy.

So the legitimate questions about the Canadian system don't immediately make the concept of universal health care absurdly flawed.

[waste gate]

I think, although I haven't seen the movie, that Mr. Moore's discussion revolves around the US system, not Canada.

[Enigma]

i get such a kick out of the right when it comes to Moore.

i mean, really. who has a problem with a guy who says "our healthcare sucks and we deserve better" or "i really would like to understand and prevent our children from killing each other with handguns".

He's evil! :lol:

[P_Funk]

I think, although I haven't seen the movie, that Mr. Moore's discussion revolves around the US system, not Canada.
Yes and the article posted by Subman makes a number of references to the state of the Canadian system in reply to Moore's own references to Canada's system.

[fatty]

i get such a kick out of the right when it comes to Moore.

i mean, really. who has a problem with a guy who says "our healthcare sucks and we deserve better" or "i really would like to understand and prevent our children from killing each other with handguns".

He's evil! :lol:

I must say we (Moore and I) sometimes disagree, but I concede that he's very good at what he does.

[SUBMAN1]

I think, although I haven't seen the movie, that Mr. Moore's discussion revolves around the US system, not Canada. Yes and the article posted by Subman makes a number of references to the state of the Canadian system in reply to Moore's own references to Canada's system.

Don't question me on the Canadian health system as compared to the American health system. I'm tied between the two (my in-laws are Canadian - and I have an uncle that would tell you a thin or two that needs hip replacement - basically, he is going to have to pay for it out of pocket!). My wife as well as my sister in law had the exact same procedure, and I can tell you that it is night and day between the treatment of the two. I am actually ticked at the Canadian health care system, their paint peeling off the walls, and I can tell you that even though their people are great, they are severly under-funded! My mother-in-law recently died (about a month now) of cancer, and I absolutely love the nurses, and at least one of her non-French doctors. But they do not have even a fraction of the capability that they have over here, or the hand and foot treatment my wife recently got! Her sister got none of this treatment - no funding. Period.

The Canadian system is a joke compared to the US. Do not even get me started.

-S

[waste gate]

i get such a kick out of the right when it comes to Moore.

i mean, really. who has a problem with a guy who says "our healthcare sucks and we deserve better" or "i really would like to understand and prevent our children from killing each other with handguns".

He's evil! :lol:

I don't have too much of a problem with Mike. His 'documentaries' take a little of this and a little of that, run it through the edit machine and call it truth. I think his efforts open a discussion and that is good, regardless the subterfuge used.

[SUBMAN1]

i get such a kick out of the right when it comes to Moore.

i mean, really. who has a problem with a guy who says "our healthcare sucks and we deserve better" or "i really would like to understand and prevent our children from killing each other with handguns".

He's evil! :lol:
Look at the left when you say that. Our healthcare happens to be the best in the world. Best funded, best techologicaly capable, and purely, the best possible lease on life you have a hope for bar none. So what is the problem exactly?

This is coming from someone who has experience on the other side of the coin. Health care in any other country doesn't compare. It is night and day. Yes, it costs money, but you get treatment and care like no other country on this very planet.

And what of these children exactly? Maybe you can explain to me what the problem is exactly. I am more than willing to get into this conversation, trust me. We do have a problem in the west with messed up children, and maybe it is time to bring out the light.

Oh wise one - please do guide us stupid Ameicans!

-S

[waste gate]

This belongs on many of the firearms threads, but..........

Every firearms accident involving a “child” will be reported nationwide, yet the National Safety Council reports that far fewer children are killed or injured in firearms accidents each year than drown in 5-gallon buckets.

Might I suggest this thread.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=109983&highlight=firearms (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=109983&highlight=firearms)

[fatty]

Look at the left when you say that. Our healthcare happens to be the best in the world. Best funded, best techologicaly capable, and purely, the best possible lease on life you have a hope for bar none. So what is the problem exactly?

This is coming from someone who has experience on the other side of the coin. Health care in any other country doesn't compare. It is night and day. Yes, it costs money, but you get treatment and care like no other country on this very planet.


That's self-evident, like saying you can drive a really nice car - if you've got the cash! "You get what you pay for" best applies here. Pay nothing like we do and get mediocre care. Pay through the ass like many of you do and get pretty good care. Pay the combined salary of everyone posting in this thread and you can have your very own live-in doctor! Yahoo!

[waste gate]

Look at the left when you say that. Our healthcare happens to be the best in the world. Best funded, best techologicaly capable, and purely, the best possible lease on life you have a hope for bar none. So what is the problem exactly?

This is coming from someone who has experience on the other side of the coin. Health care in any other country doesn't compare. It is night and day. Yes, it costs money, but you get treatment and care like no other country on this very planet.


That's self-evident, like saying you can drive a really nice car - if you've got the cash! "You get what you pay for" best applies here. Pay nothing like we do and get mediocre care. Pay through the ass like many of you do and get pretty good care. Pay the combined salary of everyone posting in this thread and you can have your very own live-in doctor! Yahoo!


Sounds like you dislike your health care system. That is not the fault of the US system. Perhaps Canadians need to look at themselves before engaging in a race to the bottom of health care.

[Onkel Neal]

I feel there are changes that need to be made to the US system, definitely. People can opt out of paying for insurance and they are still given medical attention--they just have to show up at ER. Which is why ERs are clogged with people who have no intention of paying. If it was up to me, there would be an extended Medicare system to cover uninsured. And additional medicare withholding from wages, but if you have insurance, you are exempt from the Medicare tax. That way the "poor" can be given the opportunity to pay for their health care.

[Heibges]

The high cost of health, I always thought, was the fault of the malpractice lawyers, but this suggests it is the insurance companies.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/malpractice/rp/1008.pdf

[waste gate]

The high cost of health, I always thought, was the fault of the malpractice lawyers, but this suggests it is the insurance companies.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/malpractice/rp/1008.pdf

I'm sure it is a combination of the two. We live in a letiginous society. That fault lays with ambulance chasers like John Edwards. The insurance companies realizing they have the deepest pockets raise their rates to compensate for high jury awards. And the cycle continues. Those getting rich are the lawyers and the insurance companies. From there the folks complain about both the lawyers and the insurance companies. Its a vicious cycle.

[Onkel Neal]

The high cost of health, I always thought, was the fault of the malpractice lawyers, but this suggests it is the insurance companies.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/malpractice/rp/1008.pdf

I'm not an expert, but I would contend that it is a spiral effect; insurance covers health costs for those who buy insurance; those who do not buy insurance, many do not pay for their services; the price of services is increased to cover the loss; insurance prices go up as a result of increased service cost; fewer people pay for insurance as a result of higher insurance costs... repeat. If you do not pay for insurance, and you do not have money to take care of your personal health costs, you want someone else to pay for it. Not right, in my opinion. Especially when many people who say they are too poor to take care of themselves splurge much of their income on luxuries, such as cell phones, internet service, games, movies, restaurants, cars, etc. Food, housing, health care should come first. A lot of people do not want to admit that they should be responsible for their own well being, if it means giving up their pleasures.

If everyone pitched into Medicare, exempting those who can provide proof of insurance, medical costs would not be so high.

[waste gate]

Ultimately I would discuss the idea of health care if those who wanted it would care about their health.

Since up to now they don't, neither will I. Stop looking for a handout!!

In summary, care about your health and I'll care about health care.

[Heibges]

The price of insurance premiums really hammer the small and medium size business.

One answer is employee leasing. The major benefit is savings in insurance premiums.

http://www.answers.com/topic/employee-leasing-programs?cat=biz-fin

http://www.constructionweblinks.com/Resources/Industry_Reports__Newsletters/Jul_05_2004/leasing.html

http://www.gordonrees.com/pubs/ins_bulletin_043007b.cfm

[Skybird]

Problem with modern medicine is that it becomes more and more expensive. In Germany, we have de facto a two-class medicine already, becasue they needed to add so many regulations to the insurance system that are meant to finance the system that the money all too often is not enough. Doctors need to fight with budget limits per quarter, and if the money for a quarter is no more, you will get cheaper, eventually not optimal medications, or are put on waiting lists. This makes hospitals and doctors prefer patients who are privately insured. Also, the different lobbies try their best to manipulate the system to milk as much money of it as possible. Especially the pharmaceutical industry and the pharmacists try their best to prevent competition, and keep prices high (Nowhere in europe drugs are as expensive as in Germany). Mismanagement in the insurance system lead to some insurance companies living beyond their financial possebilities, at the cost of others who manage well - and because of that are obligated to give away very high ammounts of money - that are used to finance the first.

At no cost I would like to have the american system. General health insurance is one of the things I accept to be covered by our oprinciple of "social solidarity" our community is depending on. But the German system needs far-leading, reasonable reforms, too, to prevent the many daily abuses and manipulations.

Nobody seems to want to have a discussion on the problem of modern medicine making itself unaffordable for more and more people (and by far not only the so-called "poor"). It will not be done before the problem jumps with hurting spikes into our eyes, I assume. Having been with dying people on special, closed stations at hospital I am convinced that it is not onoly important to have the available tools available for therapies, but that the way in which people can be allowed to die is as important. I saw much misery and fear there. Becasue we live in a cult that tries to avoid any mentioning of the fact bthat we are mortal and one day will die,and thus many people never learn to approach the idea of their own death, and never learn how to deal with that once the time has come. The result is tragedy, panic, and often total isolation.

No good way to die, I tell you, no matter if you are old, or if you are young and suffer from a disease or accident. I have made some certain decisions for myself, for that reason, and always carry a card with instruction with me that tells them where to find or get my advance health care directive (? Patientenverfügung) that gives more details on when I expect them NOT to continue with certain treatments in case I am not able to formulate my will myself anymore.

There are times and situations when you simply need to let go. In our culture with it'S body cult and living cult and medicine cult and death-avoidance cult it is almost a sacrileg to mention that.

[P_Funk]

At no cost I would like to have the american system. General health insurance is one of the things I accept to be covered by our oprinciple of "social solidarity" our community is depending on. But the German system needs far-leading, reasonable reforms, too, to prevent the many daily abuses and manipulations. Thats exactly the point. The private for profit American system functions the best but its a discriminatory system. It works only for those that pay for it. The best always comes with the highest price tag and thats why its so unaffordable. And its not that the Canadian or the French or the British or the German systems don't or can't work, its that they require alot of maintenance to keep them functioning properly.

Any government program is vulnerable to bloated buraucracy and corruption but ultimately it has the potential to work better in the interests of society at large. And given the social imperative of health care, the private sector can't be trusted to do right by the patients. Its actually ingrained in law in the US. The corporation has a legal obligation to do right by its investors primarily. Thats a conflict of interest when we talk about an essential service.

[DAB]

Look at the left when you say that. Our healthcare happens to be the best in the world. Best funded, best techologicaly capable, and purely, the best possible lease on life you have a hope for bar none. So what is the problem exactly?

This is coming from someone who has experience on the other side of the coin. Health care in any other country doesn't compare. It is night and day. Yes, it costs money, but you get treatment and care like no other country on this very planet.

And what of these children exactly? Maybe you can explain to me what the problem is exactly. I am more than willing to get into this conversation, trust me. We do have a problem in the west with messed up children, and maybe it is time to bring out the light.

Oh wise one - please do guide us stupid Ameicans!

-S
Michael Moore aside. I have never understood why a debate on Welfare reform is so taboo in the United States. But just to correct a few figures.

<<Edit>> Do'h. Chart doesn't display in forum Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare#Health_care_economics instead <<Edit>>

I am not advocating the UK model or Canadian model. But surely as Niel says - review and change is needed in the medical system. Especially as these figures seem to indicate the US system has no advantages over its Universialist counterparts and in several cases - a clear disadvantage

[Sailor Steve]

And additional medicare withholding from wages, but if you have insurance, you are exempt from the Medicare tax. That way the "poor" can be given the opportunity to pay for their health care.
You got my vote...oh, wait, you're not...

Why aren't you running for something?

[P_Funk]

Appropriately enough I just finished watching John Q on TV. Very strong message about the American health care system in there.

[waste gate]

Appropriately enough I just finished watching John Q on TV. Very strong message about the American health care system in there.

Share what you gleaned P.

Thanx

[P_Funk]

Well the message generally is more about he dysfunction of the system than the solutions. Denzel Washington has a little boy that needs a heart transplant. It costs $200k and his insurance says it won't cover it. So he gets a gun and holds a hospital hostage until they put his son on the donor list.

Throughout there are little conversations he has with hostages and doctors there where the truth behind the system is revealed. Like how his son's condition might have been known by his doctor but because the HMO pays the doctor a bonus he didn't test for it. Another point that in the ER they have to stabalize people but if they don't have the cash they're out the door.

Stuff like that. James Woods plays a really good bastard doctor apologist.

[waste gate]

Well the message generally is more about he dysfunction of the system than the solutions. Denzel Washington has a little boy that needs a heart transplant. It costs $200k and his insurance says it won't cover it. So he gets a gun and holds a hospital hostage until they put his son on the donor list.

Throughout there are little conversations he has with hostages and doctors there where the truth behind the system is revealed. Like how his son's condition might have been known by his doctor but because the HMO pays the doctor a bonus he didn't test for it. Another point that in the ER they have to stabalize people but if they don't have the cash they're out the door.

Stuff like that. James Woods plays a really good bastard doctor apologist.

Thanx P. It sounds like a anti-Health Managment Orginization (HMO) movie. I have never opted for that kind of insurance even though it would cost me less. I've never thought bean counters or bureaucrats should be in charge of medical care.

[P_Funk]

Thanx P. It sounds like a anti-Health Managment Orginization (HMO) movie. I have never opted for that kind of insurance even though it would cost me less. I've never thought bean counters or bureaucrats should be in charge of medical care.
Well it really is anti HMO. But beyond the social commentary its a pretty good movie too. My mom was watching it with me and she cried quite a bit. Lots of good actors too. Whatever anyones feelings about health care its worth a watch.:up:

[waste gate]

Thanx P. It sounds like a anti-Health Managment Orginization (HMO) movie. I have never opted for that kind of insurance even though it would cost me less. I've never thought bean counters or bureaucrats should be in charge of medical care.
Well it really is anti HMO. But beyond the social commentary its a pretty good movie too. My mom was watching it with me and she cried quite a bit. Lots of good actors too. Whatever anyones feelings about health care its worth a watch.:up:


Like how his son's condition might have been known by his doctor but because the HMO pays the doctor a bonus he didn't test for it.


I guess I misundertood your answer.

[bradclark1]

In Canada, an average of $917 was spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the U.S., this number is $3,372.

[waste gate]

In Canada, an average of $917 was spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the U.S., this number is $3,372.

So where is the money difference coming from? What is the figure for individual Canadian income that goes to health care via tax? I think that needs to be added to the Canadian total if we want to look at the cost, since their health care is socialized.

[Tchocky]

I suppose the difference lies in how you see your health. Is it something you buy, or are entitled to?
Some states see a basic level of healthcare that should be available to all citizens, and others see it as another good.

[waste gate]

I suppose the difference lies in how you see your health. Is it something you buy, or are entitled to?
Some states see a basic level of healthcare that should be available to all citizens, and others see it as another good.

Or is health something each individual takes care of before they need a hand out?
Smoking, alcohol consumption, Big Macs, unprotected sex, illicate drug use, irresponsible driving habits, all contribute to ER and hospital admittances.

The problem as I see it is that those asking for universal health care are the same folks who only think about health care after they do something that they knew was risky.

[Tchocky]

Or is health something each individual takes care of before they need a hand out?
Smoking, alcohol consumption, Big Macs, unprotected sex, illicate drug use, irresponsible driving habits, all contribute to ER and hospital admittances. Well, if you don't care for your body, there are obvious effects. But most people do keep in decent shape. (and wouldn't the country with the most market-driven health system be the healthiest, and not the fast-food addicts? I dont know).
For every Big Mac scoffer, there's leukemia. Basing the system on a marginal group won't lead to very good results. Universal health care is hardly a hand-out, you still pay for it. As Pfunk said, either great care for those who can afford it (and are more likely to be healthy), and nothing for those who can't - or decent care for everyone, with taxpayers/standard insurance taking the bill.
The problem as I see it is that those asking for universal health care are the same folks who only think about health care after they do something that they knew was risky.I really don't see that happening. Also, who thinks about healthcare when they are healthy anyway?

[waste gate]

who thinks about healthcare when they are healthy anyway?

There you go. What is wanted is a handout. Save me from myself.

[Tchocky]

Bah! Universal healthcare is not a handout!

[waste gate]

Bah! Universal healthcare is not a handout!

Tell me who would be giving something back. I'm curious T.

[P_Funk]

Well reading up on the differences 'twixt our two systems has given me the intellecual fuel to give at least a simplistic comparison.

Basically in Canada the vast majority of health care providers are privately run. However these are not for profit organizations and they send their bills directly to the provincial government. There are also public run hospitals and clinics. All health care in Canada is paid for by the government under what we call Medicare. It was initially a provincial affair that started in Saskatchewan in the 1946 under the precursor to the Saskatchewan NDP to supplement the shortage of doctors through subsidy. The Federal government became involved in the 57 to supplement the provinces since individual provinces can't afford true universal health care. Up until the 60s the US system was almost exactly the same. However Lester B. Pearson, with heavy pressure from the NDP (recall my musings about the benefits of minority government), began to fund all provinvices to create universal health care plans.

Today at least 70% of all health care is paid for by the various levels of government. The remaining 30% is paid by private sectors for things not covered by the national plan. Thats prescription drugs, optometry and dentistry.

The US still has significant government involvement in the health care system only it doesn't cover health insurance universally. Costs are also higher in many respects. Administration being at least twice as expensive I think. Prescription drugs are also significantly more expensive. Interestingly enough the buraucracy of the American system is significantly larger than the Canadian one because of the diverse private interests. Many of the extra costs for private advertising and such are passed on to the end users.

Thats what I can say right now. Hard numbers suggest that overall quality of health care is higher in Canada despite the hugher number of doctors and better recovery rates for some illnesses in the US. One statistic shows that Cancer recovery is better in the US while likelihood of getting cancer is lower in Canada. Statistics show better life expectancy and infant mortality rate.

EDIT. @waste gate. Yes universal health care is a 'handout'. Thats because its a function of the responsibility of society to provide the basic necessities for prosperity. Much like the freedom of expression allows intellectual growth so does health care for the growth of life. One cannot be a competitive member of the market if he is sick. One cannot grow up to change the world if he dies as a young man. And simply put we value life in our society above all else. Health care is the most fundamental form of life preservation, even before law and criminal justice.

If you don't believe in the right to universal health coverage then you're just living in a different mind set than the rest of us arguing for it.

[Tchocky]

Bah! Universal healthcare is not a handout! Tell me who would be giving something back. I'm curious T.

Damn you Pfunk, this exchange of one-liners was going quite nicely :D
The Irish system is a lot like the Canadian, it seems, except the ratio is closer to 60/40
Taxes, wastegate, it's how everyone pays.

[P_Funk]

Damn you Pfunk, this exchange of one-liners was going quite nicely :D
Sorry. Sometimes I'm like an overopinionated sociopath.:nope:

[Tchocky]

Damn you Pfunk, this exchange of one-liners was going quite nicely :D Sorry. Sometimes I'm like an overopinionated sociopath.:nope: Ah, its a good thing, man.

It's 2.15am, not in a hugely debate-y mood. Suffice to say I think that education and healthcare are two things that should not be viewed as markets, and should not be run on a basis of financial primacy.

[waste gate]

Damn you Pfunk, this exchange of one-liners was going quite nicely :D Sorry. Sometimes I'm like an overopinionated sociopath.:nope:
Ah, its a good thing, man.

It's 2.15am, not in a hugely debate-y mood. Suffice to say I think that education and healthcare are two things that should not be viewed as markets should not be run on a basis of financial primacy.

Its OK if P. wants to talk. The more exchange of opinion the better.

[P_Funk]

Its OK if P. wants to talk. The more exchange of opinion the better. Who are you and what did you do with waste gate?:o

[bradclark1]

Suffice to say I think that education and healthcare are two things that should not be viewed as markets, and should not be run on a basis of financial primacy.
I'm in agreement with you there on healthcare. Not sure what you mean by education though.

[waste gate]

Its OK if P. wants to talk. The more exchange of opinion the better. Who are you and what did you do with waste gate?:o

I've always been open to the 'free speach' enviorment. Take a look back at my posts and what much of my time in the brig has been about, you will (may) see that. Don't confuse free speach with difference of opinion and willingness to see that opinion heard. I suspect that is the only reason I am still allowed to post in this forum.

[P_Funk]

Its OK if P. wants to talk. The more exchange of opinion the better. Who are you and what did you do with waste gate?:o
I've always been open to the 'free speach' enviorment. Take a look back at my posts and what much of my time in the brig has been about, you will (may) see that. Don't confuse free speach with difference of opinion and willingness to see that opinion heard. I suspect that is the only reason I am still allowed to post in this forum.
I don't doubt that you're in favour of free speech. Its just that lately you seem alot more agreeable. But 'tis always a nice thing to get along with ones adversaries.:)

[Tchocky]

(Ok, does ever happen to anyone else. You browse down recent threads, click on one, and between clicking the link and the thread opening, someone posts on it. Pfunk i swear you're psychic or summat)

Anyway - here's cnn on Sicko, seems reasonable

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/28/sicko.fact.check/index.html

[P_Funk]

So, if Americans are paying so much and they're not getting as good or as much care, where is all the money going? "Overhead for most private health insurance plans range between 10 percent to 30 percent," says Deloitte health-care analyst Paul Keckley. Overhead includes profit and administrative costs.
"Compare that to Medicare, which only has an overhead rate of 1 percent. Medicare is an extremely efficient health-care delivery system," says Mark Meaney, a health-care ethicist for the National Institute for Patient Rights (http://www.empowerpatients.com/).
Thats the main difference between private for profit and state managed system. The overhead for privatized systems is always grossly in excess of the public systems. But that cost is either transferred to the subsidization by the government or to the patient, hence higher costs.
So all you money nuts who ask whos gonna pay for it, well thats a good point of how its actually backwards the way health care works. Its actually economically more efficient to practice public health care.

[Skweetis]

Don't question me on the Canadian health system as compared to the American health system. I'm tied between the two (my in-laws are Canadian - and I have an uncle that would tell you a thin or two that needs hip replacement - basically, he is going to have to pay for it out of pocket!). My wife as well as my sister in law had the exact same procedure, and I can tell you that it is night and day between the treatment of the two. I am actually ticked at the Canadian health care system, their paint peeling off the walls, and I can tell you that even though their people are great, they are severly under-funded! My mother-in-law recently died (about a month now) of cancer, and I absolutely love the nurses, and at least one of her non-French doctors. But they do not have even a fraction of the capability that they have over here, or the hand and foot treatment my wife recently got! Her sister got none of this treatment - no funding. Period.

The Canadian system is a joke compared to the US. Do not even get me started.

-S

I'd be interested to know which Canadian city this occured in....

[U-533]

Everything should be free!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND and no one should have to work..yeah yeah!

Everyone should live in mansions made outta gold and drive Hummers and ...and
the government should not tell me what to do and the cops shouldn't tell me what to do.........
wait if no one has to work then there will be no cops and government people....

yea yea and if there are no cops and government then I can rule the world....
oh but wait that means id have to work...:damn:

OK WAIT!!

1.Everything should be free.

2.Everyone should live how they want to live.

3.Everyone should have what they want to have.

4.If you don't want to work that's cool cause no one has to.

5.Some one needs to be forced to work so everyone else can get what they deserve.

6.When your forced to work for everyone else, you can't sabotage stuff ,like the Jews did to the Nazis when they were forced to work.

7.AND NO MORE STUPID RULES

ok that about covers my plan of the perfect world.

:roll:

[P_Funk]

I vote that the worst post ever.

[U-533]

I vote that the worst post ever.

I dunno P_Funk.

I believe I could do worse.

:hmm:

[P_Funk]

I vote that the worst post ever.
I dunno P_Funk.

I believe I could do worse.

:hmm:
No need to try.;)

[SUBMAN1]

I'd be interested to know which Canadian city this occured in....
I've been in the Royal Vic (Did I pronouce it right?), as well, as one other in Montreal that I forget the name. Been to one in Toronto, another in Kingston, and even one in Cambelford, ON too. Been married for 10 years and dealt with one hospital or another throughout those years for various family members.

All of these hospitals severely underfunded, and they also have staffing problems. I talked to one of the nurses back in May and they just can't find enough people, period. Why? They need to be paid better so that they have more people with incentive to get into the field. Their hospitals are just plain bad compared to what we have in the US. We have country clubs by comparrison.

-S

PS. In Kingston last time (I was there in Feb), there is one Chemo doctor in in several hundred km (However far Toronto or Montreal is from there)! And they are scared he will leave! You should see the line up of patients just to see this one guy!

[P_Funk]

[quote=Skweetis]
All of these hospitals severely underfunded, and they also have staffing problems. I talked to one of the nurses back in May and they just can't find enough people, period. Why? They need to be paid better so that they have more people with incentive to get into the field. Their hospitals are just plain bad compared to what we have in the US. We have country clubs by comparrison.
Thats because American hospitals benefit from the pursuit of profit. Canadian hospitals are private run but not for profit, or at least not for the dynamic market based profit that would inflate the costs. Its a tough choice really. Give everyone a slice or give some people a better crumb. That government in the 90s started to cut costs as a result of the massive national deficit explains much of why we're today so underfunded, the natural expensive tendencies of health care aside. But with the Canadian economy looking up and the Federal government receiving surpluses we should be able to see an increase in the federal spending on health care. There is also a movement to reform the system, hopefully without turning it into a bastard American system.

[nikimcbee]

Another thought, how can this weirdo criticse the Walter Reed medical center for example, and then ask for government run health care in the same movie??? Is he nuts? Walter Reed is a government funded and government run hospital!!! Hahahahaha! What an idiot.

-S
Gold star for you today:rock: . He needs to move to North Korea, so he can be with his Comrades.:/\\k:

Our health system may have its "issues", but there's no such thing as a free lunch, and I guarantee you Moore would find a way to weasle out of paying the taxes the Feds would take.

[P_Funk]

Our health system may have its "issues", but there's no such thing as a free lunch, and I guarantee you Moore would find a way to weasle out of paying the taxes the Feds would take.
I think that is so funny. To mention taxes too... That the majority of the people who benefit from the current state of the Ameican health care system are amongst those that pay the least amount of tax proportional to their net worth is just... an irony that is lost on most free market champions. The idea that people should go bankrupt and have to worry about paying bills just because they want to be healthy is a perverse way to run a society that is alleged to be so civilized.

[The Avon Lady]

Let's take a look at 45 million American sickos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKCWbq18bNk), shall we. :know:

[P_Funk]

I like the bit where he implied that the homeless and destitute are that way because of their own fault. Its especially good because that was the "however" added to the necessary acknowledgement that there are people that don't get the care they deserve.

And there was a big point about how everyone gets care thats almost as good as insurance payers. But nobody answered how someone that has a legitimate reason for not having insurance should pay for it without being totally broke and forced into bankruptcy.

Theres alot of averaging out in that video, using majority statistics to make it sound so rosey. That the few who suffer rare diseases or need significant surgeries still end up liable wasn't addressed and also the alleged corruption of the insurance industry isn't answered. Its a selective argument that doesn't look at the whole picture.

I'll grant those are some good stats for use in an argument. But all it might have done is remind me how Michael Moore isn't always thorough in his arguments.

[waste gate]

I like the bit where he implied that the homeless and destitute are that way because of their own fault. Its especially good because that was the "however" added to the necessary acknowledgement that there are people that don't get the care they deserve.

And there was a big point about how everyone gets care thats almost as good as insurance payers. But nobody answered how someone that has a legitimate reason for not having insurance should pay for it without being totally broke and forced into bankruptcy.

Theres alot of averaging out in that video, using majority statistics to make it sound so rosey. That the few who suffer rare diseases or need significant surgeries still end up liable wasn't addressed and also the alleged corruption of the insurance industry isn't answered. Its a selective argument that doesn't look at the whole picture.

I'll grant those are some good stats for use in an argument. But all it might have done is remind me how Michael Moore isn't always thorough in his arguments.

A couple of things I see;
1. Before the 1960s, people with mental illnesses were generally cared for in institutional settings, mostly state-run psychiatric facilities. Many advocates saw this as "warehousing" people who could be cared for in less restrictive settings. Federal legislation and the courts powered a move toward deinstitutionalization, calling on states and counties to provide resources for social services, vocational rehabilitation and treatment services. The introduction of effective antipsychotic medications also drove the trend toward deinstitutionalization.
If it was unwise for the gov't to be in the care business then why is it wise now?

2. A question; what is a legitimate reason not to have health insurance when programs such as medicaid and medicare available?

3. The maker of the video admits that some people fall through the cracks but that woud be the case regardless of the system so that is a wash in my way of thinking.

[hocking]

The thing that really scares me to death is how the United States people are being completely eaten up by politics, politicians, and people trying to make a buck off the controversy (in steps Michael Moore). I am amazed at how so many people in my country believe everything they hear about just about anything you could imagine simply because the guy saying it is on their political side (usually the two sides are Republicans vs. Democrats). This guy Michael Moore could pretty much say just about anything he wants on any topic he wants and their will be people who buy every word of it regardless of the credentials of this one individual. All they know is that he is a Democrat, on their side politically, so go ahead and spread whatever propoganda you want and I will foolishly believe you without question.

This guy only wants to make money. He isn't up for changing anything. He wants to write books, make movies that people will call documentaries, and continue to stir the pot as much as he can to make millions of dollars. It isn't just him either. Go to any book store, watch 24 hour cable news shows, or watch many movies pushing political agendas. I feel like all this stuff is really starting to "Dumb Down" the american population.

Here is a list of questions I like to ask people with their usual responses to push my point on govt ran health care (especially people who are for it):
1) Do you trust your government? No, nearly 100% of the time
2) Do you trust politicians? No, nearly 100% of the time
4) Can you name 1 government program that is ran efficiently (or well)? No, nearly 100% of the time
5) Can you name any government programs that aren't ran well and are completely waistful? Social Security, Tax System, General Voting, WelFare, ect.... I usually get at least 5 programs off the tops of people's head

And the final question....
6) Then why in the world would you want your government to be in control over your health care needs? Blank stair nearly 100% of the time. If they were honest they would simply say because my party candidates tell me it is a good idea.

People, you better start thinking for yourself a little bit.

[P_Funk]

If it was unwise for the gov't to be in the care business then why is it wise now? Just because at one point a government system wasn't working properly doesn't mean that automatically governmetn programs don't work.
2. A question; what is a legitimate reason not to have health insurance when programs such as medicaid and medicare available? People who can't afford it. There are infact poor people in the USA.

Theres also the fact that often private insurance companies don't deliver what they promise because they serve profit before consumer. I haven't heard anyone explain how that isn't true.

But the fun thing about this conversation is that you don't trust government and think that the private sector is more reliable. And I do trust government, or at least I do more than the private sector. And honestly if you consider the laws and culture around corporations in the US you see that it is a conflict of interest to get essential services run by private companies. It is enshrined in law that a corporation serves its shareholders first and that leads often to shady business practices. This is just my Pinko-Marxian distrust of the Free Market, or whatever it is thats masquerading as it.

[hocking]

Most everything you have (such as a job, high income, standard of living, quality of life, ect.....) comes from a free market system, not the government. Remember, the only difference between government and a large corporation is the large corporation operates to earn profits, and the government operates to earn votes for particular candidates. Make no mistake corporations earning profits benefit you way more than a politician earning a vote. Corporations create jobs, invest profits in other ventures that eventually create even more jobs, offer us goods and services that we want, and so forth. Politicians earn your vote, and that is about it.

It still baffles me that people would actually want politicians in the US using their health care needs as a political football to kick all over the place. Your entire health care system would change frequently to whichever direction the political winds are blowing, and your taxes would go up to pay for less health care that you would receive. I just can't seem to figure out why people would trust the government over their health care.

[P_Funk]

Spoken like a true conservative hocking. You're right in some ways. The market (it isn't free and I won't get into that but rest assured it'd make you sigh at my naivete) creates an economic circumstance in which my labour and most eveyrone elses is needed to manufacture and produce the wealth for that corporation, or that tycoon, or tat king, or whoever else is holding the biggest share of control.

But you seem to think that somehow democracy and freedom spring from nowhere. And if the market is good and brilliant all by its self then why has an untamed market been responsible for the utter lack of freedom that sent the pilgrims fleeing to North America? Yes the market gives me a job, but before laws made by government to regulate that labour people like you and me were working 12 to 14 hour days or more for significantly less. We were dying on the job because the conditions were poor. And we had no rights anyway because the King was the only government anyone needed.

It always surprises me when I hear an american complaining about the very thing that makes his country special. Your constitution makes your nation the greatest on the earth. My country couldn't exist without yours but it seems like so many of your countrymen hate the very thing that makes them distinctive. Freedom doesn't sprout out of unregulated economics. Government is the only guarentee that the average un-wealthy man has at a good life. And besides that for all that you allege the government is corrupt the private sector is just as corrupt. By its nature corporations are compelled to create wealth above all else including the welfare of its consumers and employees. Thats why the industrial revolution was ugly for the workers.

This blind faith in the market is so perverse because it is the inverse of the trends of democratic freedom. It was Moussolini that connected corporatism with fascism. But you aren't going to listen to that so we hsould probably get back on topic.

[waste gate]

If it was unwise for the gov't to be in the care business then why is it wise now? Just because at one point a government system wasn't working properly doesn't mean that automatically governmetn programs don't work.
2. A question; what is a legitimate reason not to have health insurance when programs such as medicaid and medicare available? People who can't afford it. There are infact poor people in the USA.

Theres also the fact that often private insurance companies don't deliver what they promise because they serve profit before consumer. I haven't heard anyone explain how that isn't true.

But the fun thing about this conversation is that you don't trust government and think that the private sector is more reliable. And I do trust government, or at least I do more than the private sector. And honestly if you consider the laws and culture around corporations in the US you see that it is a conflict of interest to get essential services run by private companies. It is enshrined in law that a corporation serves its shareholders first and that leads often to shady business practices. This is just my Pinko-Marxian distrust of the Free Market, or whatever it is thats masquerading as it.

This is just my Pinko-Marxian distrust of the Free Market, or whatever it is thats masquerading as it.

I appreciate your honesty there P-funk, but you certainly haven't masqueraded anything, to your credit. Since I suspect the only system you've personally known, mom and dad, is just that a marxist, populist system. The parents make the rules(laws), and provide for the health and welfair of the governed, their children. Since that is the only system you have known and you have survived in good health it is not suprising that you are in favor of such systems.

Corporations are made up of people. Those corporations, which you hold in such low regard, also have a responsibility to its employees, to stay in business, not just share holders, who by the way are also people. Not everyone can be a gov't employee, although that seems to be what you are advocating.


Theres also the fact that often private insurance companies don't deliver what they promise because they serve profit before consumer. I haven't heard anyone explain how that isn't true.


If that is the case those companies will not be writing policies for very long. The free market will not allow it. If you were to enter a retail establishment, lets say a restaraunt, and it served you rice instead of the potatoes you ordered and when you complained they said too bad for you, would you pay them or go back? No. Would you tell others about your experience? You bet you would and that resaraunt would not be in business long. So I can't see how an insurance company can often get away with that type of behavior.



There are infact poor people in the USA.


Medicaid is exactly the means by which 'poor' people may insure themselves. Should we force them to avail themselves to the program?


Just because at one point a government system wasn't working properly doesn't mean that automatically governmetn programs don't work.


What has change about gov't which makes this true? I'm open to an answer because at this point I don't know of any change.

[P_Funk]

I appreciate your honesty there P-funk, but you certainly haven't masqueraded anything, to your credit. Since I suspect the only system you've personally known, mom and dad, is just that a marxist, populist system. The parents make the rules(laws), and provide for the health and welfair of the governed, their children. Since that is the only system you have known and you have survived in good health it is not suprising that you are in favor of such systems.

Corporations are made up of people. Those corporations, which you hold in such low regard, also have a responsibility to its employees, to stay in business, not just share holders, who by the way are also people. Not everyone can be a gov't employee, although that seems to be what you are advocating. I think you underestimate my own appreciation of my ideas. It is not simply that I am young that I think this way. It is far too simple to attribute that to age. And even if I were older there are other ways you could rationalize it, aside of course from accepting logic or reason as means to achieve a point of view.

As for corporations yes they are made of people. So are governments. The difference between a government and a corporation is that the purpose of government is to pursue the interests of the people as a whole. Corporations have a primary goal to a minority. If governments can be corrupt so can corporations, but which one is acting for your interests? Corporations are effectively a government program for the rich. Those with the means create massive organizations for their ends. These people are shareholders. Citizens are merely shareholders in the government.


Theres also the fact that often private insurance companies don't deliver what they promise because they serve profit before consumer. I haven't heard anyone explain how that isn't true.

If that is the case those companies will not be writing policies for very long. The free market will not allow it. If you were to enter a retail establishment, lets say a restaraunt, and it served you rice instead of the potatoes you ordered and when you complained they said too bad for you, would you pay them or go back? No. Would you tell others about your experience? You bet you would and that resaraunt would not be in business long. So I can't see how an insurance company can often get away with that type of behavior. What you say makes perfect sense provided you assume that the market works as presribed by your economic model. And for you to expect that to occur is no different than for me to expect a socialist utopia to grow out of a violent dictatorial revolution. The free market is a nice idea but in practise it isn't as fair as is implied. Competition is the heart of the market but the main purpose of all corporations in the process of accruing wealth is to create financial security. And financial security is the opposite of a competitive market. Its a paradoxical theory, especially since lobbies have perverted the laws of the government to make it easier. And corporations don't function like small scale restaurants. Its a false comparison. Corporations operate on a completely differnet economic level.



There are infact poor people in the USA.

Medicaid is exactly the means by which 'poor' people may insure themselves. Should we force them to avail themselves to the program? Why force them to do anything? Why not just make it free so that when they get hurt they have the coverage they deserve. If it costs a bit more then so be it. Healthcare is an essential. The government shouldn't operate a system based entirely on efficiency of finance. It must also satisfy the most practical level of service primarily, but still within a reasonable finiancial balance.


Just because at one point a government system wasn't working properly doesn't mean that automatically governmetn programs don't work.

What has change about gov't which makes this true? I'm open to an answer because at this point I don't know of any change. But again you assume that all government programs dont work. Its a fixed perception thats incorrect. If government doesn't work then why do we cling to it? If the market always provides then why do government programs get fiinanced? Its a dichotomy where one is religiously pure and the other is sinfully inefficient. But the reality is so complex that neither is perfectly evil or good. This perpetual love for the market is just another extremist point of view thats only acceptable because its also a mainstream one.

I enjoy pointing to a quote from Bill Maher, commenting Republican's belief that government doesn't work:

"Well of course it doesn't work, the way you do it."

[waste gate]

I appreciate your honesty there P-funk, but you certainly haven't masqueraded anything, to your credit. Since I suspect the only system you've personally known, mom and dad, is just that a marxist, populist system. The parents make the rules(laws), and provide for the health and welfair of the governed, their children. Since that is the only system you have known and you have survived in good health it is not suprising that you are in favor of such systems.

Corporations are made up of people. Those corporations, which you hold in such low regard, also have a responsibility to its employees, to stay in business, not just share holders, who by the way are also people. Not everyone can be a gov't employee, although that seems to be what you are advocating. I think you underestimate my own appreciation of my ideas. It is not simply that I am young that I think this way. It is far too simple to attribute that to age. And even if I were older there are other ways you could rationalize it, aside of course from accepting logic or reason as means to achieve a point of view.

As for corporations yes they are made of people. So are governments. The difference between a government and a corporation is that the purpose of government is to pursue the interests of the people as a whole. Corporations have a primary goal to a minority. If governments can be corrupt so can corporations, but which one is acting for your interests? Corporations are effectively a government program for the rich. Those with the means create massive organizations for their ends. These people are shareholders. Citizens are merely shareholders in the government.


Theres also the fact that often private insurance companies don't deliver what they promise because they serve profit before consumer. I haven't heard anyone explain how that isn't true.

If that is the case those companies will not be writing policies for very long. The free market will not allow it. If you were to enter a retail establishment, lets say a restaraunt, and it served you rice instead of the potatoes you ordered and when you complained they said too bad for you, would you pay them or go back? No. Would you tell others about your experience? You bet you would and that resaraunt would not be in business long. So I can't see how an insurance company can often get away with that type of behavior. What you say makes perfect sense provided you assume that the market works as presribed by your economic model. And for you to expect that to occur is no different than for me to expect a socialist utopia to grow out of a violent dictatorial revolution. The free market is a nice idea but in practise it isn't as fair as is implied. Competition is the heart of the market but the main purpose of all corporations in the process of accruing wealth is to create financial security. And financial security is the opposite of a competitive market. Its a paradoxical theory, especially since lobbies have perverted the laws of the government to make it easier. And corporations don't function like small scale restaurants. Its a false comparison. Corporations operate on a completely differnet economic level.



There are infact poor people in the USA.

Medicaid is exactly the means by which 'poor' people may insure themselves. Should we force them to avail themselves to the program? Why force them to do anything? Why not just make it free so that when they get hurt they have the coverage they deserve. If it costs a bit more then so be it. Healthcare is an essential. The government shouldn't operate a system based entirely on efficiency of finance. It must also satisfy the most practical level of service primarily, but still within a reasonable finiancial balance.


Just because at one point a government system wasn't working properly doesn't mean that automatically governmetn programs don't work.

What has change about gov't which makes this true? I'm open to an answer because at this point I don't know of any change. But again you assume that all government programs dont work. Its a fixed perception thats incorrect. If government doesn't work then why do we cling to it? If the market always provides then why do government programs get fiinanced? Its a dichotomy where one is religiously pure and the other is sinfully inefficient. But the reality is so complex that neither is perfectly evil or good. This perpetual love for the market is just another extremist point of view thats only acceptable because its also a mainstream one.

I enjoy pointing to a quote from Bill Maher, commenting Republican's belief that government doesn't work:

"Well of course it doesn't work, the way you do it."



I think you underestimate my own appreciation of my ideas. It is not simply that I am young that I think this way. It is far too simple to attribute that to age. And even if I were older there are other ways you could rationalize it, aside of course from accepting logic or reason as means to achieve a point of view.

I’m not underestimating/diminishing your real belief in your ideas/ideals, or your age. I’m just giving one explanation as to why you may have those ideas/ideals, and’ I think it will change as you get older. My outlook certainly has changed over the years. Although I didn’t advocated your stance, there was a time when my views were more ‘liberal’.



As for corporations yes they are made of people. So are governments. The difference between a government and a corporation is that the purpose of government is to pursue the interests of the people as a whole. Corporations have a primary goal to a minority. If governments can be corrupt so can corporations, but which one is acting for your interests? Corporations are effectively a government program for the rich. Those with the means create massive organizations for their ends. These people are shareholders. Citizens are merely shareholders in the government.

OK, when has the Canadian government done what you wanted them to do? If you are of the age of majority then you know that they do not. I never said that government was corrupt. I did imply it is self sustaining on someone else’s dime. Out of curiosity where is the cutoff between the rich and the poor?

What you say makes perfect sense provided you assume that the market works as presribed by your economic model. And for you to expect that to occur is no different than for me to expect a socialist utopia to grow out of a violent dictatorial revolution. The free market is a nice idea but in practise it isn't as fair as is implied. Competition is the heart of the market but the main purpose of all corporations in the process of accruing wealth is to create financial security. And financial security is the opposite of a competitive market. Its a paradoxical theory, especially since lobbies have perverted the laws of the government to make it easier. And corporations don't function like small scale restaurants. Its a false comparison. Corporations operate on a completely differnet economic level.


If the government wasn’t already heavily involved in the market it certainly would work!
OK, how else does a corporation better itself without growing profit? That is the same manner that people better themselves and others in the modern world. Lets say for a moment that your utopian society existed. How does one better themselves. Or do you believe that no one should want to get ahead? Because if that is the case then you have disregarded human nature and dare I say it evolution of man. Social evolution is no less valid than biological if you believe in evolution. It can be tracked.


Why force them to do anything? Why not just make it free so that when they get hurt they have the coverage they deserve. If it costs a bit more then so be it. Healthcare is an essential. The government shouldn't operate a system based entirely on efficiency of finance. It must also satisfy the most practical level of service primarily, but still within a reasonable finiancial balance.
How hard is it for any one to go to the current medicare office and place ones name on a piece of paper. That is all it takes. Perhaps they know that from then on the gov’t will tell them what to do? The program only invalidates those that the gov’t claims can afford their own insurance. Do you see the hypocracy here? That is the problem allowing buearocracts into healthcare or any other personal endevour.


I enjoy pointing to a quote from Bill Maher, commenting Republican's belief that government doesn't work:

"Well of course it doesn't work, the way you do it."


I really enjoy it when you quote comedians. Certainly whom the nation should follow.:rotfl:

[hocking]

I am going to keep this brief. I don't want to leave the impression that I am totally anti-government. I am not. The government serves a purpose in areas such as national defense, and creation of laws that protect its citizens. This was the founding fathers idea of government. The main reason pilgrims loaded up on ships to search out the new land was because they were running away from a heavy handed government that regulated everything. This idea continued on all the way through the revolutionary war that was started because of a heavy handed government that was taxing the colonies very heavily. The idea of America's founding was based on private enterprise free from government regulation.

This idea has continued on since those early days in America's history. That is why we have become the most successful economy in the entire world. Usually the only people who are complaining about our system are people who have lived in our system for their enire lifes. They have no idea what it is like to be truly poor and unemployed like many people are in other countries. They have become spoiled to our way of life, and have no idea what it would be like to live under a heavy handed government that regulated everything they did. Most of the world is gravitating towards our form of free markets, not away from it. Not bad for a country that has only been around for just over 200 years when compared to other countries that have been around just over 2000 years.

My final point is this, many people are taught to believe that corporations are these nasty little creatures that are out to get us all. Where does this idea come from? Much of it comes from politicians themselves. It is really simply, they must create a monster in your mind in order to get you to vote for them to protect you from this monster. In our political system today people will say just about anything to get elected, and most people believe them without question because we are so tied to our political parties that we have lost our ability to thing rationally on our own. Ironically, who are the first people to scream and hollor about corporations moving operations overseas. The same people who are framing them up to be monsters. I would think they would be thrilled to be losing these monsters to countries overseas who are willing to take them in by the handfuls.

Don't believe everything you hear. To really understand the benefits of free trade, and free markets you really should take a college level course in the principles of macroeconomics, international trade, and economic history. Any one of these classes would help you understand how important free markets are. I am not saying this trying to act like you are some kind of uneducated idiot. I do not believe that at all. This is advice I give to anybody I talk to who has an interest in truly learning how economic systems work. This is a science that many American's are losing touch with mainly because it is not taught in high schools like it used to be taught.

[hocking]

Sorry for back to back posts, but I couldn't resist posting this up. This is my point exactly. There is a Wall Street Journal acticle in Monday's paper about how John Edwards, a person who is desperate at this point to stay in the race for the democratic nomination to run for president that is currently being ran away with between Obama and Clinton, came forward today supporting a bill to increase taxes on publically traded private-equity partnerships.

Here is one paragraph from the Journal:

"Mr. Edwards, campaigning in New Hampshire, said in an interview that he supports the so-called Blackstone bill levying corporate taxes on publicly traded private-equity partnerships, a move to tax hedge-fund managers' "carried interest" at ordinary income rather than the lower capital-gains rates, and eliminating the ability of those managers to defer taxation by shifting income into offshore entities. Taken together, the former North Carolina senator asserted, these steps would raise $4 billion to $6 billion a year."

Here is a politician going after those nasty corporate people right. Well, here is another interesting point that many of us already know about Mr. Edwards.

As mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article:

"Mr. Edwards's stance could help shore up his populist credentials after criticism of his personal wealth and lifestyle have eroded his poll standings. While making amelioration of poverty a centerpiece of his campaign, the one-time trial lawyer earlier this year reported that he had received $1.7 million in salary and investment income from Fortress, where his holdings total $16 million."

Fortress is one of these Hedge Funds Mr. Edwards is going after. This is laughable. Edwards is doing what all politicians do, he is saying whatever it takes to try to get elected. His stance is not based on fact at all, it is simply based on the fact that he needs to "shore up his populist credentials after criticism of his personal wealth and lifestyle have eroded his poll standings". This is my point exactly. Many "Populist" won't even know that Edwards was a consultant to one of these nasty hedge funds, held over $16 million with that nasty hedge fund, and was actually paid an additional $1.7 million in salary from one of these nasty hedge funds. All they will know is that hedge fund is a nasty monster, and Mr. Edwards will protect you from them as long as you vote for him.

Yes, this happens to be a Democrat. But don't think they are the only ones who do this. Politicians do this all the time. Republicans, Democrates, and Independents.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:: rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[P_Funk]

This idea has continued on since those early days in America's history. That is why we have become the most successful economy in the entire world. Actually I think that the reason the US has become the most successful economy in the world is because the settlers happened to land on the biggest unexploited plot of land in the world that happened to be rich in resources while the rest of Europe fought over the scraps of empires. I don't mean to downplay the grit and determination of the American spirit, not at all. But you hand a man a million dollars it doesn't matter how good a gambler he is. Thats giving him a huge leg up.

My final point is this, many people are taught to believe that corporations are these nasty little creatures that are out to get us all. Where does this idea come from? Much of it comes from politicians themselves. It is really simply, they must create a monster in your mind in order to get you to vote for them to protect you from this monster. In our political system today people will say just about anything to get elected, and most people believe them without question because we are so tied to our political parties that we have lost our ability to thing rationally on our own. Ironically, who are the first people to scream and hollor about corporations moving operations overseas. The same people who are framing them up to be monsters. I would think they would be thrilled to be losing these monsters to countries overseas who are willing to take them in by the handfuls. I wasn't taught anything negative about corporations. If anything we're taught to play the game and become functioning members of the economy and to accept it as the way it ought to be. My own critical ideas about it are based on what I see and interpret. I don't think that it is about politicians either. Actually saying its politicians is totally fallacious since they're the ones that benefit most from corporate lobbies and the fact that the current president and vice president are former CEOs says it all about politicians and their relationship with corporate America. We talk about corrupt politicians in America and Canada and Britain and anywhere else and usually its because they aren't doing whats good for us but whats good for them, and for them thats helping the people that payed them to get elected. You also glorify the plight of the corporation. As if its some beneficient entity here by the grace of god. The reason other countries want corporations is because they have no money, so the corporations exploit them with slave wages and suppress any and all attempts to secure the same labour rights we have in our country. Thats not because they're evil, but because they're prudent inhuman organizations that act like machines. And we mourn the overseas job movement because out here now you need years of college just to be competitive in the job market for these high skill jobs. And of course unlike before with vocational gigs that are now in the Phillipines, going to college means that you are immediately in debt if you happen to not be rich or a rhodes scholar. Globalization is not the wondrous economic utopia that its cracked up to be. Its not them trying to civilize the savages; bring them into our wonderful palace of capitalism. Really its just the greed and amorality of corporations exploiting an opportunity.

Don't believe everything you hear. To really understand the benefits of free trade, and free markets you really should take a college level course in the principles of macroeconomics, international trade, and economic history. Any one of these classes would help you understand how important free markets are. I am not saying this trying to act like you are some kind of uneducated idiot. I do not believe that at all. This is advice I give to anybody I talk to who has an interest in truly learning how economic systems work. This is a science that many American's are losing touch with mainly because it is not taught in high schools like it used to be taught. Again you assume I am an ignorant sheep reading stright from the Socialist Worker's Party newsletter. I assure you that I have read plenty of diverse points of view on economics and the free market. John Kenneth Galbraith appeals to me more than Milton Friedman. But I will be honest, I didn't get half way through the Ulysses of economic treatises: Das Kapital. My though is that I am not an ignorant fool speaking words I don't actually understand. Give me more credit than that. And I have taken college level course on economics. I have a fairly decent understanding of the principles of market capitalism and socialism et al. And don't misunderstand me, I do not disagree with trade and the concept of the market. Quite the opposite really. My perspective is that whatever you call America, it isn't true market capitalism, not in its current form. The idea is that competition automatically regulates the economy and roots out the unfair p[ractices of businesses that create monopolies and cartels and other such economic stangleholds that secure the self interest of the party at hand but defeats the collective interest of the rest of the market. I cite corporations specifically because they are too powerful in the world and the balance of the market is not applicable to such masses of wealth. It begins to go back to the 19th Century when the American Supreme Court declared that a corporation is legally a person. At that point the game was afoul.

So even if you refute all my claims or think that I am totally wrong, don't think that I say this because I am a stooge. I actually know what I'm saying, and I see things from both sides of the aisle, and chose this spot right here. And this spot is not specific to any one idea or ideology or group consciousness. I have my own mash of lefty concepts and not so lefty practical policies.

Cheers

EDIT. And apropos to John Edwards. I totally disagree with your assessment of his position. People are always saying that politicians serve not the people who elect them but the people who pay for his campaign or whom he has a personal or professional relationship with. Thats correct much of the time. But for Edwards to be now supporting a tax on the very people that he had worked with is not hypocrisy, but him doing what he thinks is good for the nation despite his supposed natural loyalties.

[P_Funk]

I’m not underestimating/diminishing your real belief in your ideas/ideals, or your age. I’m just giving one explanation as to why you may have those ideas/ideals, and’ I think it will change as you get older. My outlook certainly has changed over the years. Although I didn’t advocated your stance, there was a time when my views were more ‘liberal’.
On that then we can agree totally. I am young and I am still evolving my world view. I do believe that it is sufficiently matured to let me be confident in it until I find myself doubting it at which point I won't hesitate to change my stance. Inevitably I will change as I age. I just don't think that I'll be necessarily significantly more conservative. I hold a dual view of the world. The idealist theory of how things maybe could work, and the practical way that I think we ought to do it. I don't agree with warfare or even joining the army. But I also see that its necessary to have one. I'm a idealistic pascifist and a pragmatic supporter of my nation's use of military when it is necessary. I hold those two seemingly contradictory ideas at once as I do with many things. I can liken it to St. Augustine's City of God and City of Man. One looks to the city of god as a superior existance but doesn't try and make the city of man into what it isn't or cannot be. Thats right, I am so brash as to compare myself to Augustine.:D


OK, when has the Canadian government done what you wanted them to do? If you are of the age of majority then you know that they do not. I never said that government was corrupt. I did imply it is self sustaining on someone else’s dime. Out of curiosity where is the cutoff between the rich and the poor?
It ultimately isn't about what I want the government to do. Its about the government doing the right thing. If you look at the nature of Canadian parliamentary government you see that its effectively a 4 year elected dictatorship. We put our faith in a party to do the right thing for us. But at the same time I have found in history that the best things have happened to Canada under minority governments (hello universal health care). A broad interest protected by as many parties at once as possible. But it isn't about the government acting every day as I wish to see it, its about the structure of government fulfilling its purpose of protecting the interests of the population. There is a difference between the elected body of the government and the rest of the semi-permanent structure. For instance Ministers are in charge of a ministry. Whenever a minister is reassigned or a party wins power the old minister leaves but the ministry itself and the people working in it don't change at all. Its like you choose who to captain the boat, but after the mutiny you don't rip out the planks.

As for the rich/poor divide, it isn't about that either. Every man and woman is a citizen. The difference though is that the rich don't need the help of government very often since they are self sufficient to the highest order relatively speaking. And since the majority of the population is either poor or average in income those are the people who get the bulk of the government's attention, on average.


If the government wasn’t already heavily involved in the market it certainly would work!
OK, how else does a corporation better itself without growing profit? That is the same manner that people better themselves and others in the modern world. Lets say for a moment that your utopian society existed. How does one better themselves. Or do you believe that no one should want to get ahead? Because if that is the case then you have disregarded human nature and dare I say it evolution of man. Social evolution is no less valid than biological if you believe in evolution. It can be tracked.
If government involvement in the market is what stunts it why then did laissez-faire tactics do nothing to prevent the depression? Why did the depression happen at all? Nobody has ever cited overzealous government in the crash of 1929. In fact it was the intrusive efforts of government that helped move the country back into the black, be it Keynesian economics under FDR, or War Economy in WW2 under FDR. I do not contradict the concept of profit. I however do see the motivation to acquire profit at the cost of so many other things, as it often is, as a contradiction to the interests of the market and those that depend on it.
Regarding my alleged utopia, which I only referred to in jest as I don't myself agree with the violent Lenin style of dictatorial socialism, you misrepresent the spirit of the entire venture. I'll use the term socialism to broadly cover what I assume you're referring to for clarity's sake. Socialism is not a counter to the natural progressive tendencies of the human being, its quite the opposite. It is conceived to be a way that would allow everyone to freely expand and explore their presense in the world without being hampered by someone else's position or desire or actions. Practically speaking the Utopia is alot like a Heaven that you know you'll never see. Its a shining light that you try and imitate because you know you'll only have the best representation of the above mentioned idea of ultimate equality. Many people criticize this by calling it forced inequity. That is of ocurse true if you wish to paint all marxist based left wing ideology with the brush of Stalinist russia and his cohorts around the world. The irony is that Communism was not anything to do with Marx. It was simply a newer more efficient version of the feudal system that the Romanov's lived in. That it used the face of communism as a propoganda tool is irrelavent.

Rest assured that my left wing "utopian" ideas do not reflect a desire to see everyone equally miserable, equally bound, and equally broke and intellectually stagnated. The ideas of socialism can be seen to function brilliantly in smaller environments. Open Source software being one. It has in its short life become better and more utilitarian (I'm using that word alot today) than much of the software produced by the free market, and alot more efficient at reacting to changes and demands in the market. The ideas are simple: all information must be released freely to the open community and everyone can change the code as they please, so long as they share it. And you can't make a profit by selling the code as proprietary property. It isn't proof absolute, but its enough to show the concept is not totally indictrination.

How hard is it for any one to go to the current medicare office and place ones name on a piece of paper. That is all it takes. Perhaps they know that from then on the gov’t will tell them what to do? The program only invalidates those that the gov’t claims can afford their own insurance. Do you see the hypocracy here? That is the problem allowing buearocracts into healthcare or any other personal endevour.
Actually studies have shown that the bureaucracy of the private sector is actually larger and more expensive than that of government in many cases. Healthcare being one. But ultimtaely I dont see the need to make anyone sign up. Its just something that I think we all deserve. As such its there when you need it. It isn't the government forcing you to do anything. In Canada you can still deny medical treatment. The difference is that you don't have to sign up to get it. Its just moral view on it as an essential part of any civilized society.


I enjoy pointing to a quote from Bill Maher, commenting Republican's belief that government doesn't work:

"Well of course it doesn't work, the way you do it."

I really enjoy it when you quote comedians. Certainly whom the nation should follow.:rotfl:
[/quote]


As they say don't shoot the messenger. Just because he's a comedian doesn't mean that he isn't right. He just says it in a fun way. And besides, one of America's greatest President's was a B movie star from the 50s. Go figure.:p

[hocking]

P_Funk, you said,

"If government involvement in the market is what stunts it why then did laissez-faire tactics do nothing to prevent the depression? Why did the depression happen at all? Nobody has ever cited overzealous government in the crash of 1929. In fact it was the intrusive efforts of government that helped move the country back into the black, be it Keynesian economics under FDR, or War Economy in WW2 under FDR. I do not contradict the concept of profit. I however do see the motivation to acquire profit at the cost of so many other things, as it often is, as a contradiction to the interests of the market and those that depend on it."

You say it was the "intrusive efforts of government that helped move the country back into the black". You are kidding right. The leading industrialized nations responded to the crisis by imposing trade barriers on imports with the hopes of increasing demand for domestically produced goods and to raise revenue from tariffs. Concerns about low agricultural prices, an influx of imports, rising unemployment, and declining tax revenue generated public sentiment for trade restraints. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of June 17, 1930 responded by raising tariffs by up to 50% on a wide range of goods. Unfortunately, the resulting fall in imports created unemployment abroad that quickly invoked protectionism in response, creating unemployment back in the US! Many fruitful trading relationships fell apart and the depressed domestic economies could not make up for them. By March 1933 international trade plummeted to 33% of its 1929 level. Since there were even more communications, logistic, and financial barriers to be overcome back then than there are today, it is likely that the goods traded internationally were of great economic value and advantage to the economies that were receiving them. The loss of such trade was devastating and had ripple effects not unlike bank failures. Even though tariff rates rose by up to 50%, imports declined so sharply that tariff revenues fell 46% from $602 million in 1929 to $328 million in 1932. This not to mention the loss of tax revenue from the domestic unemployment the tariffs caused indirectly. And you say, "intrusive efforts of government that helped move the country back into the black".

There is even more. Under the political thinking of the day (and since nothing else was working) the federal government decided it was morally prudent to pursue a balanced budget. As tax revenue was plummeting along with economic activity in the period from 1929 to 1932 it was only natural to raise taxes to cover the mushrooming deficit. Does this not sound familiar in todays political views of the United States. Only because most people are totally oblivious to economic history.

In 1932, Republican president, Herbert Hoover, with the support of the newly elected Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, passed the largest peacetime tax increase in the history of the United States. Marginal income tax rates were raised from 1.5% to 4% at the low end and from 25% to 63% at the top of the scale. A huge tax increase by any measure.
Some people say the timing for this couldn't have been worse because tax increases are generally associated with decreases in aggregate demand for goods and services and the incentive to earn. But the low tax rates prior to 1932 had not prevented the drop in demand to date. At that point the situation was becoming so severe that anybody that still had a job had every incentive to earn, if only to keep it. The main obstacle to demand then was probably fear of spending! If you earned money, you saved as much as you possibly could and with bank failures everywhere, you probably hid your savings under the mattress. So maybe it was just as well to pay more out in taxes because then the government could spend it for you and stimulate the economy that way. But the tax increase did take money out of people's hands that could have been spent more "efficiently" if not equitably, so it is considered to be a factor, which prolonged the downturn. Under the circumstances the government should have simply borrowed and engaged in generous deficit spending.

Our government did not bring us out of the great depression. Adolf Hitler assisted the world in coming out of the Great Depression moreso than the US government by starting World War II.

As far as what caused the depression to begin with. One of the larger factors was not having a central bank that knew how control money supply. The federal reserve system we know today was formulated shortly after the Great Depression. That is why we have never had another depression, and why most economic textbooks have completely eliminated "Depression" out of the Business Cycle terminology (the Business Cycle today is simply Recession, Recovery, and Prosperity). The government also started creating some of their "Anti-Free Trade" agenda's during the late 1920's as well.

P_Funk, I really think you would enjoy an economic history class. I really mean that. I am not insulting your intelligence. I am seeing that you at least think about things, and develop ideas on your own. You just need to back them up a little bit better, and spend more time developing them maybe. Take this as encouragement. An economic history class would cover Keynesian Economics, Classical Economics, and newer forms of the Classical Economics developed by Milton Friedman. All this sounds like it is right down your ally.

[dean_acheson]

i get such a kick out of the right when it comes to Moore.

i mean, really. who has a problem with a guy who says "our healthcare sucks and we deserve better" or "i really would like to understand and prevent our children from killing each other with handguns".

He's evil! :lol:

I don't think that that is our problem with Moore, it is his proposed solutions to these problems that we don't care for much. That and his demonization of those who don't agree with him.

He's a slick propagandist, that is why I don't care for him. If he wants to give up 2/3 of his income to socialized medicene, that's fine with me, but don't ask me to do it.

Yes, I know this link is from News Max (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/1/162756.shtml).

[Konovalov]

I'm not going to waste my money by going to the cinema to see this. That's my 2 pence. :smug:

[P_Funk]

P_Funk, you said,

"If government involvement in the market is what stunts it why then did laissez-faire tactics do nothing to prevent the depression? Why did the depression happen at all? Nobody has ever cited overzealous government in the crash of 1929. In fact it was the intrusive efforts of government that helped move the country back into the black, be it Keynesian economics under FDR, or War Economy in WW2 under FDR. I do not contradict the concept of profit. I however do see the motivation to acquire profit at the cost of so many other things, as it often is, as a contradiction to the interests of the market and those that depend on it."

You say it was the "intrusive efforts of government that helped move the country back into the black". You are kidding right. The leading industrialized nations responded to the crisis by imposing trade barriers on imports with the hopes of increasing demand for domestically produced goods and to raise revenue from tariffs. Concerns about low agricultural prices, an influx of imports, rising unemployment, and declining tax revenue generated public sentiment for trade restraints. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of June 17, 1930 responded by raising tariffs by up to 50% on a wide range of goods. Unfortunately, the resulting fall in imports created unemployment abroad that quickly invoked protectionism in response, creating unemployment back in the US! Many fruitful trading relationships fell apart and the depressed domestic economies could not make up for them. By March 1933 international trade plummeted to 33% of its 1929 level. Since there were even more communications, logistic, and financial barriers to be overcome back then than there are today, it is likely that the goods traded internationally were of great economic value and advantage to the economies that were receiving them. The loss of such trade was devastating and had ripple effects not unlike bank failures. Even though tariff rates rose by up to 50%, imports declined so sharply that tariff revenues fell 46% from $602 million in 1929 to $328 million in 1932. This not to mention the loss of tax revenue from the domestic unemployment the tariffs caused indirectly. And you say, "intrusive efforts of government that helped move the country back into the black". Indeed Hoover's efforts were ill-conceived to a certain degree. However as much as you can say that the increased tariffs didn't work you scrupulously avoided any discussion of the legitimacy of Keynesian economics as introduced under The New Deal by FDR. You cite a balanced budget as one of the trends but under Keynes' idea you do the opposite, and have the government spend spend spend to inject money and jobs into the economy. With that you add significant social safety nets to keep people working and spending when they lose their jobs. I wasn't talking about Hoover, I was talking about FDR. I probably should have mentioned that... oh wait, I did say FDR and Keyens. And I did also mention that even if the New Deal wasn't sufficient to pull the economy out of depression, as many economist historians suggest, it was the war with Germany that did it. And as I also mentioned, a war economy is basically the government regulating absolutely everything in the economy. Are you sure you read what I typed?

There is even more. Under the political thinking of the day (and since nothing else was working) the federal government decided it was morally prudent to pursue a balanced budget. As tax revenue was plummeting along with economic activity in the period from 1929 to 1932 it was only natural to raise taxes to cover the mushrooming deficit. Does this not sound familiar in todays political views of the United States. Only because most people are totally oblivious to economic history. Again I point to Keyenes. He said spend like a fool in Vegas during the bad times and save like a Christian during the good. The existance of balanced budgets are not always a bad idea, but often it should only be done when you have no debt left to pay off, a debt which you probably accrued during your anti-economic downturn spending spree. In the 1980s Mulroney acquired a very Reaganesque debt for Canada and the Liberals in the 90s payed it off. Now the Dollar is resurging, the economy is doing well, and we're seeking top bolster our social programs once again so that we can defend from any future downturns.

I might add that taxation itself is not a bad idea. Its illuses do not mitigate its importance. In fact the father of the Free Market himself, Adam Smith, said that you should tax the rich to a healthy degree more than the other average and poor people since they can afford more to give up.

""The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

and

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation."

Italics added. Certainly you can tax too much but somehow I think that under our current conventional wisdom we accept that the rich ought ot get taxed less than they can afford to.

In 1932, Republican president, Herbert Hoover, with the support of the newly elected Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, passed the largest peacetime tax increase in the history of the United States. Marginal income tax rates were raised from 1.5% to 4% at the low end and from 25% to 63% at the top of the scale. A huge tax increase by any measure.
Some people say the timing for this couldn't have been worse because tax increases are generally associated with decreases in aggregate demand for goods and services and the incentive to earn. But the low tax rates prior to 1932 had not prevented the drop in demand to date. At that point the situation was becoming so severe that anybody that still had a job had every incentive to earn, if only to keep it. The main obstacle to demand then was probably fear of spending! If you earned money, you saved as much as you possibly could and with bank failures everywhere, you probably hid your savings under the mattress. So maybe it was just as well to pay more out in taxes because then the government could spend it for you and stimulate the economy that way. But the tax increase did take money out of people's hands that could have been spent more "efficiently" if not equitably, so it is considered to be a factor, which prolonged the downturn. Under the circumstances the government should have simply borrowed and engaged in generous deficit spending.
Indeed and FDR did just what you said, deficit spending. As I said, Keynesian theory.

Our government did not bring us out of the great depression. Adolf Hitler assisted the world in coming out of the Great Depression moreso than the US government by starting World War II. Hitler provided the impetus for the war but he didn't make the economy function as it did in the US. That was the government streamlining it and regulating it for wartime efficiency. Interesting really that the US industrial monster was built by the government and made to be so efficient. The private sector was present but its doubtful that free market forces are very good at making for a speedy war economy. The aftermath of that same economy led to the boom of the late 40s and 50s. Also the national debt owed to the US by other internation allied nations for war funding was responsible for shifting the economic capital of the world from London to New York.

As far as what caused the depression to begin with. One of the larger factors was not having a central bank that knew how control money supply. The federal reserve system we know today was formulated shortly after the Great Depression. That is why we have never had another depression, and why most economic textbooks have completely eliminated "Depression" out of the Business Cycle terminology (the Business Cycle today is simply Recession, Recovery, and Prosperity). The government also started creating some of their "Anti-Free Trade" agenda's during the late 1920's as well. Theres also the theory that overproduction by the market outstripped the demand and forced companies to drop wages and fire workers which lowered their spending potential and started the cycle. That wasn't the government's fault. And the Federal Reserve is a Federal governmental organization. Though it operates as part private, part public, it is still there by the decision of the government despite not being directly controlled by the government. The head of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is appointed by the President. Thats not quite the government being hands off. And if you want to talk about free trade with the US then you'll have to get me into another thread because I would totally rip NAFTA a new one. The US is behavior is naturally protectionist. I'll just say that.

P_Funk, I really think you would enjoy an economic history class. I really mean that. I am not insulting your intelligence. I am seeing that you at least think about things, and develop ideas on your own. You just need to back them up a little bit better, and spend more time developing them maybe. Take this as encouragement. An economic history class would cover Keynesian Economics, Classical Economics, and newer forms of the Classical Economics developed by Milton Friedman. All this sounds like it is right down your ally. I thought I'd already said I'd read Keyens and Marx and Freidman and Galbraith and taken a general course about them all. But you're right, it is up my alley and I plan on taking more.

And just as an aside to this whole discussion, I enjoy talking economics more than politics around here just because it seems to bring out the civility in people. I mean, economics is so dry and boring that its hard to get red faced isn't it?;)

[hocking]

Here is the basics of Keynsian Economics vs. Classical Economics:

Classical Economics: Say's Law Holds, markets clear, market forces push economy toward full-employment, prices are flexible both up and down, government intervention is unnecessary due to market forces correcting any disequilibrium problems, and the aggregate supply curve is considered to be vertical under the assumption that all prices are variable in the long-run. This is a long-run view of an economy. Summary, let consumer and producers interact in free markets to generate commerce, and everything corrects itself with the passing of time.

Keynesian Economics: Rejects Say's Law, markets do not clear most of the time, market forces alone fail to push the economy toward full-employment, prices are sticky downward, government intervention is necessary to achieve the full-employment level of output, and the aggregage supply curve is horizontal under the assumption that all prices are sticky in the short-run. This is a short-run view of the economy. Summary, let the government do all the spending in bad times to try to correct market downturn in the short-run, and then when things are back to normal (or as close to normal as possible), bring down government spending and let consumers and producers interact to keep the economy going.

Sorry, I simply don't have time to read your entire posts. You were probably right when you were wondering if I read your entire post. I probably didn't. Not because I didn't want to, but because I just didn't have time. I do enjoy the debate though. We disagree on quite a few points. I don't want government taking my money from me and spending like they want, I want to spend my own money. I am not totally against Keynesian economics though. I do think deficit spending at times is totally fine. After 9/11 here in the US would have been a perfect time for deficit spending just like Bush did. But he also did another magnificent thing, he cut taxes to put money back in efficient spenders hands. This was a mixture of the classical approach, and the keynesian approach on top like icing. Our economy recovered in a textbook fashion, and it is something economist will study for years to come. The great recovery after 9/11. Many people predicted we would still be in a recession in 2007, but we were out of the recession within a year after 9/11. In fact, government revenues increased, and government deficits decreased, as a result of Bush's tax cut. Same thing happened with Reagan's tax cuts as well. You want to raise goverment revenues, cut tax rates. People and profit seeking firms will always spend money more efficiently than government does. This is very clear in this case. People generate more profits and income whey they spend their own money (that is why you see government revenues rise after a tax cut) than when government spends that money for them. (Have you heard how much money my government has spent over in Iraq, and how much they spend there every month now. My point exactly.)

Your other points:

Your point on taxes: I am not really arguing the marginal tax rate structure. I has gotten excessive, but it has moved in a positive direction over the last few years under Bush. Taxing someone more than 30% of their earnings gets a bit rediculous. But that is another topic.

Your point on Hitler bringing US out of recession: The US industrial monster was not built and made to be so efficient by the government. The government depended on the private industry to produce war innovative war goods by the millions. If you think government invented and produced all the war goods during WWII you are kidding yourselve tremendously. During WWII, I think it was very necessary to have a deficit spending government. But we would have lost WWII undoubtedly if it had not been for innovative free enterprise in America. Have you commanded a UBoat in late 1944 early 1945 yet. Holy cow. Government did not event all that stuff.

The only other thing I have to say to you is that I agree with you that the US is becoming very protective of its markets. This is going to get worst under democratic leadership I am afraid.

[hocking]

I was just reading this article in the WSJ. Take a look at it and you will know what I mean when I say governments do not spend money wisely. How much do you think this has boosted our economy. Very little if at all. It simply spending that drains money out of our economy and we get very little in return.

Here is the article from WSJ:

The boost in troop levels in Iraq has increased the cost of war there and in Afghanistan to $12 billion a month, and the total for Iraq alone is nearing a half-trillion dollars, congressional analysts say. All told, Congress has appropriated $610 billion in war-related money since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror assaults, roughly the same as the war in Vietnam. Iraq alone has cost $450 billion. The figures come from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which provides research and analysis to lawmakers. For the 2007 budget year, CRS says, the $166 billion appropriated to the Pentagon represents a 40% increase over 2006. The Vietnam War, after accounting for inflation, cost taxpayers $650 billion, according to separate CRS estimates. The $12 billion a month "burn rate" includes $10 billion for Iraq and almost $2 billion for Afghanistan, plus other minor costs. Two years ago, the average monthly cost was about $8 billion. The estimates call into question the Pentagon's projection that the increase in troop strength and intensifying pace of operations in Baghdad and Anbar province would cost only $5.6 billion through the end of September.

End of article....

This is only one example of government spending. The US democratic congress, who is more concerned about the war on Bush rather than the war on terror, has passed only 6 major bills since taking power back. What have they been doing instead of passing all of those laws they claimed they were going to pass. They have launched over 300 investigations that will lead to absolutely nothing, had over 350 requests for documents and interviews, and held over 600 oversight hearings. None of these will lead to anything. Just political show for upcoming 2008 elections. The administrative cost and legal costs of all of these worthless hearings cost millions upon millions of dollars. This is supposed to boost our economy. A complete waist of american money and resources.

[NefariousKoel]

The thing that really scares me to death is how the United States people are being completely eaten up by politics, politicians, and people trying to make a buck off the controversy (in steps Michael Moore). I am amazed at how so many people in my country believe everything they hear about just about anything you could imagine simply because the guy saying it is on their political side (usually the two sides are Republicans vs. Democrats). This guy Michael Moore could pretty much say just about anything he wants on any topic he wants and their will be people who buy every word of it regardless of the credentials of this one individual. All they know is that he is a Democrat, on their side politically, so go ahead and spread whatever propoganda you want and I will foolishly believe you without question.

This guy only wants to make money. He isn't up for changing anything. He wants to write books, make movies that people will call documentaries, and continue to stir the pot as much as he can to make millions of dollars. It isn't just him either. Go to any book store, watch 24 hour cable news shows, or watch many movies pushing political agendas. I feel like all this stuff is really starting to "Dumb Down" the american population.

Here is a list of questions I like to ask people with their usual responses to push my point on govt ran health care (especially people who are for it):
1) Do you trust your government? No, nearly 100% of the time
2) Do you trust politicians? No, nearly 100% of the time
4) Can you name 1 government program that is ran efficiently (or well)? No, nearly 100% of the time
5) Can you name any government programs that aren't ran well and are completely waistful? Social Security, Tax System, General Voting, WelFare, ect.... I usually get at least 5 programs off the tops of people's head

And the final question....
6) Then why in the world would you want your government to be in control over your health care needs? Blank stair nearly 100% of the time. If they were honest they would simply say because my party candidates tell me it is a good idea.

People, you better start thinking for yourself a little bit.
This post sums it all up in an easy to see format for all the dumb-downed.

Excellent post hocking. You have a gift for reason. Thank you. :sunny:

[P_Funk]

Here is the basics of Keynsian Economics vs. Classical Economics:

[insert lengthy explanation that you should know anyway if you're reading this]


Sorry, I simply don't have time to read your entire posts. You were probably right when you were wondering if I read your entire post. I probably didn't. Not because I didn't want to, but because I just didn't have time. I do enjoy the debate though. We disagree on quite a few points. I don't want government taking my money from me and spending like they want, I want to spend my own money. I am not totally against Keynesian economics though. I do think deficit spending at times is totally fine. After 9/11 here in the US would have been a perfect time for deficit spending just like Bush did. But he also did another magnificent thing, he cut taxes to put money back in efficient spenders hands. This was a mixture of the classical approach, and the keynesian approach on top like icing. Our economy recovered in a textbook fashion, and it is something economist will study for years to come. The great recovery after 9/11. Many people predicted we would still be in a recession in 2007, but we were out of the recession within a year after 9/11. In fact, government revenues increased, and government deficits decreased, as a result of Bush's tax cut. Same thing happened with Reagan's tax cuts as well. You want to raise goverment revenues, cut tax rates. People and profit seeking firms will always spend money more efficiently than government does. This is very clear in this case. People generate more profits and income whey they spend their own money (that is why you see government revenues rise after a tax cut) than when government spends that money for them. (Have you heard how much money my government has spent over in Iraq, and how much they spend there every month now. My point exactly.) Its alright if you don't read everything, though I do read everything you write. But I only do that with long answers that are actually good. Not something I get to say around here much. I definitely like the Keynesian style more, which is to intervene when things are sh1te and to roll back and save during the good times. However I see an extra level of involvement that the government should take. The theory behind the calssical style of economics is solid enough if you consider the success of the economy as the only marker. But to more marxist leaning fellows such as myself the inequities that naturally occur in the economy illicit a sort of desire to see a bit more levelling out of how things go. This isn't to say that I want to see growth retarded, but that the almost sociopathic need to support economic growth is not in the best interests of everyone. That is fundamentally where people like me and you disagree. It isn't that I don't understand the economy or that you do for that matter, but that we see a different scale of justice in it. Success over taxation maybe we can argue some, but even then I don't think we're that dissimilar. When I talk about government responsibility I mean social programs that prevent uncontrollable or unncessarily mundane social problems from preventing someone from being a productive member of society. I do like the government spending my money because the government can do things for me better than I can for myself in some cases. For one they build the roads we drive on. Its not that corporations wouldn't but that you don't want to trust someone that isn't accountable primarily to you to do it. And I see that you're cynical of government accountability but I guess I'm too young to be that jaded yet, or something like that. I do have gripes with the government, don't get me wrong, but I see its usefulness as being in the economic sector too.

Your point on Hitler bringing US out of recession: The US industrial monster was not built and made to be so efficient by the government. The government depended on the private industry to produce war innovative war goods by the millions. If you think government invented and produced all the war goods during WWII you are kidding yourselve tremendously. During WWII, I think it was very necessary to have a deficit spending government. But we would have lost WWII undoubtedly if it had not been for innovative free enterprise in America. Have you commanded a UBoat in late 1944 early 1945 yet. Holy cow. Government did not event all that stuff. Perhaps I didn't make it as clear as I wanted to. I don't mean to say that the government literally bilt the economy, but that through its direction and control it lead it to what it is. There is a reason that war is waged by government, and thats because the free market is too spastic and well competitive to be efficient in a time when speed and sharp decision making is necessary. The government in war had the ability to direct companies to produce a certain thing, how to produce it, and to fund it as well and as a result the now much spoken of Military Industrial Complex exists. It was more like the government directed the economy to do what was necessary for the war. That was what I meant. The innovative free enterprise was merely reigned in much like a private citizen is trained to be a member of an army unit. His strengths and weaknesses are moulded to conform to a particular need but his individuality is still important to success.

In regards to expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan, war is never lucrative to a nation but in very rare circumstances. The US made money after WW2 because of the massive loans to other nations. Nowadays war is constantly beneficial to the arms sector of the US but not directly to the country itself. So yes war is a drain, especially a useless war.

As for investigations into wrongdoing, well I gotta say that you want your government to be accountable. It might cost alot but what is the point of government that won't investgate itself because it isn't cost effective? Its a price to pay and I must say that internal investigations of government are never so expensive as ongoing occupations. We can't discount the inefficiency of many departments in this, but there exist these kinds of things in all human organization. There are examples of government effectiveness too. And at the end of the day its the imperfect system we have and without it the free market wouldn't be so free anyway. But I will say that unnessesary wars and accountability investigations are not exactly the best examples to make. There are ones that are less excusable or less fathomable.

[Tchocky]

The only logical result of universal healthcare!
!!!!! (http://www.prosebeforehos.com/video-of-the-day/07/10/on-fox-news-universal-health-care-terrorism)


EDIT - What the ****? How is Fox still taken seriously?

[Heibges]

I guess Michael Moore put the smackdown on Dr. Sanjay Gupta on Larry King?

[P_Funk]

I guess Michael Moore put the smackdown on Dr. Sanjay Gupta on Larry King?
Yea that was great. He came off a bit OTT but really I'm tired of only right wing extremists being the only passionate people on TV.

[waste gate]

I guess Michael Moore put the smackdown on Dr. Sanjay Gupta on Larry King?
Yea that was great. He came off a bit OTT but really I'm tired of only right wing extremists being the only passionate people on TV.

I missed it, what happened?

[Yahoshua]

Read here, follow links, bring popcorn.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/sicko_flatlines_and_michael_mo.html

[Tchocky]

Or, start somewhere neutral, with the original interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpKoN40K7mA

[waste gate]

I just now got around to having a look at this. I went for the youtube clip, so as not to be influenced by what Tchocky thought was a biased account.

It is hard to say what set Mike off. Perhaps he thought he was in friendly territory appearing on CNN, he's never been on FNC. Looking at his face, when Wolf goes to him, he seems bewildered, perhaps even shocked. Maybe Blitzer's use of the term 'reality check' is what did it. I don't know, but he was upset and there is no doubt about that.

For him to have to go on the air and listen to that kind of 'crap'? I thought that the report from the good doctor, what's his name, wasn't over the top. It merely pointed to some other facts which may have been left out of the movie. Is Michael Moore beyond being challenged? I always want to know more when someone doesn't want to be callenged. I instinctively react against teir argument because they think themselves beyond the give and take which allows people to come to an informed decision.







Blitzer was also taken back by Moore's reaction. This three year thing? He is very self important isn't he?

There may be other things but these are my initial thoughts.

Thanks for linking me fellas.


PS I said this on page one of this thread:

I don't have too much of a problem with Mike. His 'documentaries' take a little of this and a little of that, run it through the edit machine and call it truth. I think his efforts open a discussion and that is good, regardless the subterfuge used.


But I guess if Mike Moore has said it no more discussion is allowed. That strikes me as being very wrong.

[The Avon Lady]

Doctors without borders (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwwJIydMnTc). :roll:

[waste gate]

Here is an interesting twist.

THE SICKO DOCUMENTARY IS BANNED IN CUBA (http://www.miscelaneasdecuba.net/web/web/article.asp?artID=11127)
Havana, August 6, 2007.-There is no doubt that the Cuban authorities will not allow the Cuban people the possibility of watching this documentary by Michael Moore, a leading movie producer and ideological ally of the Cuban regime.

Although it might look contradictory, the propaganda used in the film to discredit the USA health system while trying to highlight the excellence of the Cuban health system, turned out to be considered “subversive” by the Cuban regime. It so happens that he based his arguments on gross lies that do not represent at all the Cuban health drama.



http://www.miscelaneasdecuba.net/web/article.asp?artID=11127

[STEED]

Can Micheal Moore move to a Socialistic Communism state like China or Russia? He might be more happy there.

What about North Korea? ;)

[Jimbuna]

Doctors without borders (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwwJIydMnTc). :roll:

Quite an interesting money making racket :hmm: