MOVIES: 'Sicko'

[mary_bobo]

Moore seems to envision something like Medicare, only for everybody. Being a beneficiary of Medicare myself, I guess I can’t quarrel with it. The only problem is that Medicare (along with social security and medicaid) is alre ady on a course which will bankrupt the country.

Bankrupt, indeed, much sooner than our esteemed Congress is willing to admit. If we keep promising people things, we better come up with a way to pay for them because our population is growing by leaps and bounds over what it was when all these lofty promises were made.

 

[estesbob]

Bankrupt, indeed, much sooner than our esteemed Congress is willing to admit. If we keep promising people things, we better come up with a way to pay for them because our population is growing by leaps and bounds over what it was when all these lofty promises were made.

What congress wants to do is make me(the busness ownr) pay for it.

 

[emily47017]

What congress wants to do is make me(the busness ownr) pay for it.

i agree – i’ve never thought it was a good idea to tie health insurance to employment, and as we start looking at other ways to reform health care, everyone’s plan involves employers paying for it somehow. bleah.

i’ve been told that it all started with very low unemployment rates, when companies were adding benefits to salaries in order to compete for the best workers… of course, those were the days when people got a job and stuck with it for 25, 35, 50 years. and now look! health insurance through employers is the only way to get something affordable (unless you qualify for the government programs), and even that’s becoming less and less affordable as premiums shoot through the roof.

the whole thing is broken! argh!

 

[estesbob]

i agree – i’ve never thought it was a good idea to tie health insurance to employment, and as we start looking at other ways to reform health care, everyone’s plan involves employers paying for it somehow. bleah.

i’ve been told that it all started with very low unemployment rates, when companies were adding benefits to salaries in order to compete for the best workers… of course, those were the days when people got a job and stuck with it for 25, 35, 50 years. and now look! health insurance through employers is the only way to get something affordable (unless you qualify for the government programs), and even that’s becoming less and less affordable as premiums shoot through the roof.

the whole thing is broken! argh!

It started in World war II when there were strict wage controls. Companies started offereing health insranace as an alternative to raising pay.

 

[orionsbelt]

Michael Moore has a lot of money. He should start his own pharmaceutical company with his money. He can use all his money on developing new drugs. He can then give them all away for free. Of course then he’d have no money. And then he couldn’t development anything new.

I don’t think anyone argues that universal health care wouldn’t be great. The only problem is what people who say they want this really mean they want someone else to pay for their healthcare.

Next time you are at the Department of Motor Vehicles, take a look at the clerk behind the counter. Government Controlled Universal Healthcare means that is the person who will be making the decisions on when, what and how your healthcare will be delivered.

We have the greatest healthcare the world has ever seen. The problem is that everyone wants everything instantly but is unwilling to pay for it. They want someone else to pay for it.

If you want 1970s, 80s or 90s PRICES for healthcare you can have it now. Just accept 1970s, 80s, or 90s healthcare. Same drugs, same MRI machines, same surgical procedures, etc. But be careful, some of those things may not be available depending on how far you go back.

Healthcare development and delivery companies are not evil. They operate in the real world and spend billions.

Anyone on this forum who thinks someone else should have free (or whatever you consider affordable) healthcare should go out and buy it for the person of your choice. Use YOUR money or resources, don’t try to convince the government to forcibly take someone else’s money to pay for it. Or start an organization to pool money to pay for other people’s healthcare.

 

[sacredcello]

Anyone on this forum who thinks someone else should have free (or whatever you consider affordable) healthcare should go out and buy it for the person of your choice. Use YOUR money or resources, don’t try to convince the government to forcibly take someone else’s money to pay for it. Or start an organization to pool money to pay for other people’s healthcare.

But, it’s ok for the government to forcibly take my money and to splurge billions on the military-industrial complex?

Ok, that makes sense.

Last time I checked we lived in a democracy.

 

[estesbob]

But, it’s ok for the government to forcibly take my money and to splurge billions on the military-industrial complex?

Ok, that makes sense.

Last time I checked we lived in a democracy.

Where did you check? We live in Republic

 

[sacredcello]

Where did you check? We live in Republic

ha ha!

Yes, and we have the power to vote for our elected officials.

I am certainly looking forward (with hope) to the pendulum swinging the other way in our next election.

 

[sadie2723]

I guess it’s ok to discuss the merits of the Cuban health care system in this thread.

We certainly would do so…the only problem is that the Cuban system is without merit. Don’t believe me? Ask anyone who ever lived there. Moore is a propagandist, he went to Castro’s personal clinic in the movie and they drug a few people off the street to give them treatment to make themselves look good. I assure you that on a normal day when there are no cameras, this is not the way things normally take place in Cuba.

And, if you need further evidence that national health care does not work very well, look into the failing system in England. What you will find are long waits and enormous taxation to pay for them. And, of course, there is the wonder of humanity…Hugo Chavez who recently nationalized the health care in Venezuela as part of his New Socialism.

Yup, national health care is wonderful.

 

[orionsbelt]

But, it’s ok for the government to forcibly take my money and to splurge billions on the military-industrial complex?

Ok, that makes sense.

Yes, because national defense is one of the few responsibilities allocated to the federal government in the Constitution. Most other things the federal government does these days is due to some abomination of the commerce clause or the phrase “general welfare” in the preamble.

Just because something is good does not mean the federal government should do it.

If you think something should be done. Go do it, don’t say Congress should do it. That’s what Christ and the Church teach.

 

[sadie2723]

Yes, because national defense is one of the few responsibilities allocated to the federal government in the Constitution. Most other things the federal government does these days is due to some abomination of the commerce clause or the phrase “general welfare” in the preamble.

Just because something is good does not mean the federal government should do it.

I could not agree with you more. And, in point of fact, when government does get involved in things outside of what is specified in the Constitution, those projects fail: Social Security (close to bankrupt), Medicare and Medicaid (Even Closer to bankrupt)…bottom line is that it is not the government’s responsibility to insure healthcare. I do not trust the government to do this efficiently, as they have proven inefficient in every social program that they role out. The free market system works…leave it alone.

 

[sacredcello]

The free market system works…leave it alone.

Aaaahhhhh, the trickle down theory.

 

[orionsbelt]

Aaaahhhhh, the trickle down theory.

Unfortunately human history shows over and over again that nothing else works.

It’s not perfect but there is nothing better.

 

[sadie2723]

Aaaahhhhh, the trickle down theory.

Which, of course, works…as opposed to Socialism which, of course, does not. Sorry, did you have a point?

 

[sacredcello]

Sorry, did you have a point?

Deuteronomy 15:4 “And there shall be no poor among you nor beggar among you: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in the land which he will give thee in possession.” (Douay-Rheims)

 

[estesbob]

Deuteronomy 15:4 “And there shall be no poor among you nor beggar among you: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in the land which he will give thee in possession.” (Douay-Rheims)

Oh boy-verse wars!

John 12:8 (New International Version)

8You will always have the poor among you

 

[orionsbelt]

Deuteronomy 15:4 “And there shall be no poor among you nor beggar among you: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in the land which he will give thee in possession.” (Douay-Rheims)

Now I understand where you are coming from. But you miss my point.

I absolutely agree with you that it is our responsibility to care for others. Where we disagree is that I advocate we each act from our own resources to help the poor, while you advocate having someone else act (government) on your behalf with someone else’s resources.

“Give to Caesar …”

 

[sadie2723]

Nice out of context Bible quote directed at the nation of Israel. I really do not see how this has anything to do with modern economic theory or Socialism. Are you somehow saying that God endorsed Socialist practices…if that is what you are saying, you really should take some time to read about Socialism. I would start with Karl Marx, but pay specific attention to his statements concerning organized religion.

Still, outside of religion, Socialism does not work on the basis of modern economic principal. We can argue about this one for a while, but the challenge is going to be coming up with an example of an efficient Socialist system.

 

[sacredcello]

Nice out of context Bible quote directed at the nation of Israel.

How else was Israel to be different than their Egyptian slavekeepers? In their captivity they knew the economics of inequality and the politics of oppression.

The covenant with Israel called for a different way of living: economics of equality and politics of justice and compassion.

Are we called to anything less?

BTW, one can advocate for a just and compassionate government AND give out of one’s own resources to the poor at the same time. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.

 

[sadie2723]

How else was Israel to be different than their Egyptian slavekeepers? In their captivity they knew the economics of inequality and the politics of oppression.

The covenant with Israel called for a different way of living: economics of equality and politics of justice and compassion.

Are we called to anything less?

BTW, one can advocate for a just and compassionate government AND give out of one’s own resources to the poor at the same time. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.

Point taken, and might I add, well put.

My point is that there are issues that the Constitution specifically calls government to deal with. Historically, when government has done those things they have done well. When they get outside of what the Constitution stipulates, they tend to fall apart. There is a way to handle that health care crisis, but nationalization of health care is far from it.