I doubt it - seriously - as EVERYTHING with health care would cost more. Again, this is the same government that paid $200 per hammer for the military 20 years ago. Frugal spending is not in their training manuals. Cost cutting? Just the opposite, and if you don't think that government contractors charge the government more than they would a private company you haven't been paying attention.

No, many of them behave with a sense of trying to make a profit. With health care companies that is dubious (although, again, Kaiser is a non-profit just looking to keep costs down to be competitive - and they are, their premiums are about 33% less than their competitors), but with pharmecutecal companies making a profit is a VERY good thing as that is how they fund their R&D to create new drugs - many of which become life savers. The government can't fund drug research that way. It's just too expensive.

No one on Michael Moore's side has ever responded to those ideas - it is possible to address the issues that come up regarding health care without resorting to a government run system.

saw it and it's the same as his other movies. make the facts fit your conclusions

too bad you have to google for the little facts like how much "free" healthcare costs in other countries. little details like a 20% sales tax and a 50% income tax on incomes over $50,000 in addition to property taxes and a long list of other taxes

the part where he sent $12,000 to the guy who runs moorewatch was classic as well as how he mischaracterized the whole thing in the movie

How do you have a big house and nice cars, and still be frugal? Sounds like the spent on luxuries and didn't take care of their financial needs. How could this person not have disability insurance? It costs basically nothing if you get it through your employer. If they were making good money, he should have been able to get plenty of disability insurance and his family would be covered.

You have a repugnantly selfish outlook. It is true that some ne'er-do-wells habitually take advantage of government programs, but, regardless, to not die would, I hope, be a minimal basic right in any country that considers itself humane and civilized. I would hate to live in your apparent ideal world of everyone-for-himself anarchy. It must be a struggle, but try to spare a thought for somebody besides yourself.

In any event, the U.S. has the per-capita most expensive healthcare system in the world, so it's not as if the unbridled free-market approach has led to tax or other savings for you. Nobody has claimed (aside, maybe, from Michael Moore; I haven't seen the film) that healthcare systems of the rest of the First World are perfect. There will always be deficiencies, but at least no one will be turned away due to impoverishment, or be thrust into bankruptcy over a scuffed knee.

So, let me get this straight - because I don't want ANYBODY else paying for MY health care - and because I made paying for my own health coverage from the time I was 19 a priority so that no one else WOULD have to pay for my health care, I'm selfish?

Because I expect others to have the same level of integrity and independence (and foresight to know that is truly a priority) I'm selfish?

Really? That's messed up.

See, you didn't read my solutions to the problem, did you? There's nothing new there - just stuff that requires political courage. If the ideas I listed (first post on this page includes them) were all enacted NO ONE would go without coverage. NO ONE would be turned away. But you wouldn't have a system that more than doubles the size of government and therefore DOUBLES the federal taxes that we all pay.

And why should the government cover people who are perfectly capable of buying their own health insurance? If someone's making $80,000 a year does he or she really need the government to pay for his or her health care?

Only those who truly cannot pay for their own (and I mean TRULY cannot - not the, "I won't have any money left for fun," people) should get bailed out of trouble by the government. Only those who cannot under any circumstances pay for health insurance should get Health Savings Accounts - to be used when needed, and through a provider of the user's choice!

The ideas are there - GOOD ideas, but there are those in government who want universal health care or nothing. THAT is a cost and administrative nightmare waiting to happen.

No one in this thread has been saying that - no one. So just stop, please. MOST people do not like what we have now, and no one truly feels that an all social health plan is the answer either. The best thing would be to take the best of both worlds and mash them into one affordable package for everyone. Because, unfortunately, being in the hospital for, say, a heart-attack will run up the same general bill whether the patient is a millionaire or homeless. So it's difficult to treat it like a free enterprise such as the automobile industry.

Really, and how exactly would that work? Is there a successful, efficent, well run system in the modern history of this country that "mashed" together government and private industry? Or is every single example of such a classic case of waste and graft?

And I addressed that scenario. So why get the government involved any more involved than they absolutely need to be? That just invites waste, inefficiency, and corruption.


Uh, wrong example. How about the auto insurance industry? They pay for injuries and multi-thousand dollar repairs of cars. That system works pretty well - if still suffering from too much fraud (which is tolerated to too high of a degree by the government).

Like I said, tweak it, fine tune it, fill in the gaps - but don't make radical changes until you've tried these more moderate steps first.

Um, the US isn't too far away from such obscene tax rates. Only difference, is our taxes go to such fine organizations like Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater...

Meanwhile, cities close libraries and cut back on police patrols.

The U.S. Federal tax rates are much lower than those in France or Germany - two examples cited previously of "great" socialized, government provided health care.

Cities closing libraries and cutting back on police (I'd like to know which cities are cutting back police) - those things have nothing to do with the federal government and federal taxes. Those are local issues impacted by local and state budgets, not federal budgets.

I can understand how things look worse than they actually are - and the media certainly plays into that. Nothing sells or draws ratings like bad news. Michael Moore is guilty of distortion and lies of omission to make his point. And if he distorts facts or leaves out facts that contradict his point, did he REALLY make the point?

looking back one of my favorite parts was in Cuba and how MM acted like he didn't know what to do and care for his group and like it was all spontaneous. like porn, it's all pre-planned.

you have to be crazy to believe that he just ended up in Cuba with no official preparations or planning and they just let his people into the hospital there and gave all kinds of care.

as for taxes if people here really paid what the official rates were there would be a revolution. i'm in 28% and with good tax software i knock it down to around 12% Turbotax says i'm at the high end and that people in my income range pay even less on average.

I just heard Michael Moore on KNX in L.A. and he was saying that we needed a universal health care system in the U.S. paid for by the government - because it's the Christian thing to do.

While he was in L.A. I wonder if he got a chance to visit King/Harbor Medical Center - you know, the Hospital of Death. Government run, probably the worst hospital in America. You know, the one where that lady died on the floor because the nurses and doctors didn't give a shit. There you go - GOVERNMENT health care! (Can you really call it "Health Care," if the people working there don't "care?")

Now they're looking to PRIVATIZE that hospital because the government can't run it without dozens of people dying needless deaths due to incompetence and mismanagement every year.

I don't know about any of you, but that's exactly the kind of "health care" that I DON'T want. Walter Reed, King/Drew/Harbor - BAD medicine.

CDC just released a new report- another 2 million adults without health insurance in the past year. I guess it's not because people can't afford it that they don't have it- they're just too cheap or want to live on the edge. If they would just cut out extravangances like food and rent and gas they could afford it. The increase was almost all between adults aged 18 to 64. I'd like to see a poll of just those ages asking what they think of US health care. I have an elderly neighbor who was in WWII- 100% of his health care, including all his medicines, is covered by the government. So I'm guessing a lot of elderly folks are not too unhappy with health care- especially when they see what their children and grandchildren are facing.

You live in San Diego? Just out of curiosity, how do you think that $2Billion budget shortfall is going to be solved? Because I hate to inform you, Sanders' plan to solve it by ignoring it isn't going to work.



Did you seriously just ask that? You live in San Diego and you asked that? You realize SDPD has been cutting back paid hours for officers to show up in court for certain cases? You realize SDPD hasn't been hiring the numbers it wants to? Have you noticed libraries cutting hours? Many of these are self-inflicted to be sure, but pretending San Diego won't hit bankruptcy inside of five years is going to hurt. Because the city will declare bankruptcy. And taxes will go up. Problem is, you won't see a benefit.
Cities get money from the Fed. One of the worst things about the Bush administration has been a reduction of funds for local law enforcement agencies.

San Diego's financial problems were caused by the San Diego city government. A large part of the problem were HUGE pension benefits given to certain groups that were questionable at best when the contracts were signed.

The funds provided by the federal government are a small percentage of local government's budget for things like law enforcement. If a city is well run (which San Diego wasn't in the 90's) then it doesn't need the federal funds at all.

And I'll tell you this - you just made my argument for me. One of the results of Government Provided Universal Health Care is less money from the federal government to state and local governments - because the federal government will be even further in the red and they'll have to make HUGE cutbacks.

You have no idea just how much Universal Heal Care will cost. It's HUGE - bigger than the entire current federal budget now. You think that won't break the bank? And with the bank broken, you don't think that health care services will be cut to the bone to keep costs down?

Don't be naive.

Universal Health Care won't raise the level of health care, it will lower it. Sure, everyone will be covered, but those who already have health insurance will see a decline in the quality of their health care. The government is incompetent - they have NEVER proven that they can do something like this, and the costs are so astronomical that you'll never see the "care" in health care from the government (just see King/Drew or Walter Reed as examples).

While I can't argue the government screws up a lot, privatization and deregulation is worse. Or do you not remember all the benefits deregulating the power companies gave California in 2000/2001? However, that wasn't the original point of my postings...
I merely stated taxes were going to go up in the near future. I've implied we'll (San Diego and the US) be paying through the nose at rates comparable to many European nations and not seeing anything similar to the benefits they derive.
Why that doesn't this make you mad?

As for San Diego's non-need of federal funds... what's been one of the biggest employers in the city since CA Rep Bill Kettner went to the Department of the Navy in the early 1900s and convinced the right people San Diego had excellent port facilities for big gray boats with big gray guns. Now, tell me how many people have drawn a paycheck from General Atomic, Teledyne-Ryan, Northrup-Grumman, SAIC, SPAWAR and what services those companies provide and who they provide them to. Here's a hint: He's everybody's Uncle.

Okay, back on topic. Have you even seen SICKO?

Actually, it would most likely be cheaper than your current private system.

From Wikipedia

"Health care is one of the most expensive items of both nations’ budgets. The U.S. government spends more per capita on health care than the government does in Canada. In 2004, the government of Canada spent $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government spent $2,724."

"However, U.S. government spending covers less than half of all health care costs. Private spending for health care is also far greater in the U.S. than in Canada. 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. In 2004, health care consumed 15.4% of U.S. annual GDP. In Canada, only 9.8% of GDP was spent on health care."

When has the U.S. government EVER done ANYTHING cheaper than can be done in the private sector? EVER?

If the governmen were run as efficiently as a business, you'd probably be right - but our government is as wasteful when it comes to spending as any - and more than most.

Take the number you've seen and double it - that's the effect of U.S. government run systems. Total inefficiency, tons of waste, and we've already got examples of government run health care in the U.S. - and it's horribly bad (no "care" in the health care).

L.A. County is looking to PRIVATIZE King/Harbor Medical Center because so many people are dying needlessly there due to incompetence. Walter Reed is an utter disaster for anyone other than someone from the White House.

Box Office Mojo has Sicko only at 441 theaters, anyone know why so low? F-9/11 had twice as many theaters for its opening.

Am I only one who thinks Michael Moore is a dick?

No, lots of people think he's a dick - people like Bush, Cheney, greedy corporations, you know, other dicks.

because idiot moore put his movie on bittorrent and almost everyone has seen it already

Something struck me as I looked at my paycheck today.

My employer pays over $400 per month for their share of my family's health care coverage (I pay $160). Now, assuming that the government DOES institute Universal Health Care that means that my employer no longer pays that $400. They won't put it in my paycheck (almost no employer would), they'll just keep the money and consider that lower general expenses.

I, however, WILL pay that $400 in new taxes - maybe more if the government is as inefficent and wasteful as usual. So, not only will I end up paying the $160, I'l pay the additional $400 - meaning my real income drops by almost $5,000 per year!

This will be true of just about ALL working families whose employers pay a share of their health care costs.

Of course, most families in that situation will be forced into bankruptcy - but, hey! Everyone will be covered, right?

Is that really a "fair and equitable" system? Is that right? See, it's these UNINTENDED consequences that will be the killer.

Michael Moore didn't think about that, did he?

(Don't expect "the rich" to burden this bill - they can always find ways to get out of paying taxes if the rates become too high - that's what they did when the top tax rate was 70-90% - none of them paid anywhere close to that amount. Cigarette taxes are pretty much maxed out - cigarette sales have been steadily dropping for years. It's going to end up with the middle class burdening the bill.)

it was saddening to sit there and watch how other countries got a 'royal treatment' in healthcare services while american healthcare is "ranked just above slovenia." moore might not be telling the whole truth, but fact of the matter is, there was a 24hr on call house doctor in france & a cashier reimbursing patients in the uk. that will never happen in america. i hope the film does help reform healthcare as i have a close relative that now pays more than triple for her prescriptions since bush's 2003 'overhaul', and my gf, whose a full-time grad student, has to use her financial aid to pay medical bills for something we have been trying to get diagnosed and treated since january, student services can only do so much.

I hate Bush and Cheney and I think Michael Moore is a dick.