Well, as someone who has a pre-existing condition(fully treatable and can carry on as normally as before I was diagnosed) and can't get insured by any health insurance companies, free healthcare would be infinitely better than none. I can afford it, but I get turned down. So I have to result to putting quite a bit of money in an account to cover expenses or just add a big bill to all my other bills. The shitty thing for me was I was diagnosed right out of college(before getting a job), right before I was to apply for insurance. So no dice.

The health insurance issue in this country is a pathetic joke. People with pre-existing conditions can't get any at all, no matter what. Those of us in this case used to be able to get insured, but had to endure a 12 month pre-existing condition rule. They've long since gotten rid of that rule for all practical reasons. Poor people can't get any because the rates have gotten so ridiculous. Even companies are starting to drop it because it's too expensivefor them to keep health insurance plans for it's employees. It's pathetic. It's great if you have no conditions and can afford. But what about other cases?

Again, put that question to those of us who can't get insured.

By the way, Moore is a douche. ;)

I think the health care system is very terrible right now. But I still think that if it was universal it would be just as terrible, if not worse. What this nation needs is a reboot in all of insurance. I think if everyone dropped their health care, the hospitals would have to lower their prices and get to helping. Too bad their is absolutely no hope for that scenario happening.

Would it require a tax hike though? As it stands, the U.S., with its private, free-market, "we're not commies, dammit, and why should my taxes pay for some poor, lazy bum!" healthcare system, spends much more per capita on healthcare than other nations. 50% more than the second-highest, Switzerland, and almost double Canada's per capita spending, according to the 2000 chart in the second link. With that in mind, it's conceivable to universalize the system and bring expenses down without raising taxes.
www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/27348.php
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...tal-per-capita

I do respect the fact that he seems to love America and only wants it to become a better country, but when he has to use his films to maniuplate his audience, that's where I lost all respect for him.

Plus he has been exposed countless times as to change or make up facts, and use clever camera edits to fool his audience. Hell, first time I saw Bowling for Columbine I was caught hook, line, & sinker until I did some research and found out the "truth" behind what was shown on camera.

I do respect the fact that he seems to love America and only wants it to become a better country, but when he has to use his films to maniuplate and lie to his audience, just to prove his point that's where I lose all respect for him.

Plus he has been exposed countless times as to change or make up facts, and use clever camera edits to fool his audience. Hell, first time I saw Bowling for Columbine I was caught hook, line, & sinker until I did some research and found out the "truth" behind what was shown on camera.

I do respect the fact that he seems to love America and only wants it to become a better country, but when he has to use his films to maniuplate his audience, that's where I lost all respect for him.

Plus he has been exposed countless times as to change or make up facts, and use clever camera edits to fool his audience. Hell, first time I saw Bowling for Columbine I was caught hook, line, & sinker until I did some research and found out the "truth" behind what was shown on camera.

In the new documentary "Michael Moore Hates America" the filmmaker went to that bank and interviewed the people in charge, as well as the teller who was in the movie. They mentioned how Moore "staged" the conversation by telling the employee not to make any jokes while filming, because that was "my (his) job"

From my memory, the film makes us believe that the Bank has a vault of guns on the property, and you get one the same day you make an account. In reality, the vault is in a different location and you have to wait for your papers to be approved.

Take it for what you will.

Because it's the right thing to do. Because we're talking about people's lives here.

So by your rationale, no fire department? No police department?

We're paying more for comparable outcomes. If we can bring the cost down, maybe.

Doesn't look like Michael Moore twisted anyone's arm on video.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wa...?mov=bank-full

watch the video if you don't believe it took him merely minutes to get his gun. the lady there who works there said so.

If there was Universal Health Care it wouldn't solve the problem. More people would get sick and untreated with Universal Health Care because the money from the taxes are still not enough to pay for everyone. We as a society need to think out of the box to fix this problem.

Then food should be free, right?

Never heard of food stamps?

who said anything about health insurance being free? I sure didn't.

"Free" for the recipient, that's the end result, correct?

I'll restate my question...why should I or anyone else pay for your health care?

I sure hope this discussion goes the way of class warfare!

Yep, because EVERYONE would be the recipient. Why is this such a hard concept for you?

You're just repeating, I already answered that before, I'm not doing it abut. Everyone else would be paying for yours too, you do realize this?

I'll ask my restate my question, since you ignored it, which is rude since I answer all of your questions. Since you don't think you or anyone should pay for anyone else's health care, why should I or anyone pay for the fire department or the police to help you when are in need?

Do you look like this by any chance?

http://www.3dmd.net/gallery/albums/t...l_tileable.jpg

That still isn't a good comparison. If we let our government do everything for us: first we turn into a socialist country which we don't want, second the service will be terrible. People need medical help much more often then lawful help. If people needed the police as often as medication (especially in this country) there wouldn't be a society.

If you don't want it, don't take it. It should be an option.

That still won't solve the problem for the long run. It may work for a few years, which might be needed. But we need something completely different for the health care system. And I don't know what the answer is.

Also, it being an option makes it fundamentally different that the fire and police departments. Just letting you know that.

It works in Canada, France and Britain, why not here?

It doesn't work well in any country.

But you know what's not the answer :rolleyes:

then why is France ranked #1 in the world by the World Health Organization? Just lucky I guess.

Show me the statistics that say France has better and faster health care than the US. Mind you I'm not talking about Insurance. I don't know the statistics at all, but I've heard all the arguments. And I don't believe that France has better health care in general than the US.

EDIT: I just looked at the statistic you gave and that is for Health Systems. Obviously the WHO will give the country with the most people insured that #1 spot. That does not take into account which country is giving better health care. The socialized countries are much less interested in quality than in quantity. This is why Michael Moore is doing a disservice to the citizens of this country, because he is using statistics to prove his point, even though sometimes the statistics mean nothing.

It's overall health care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html there's a nice article you should read.

and btw, I work in health care.

If I have the option to not participate in receiving treatment, then I should also have the option of opting out of paying, correct?