DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Michael Moore's Sicko
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 150, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/24/2007 11:43:30 PM · #101
Originally posted by eamurdock:

Basic health care is a human right.


No it's not! If you get it, you should be grateful to the generous people who provide it.

The real nature of life is nasty, brutish and short. Anything you get beyond that is gravy.
06/24/2007 11:49:56 PM · #102
you are wrong, in the US according to the declaration of independance it is an unalienable right!
06/24/2007 11:55:30 PM · #103
Originally posted by kolasi:

you are wrong, in the US according to the declaration of independance it is an unalienable right!


No it isn't! You tell me where in the Declaration of Independence the Founding Fathers mentioned healthcare!!!! Besides, the Declaration of Independence was merely a document used to inform the world that the colonies were separating from England and why. It is not the document which sets forth the rights of citizens. That document would be the Constitution. And there's nothing in it about healthcare either.

Moreover, neither of those documents would be applicable to the question of a "human right" because a human right is one that applies to everyone in the world, not just people in the U.S.

Message edited by author 2007-06-25 06:08:41.
06/25/2007 06:51:19 AM · #104
Originally posted by suiteness:

MAC friendly bitlord thingy

This on, Transmission, works much better and sets up easier.
06/25/2007 07:31:47 AM · #105
Originally posted by OmanOtter:

Originally posted by kolasi:

you are wrong, in the US according to the declaration of independance it is an unalienable right!


No it isn't! You tell me where in the Declaration of Independence the Founding Fathers mentioned healthcare!!!! Besides, the Declaration of Independence was merely a document used to inform the world that the colonies were separating from England and why. It is not the document which sets forth the rights of citizens. That document would be the Constitution. And there's nothing in it about healthcare either.

Moreover, neither of those documents would be applicable to the question of a "human right" because a human right is one that applies to everyone in the world, not just people in the U.S.


LIFE, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness
06/25/2007 09:18:39 AM · #106
From article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

Perhaps a more telling quote from the same document:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

One in four children in the US have no health care coverage.

From USA Today:

"The percentage of working-age Americans with moderate to middle incomes who lacked health insurance for at least part of the year rose to 41% in 2005, a dramatic increase from the 28% in 2001 without coverage."

We have a system that does, indeed, work spectacularly well for some, but which utterly fails many. And the irony is that this drives costs UP in the long term, not down.

Finally, liberal or not, Halliburton is absolutly in New Orleans; both Halliburton and Bechtel were given much of the $100 billion in no-bid contracts for reconstruction. And anyone who has ANY respect for Conservative economic principles should be outraged by this fact.
06/25/2007 12:20:49 PM · #107
Originally posted by shanelighter:

I've seen the movie, and while it certainly carries its own bias, I feel the basic idea of the movie is fairly factual. And while Moore is nowhere near perfect (who is really??), he appears to be the only one willing to tackle these subjects. And creating public awareness is a good thing. Gets people talking (like this). The fact that he is one of the few documentary filmmakers who can get his films into theaters and actually get to show up is powerful in itself (Fahrenheit 911 was #1 at the box office for a period). He has the ability reach people, and I feel he's using the ability for a good cause.


Here we go, same as the film. Quote:(Fahrenheit 911 was #1 at the box office for a period). It sure was. Lets have the total truth, not the abridged one. Was # 1 at the box office for 1 week only. That is the period, if you can consider 1 weekend a period. That is the problem with people like Michael Moore. They tell the truth to an extent, just enough to get people thinking about things that they wouldn't have to if they had the whole truth in the beginning.
06/25/2007 12:49:55 PM · #108
Originally posted by kolasi:

LIFE, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness


Which does not imply that we have the right to government-provided free health care. "Everyone dies, baby; that's a fact!"

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
06/25/2007 12:59:34 PM · #109
Originally posted by OmanOtter:



The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.


Fortunately, much of the world disagrees.
06/25/2007 01:05:17 PM · #110
Originally posted by OmanOtter:

Originally posted by kolasi:

LIFE, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness


Which does not imply that we have the right to government-provided free health care. "Everyone dies, baby; that's a fact!"



I too think that "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a bit of stretch to think the founding fathers intended free health care.

I'm gonna put it to you guys point blank. Most areas of our country have a healthcare worker shortage. Nurses are in high demand and they make good money because they are.

Now, if the government all of a sudden stepped in and cheapened that labor, we'd REALLY have a shortage of workers and even worse healthcare. Who wants that?


06/25/2007 01:16:01 PM · #111
Nothing is free. Like my Dad used to say 'If leaves were greenbacks we'd be millionaires.' Everyone has to work. I would agree to FREE health-care if it was truly free, but anytime I've gotten something for free it hasn't been worth much.
06/25/2007 01:49:51 PM · #112
Originally posted by OmanOtter:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.


Ah so. Well, if you're going to dismiss the single most influential international agreement on human rights as "irrelevant" without so much as a word about why you feel that way, I don't think we have much to talk about.

Originally posted by jmritz:

Nothing is free. Like my Dad used to say 'If leaves were greenbacks we'd be millionaires.' Everyone has to work. I would agree to FREE health-care if it was truly free, but anytime I've gotten something for free it hasn't been worth much.


Fair enough. But no one is saying it's free. Roads aren't free, but I don't hear many people complaining about them being built and maintained by the government. We, as a society, decide which things are better (more efficiently) managed in an aggregated way, rather than individually. And notice that for the people for whom our system works, it is essentially "free." I don't hear anyone saying we should abolish the insurance industry and go to only pay-as-you-go healthcare, right? So some level of aggregation is good, keeps costs down, and leads to better overall service.

I'm saying we need to offer basic health care to everyone. It will keep costs down in the long term. It won't prevent people from being stupid, but OVERALL it's more efficient. As to how we achieve that, I'm open to ideas. But when 23 million children go without access to health care in the richest country in the world, we have failed. So be creative with solutions, but standing there saying "the status quo is perfect" seems to be at best absurd and at worst delusional.
06/25/2007 02:17:48 PM · #113
Originally posted by eamurdock:



Fair enough. But no one is saying it's free. Roads aren't free, but I don't hear many people complaining about them being built and maintained by the government.


You don't spend much time driving through poor neighborhoods do ya? The more "influential" parts of town always have the better roads. Putting government in control of health care would guarantee the lower class get less healthcare than the upper class.
06/25/2007 02:31:22 PM · #114
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Putting government in control of health care would guarantee the lower class get less healthcare than the upper class.


As opposed to now, when private HMOs send folks out to massage the feet of the poor, and cook them healthy meals.

Of course there will be problems. Of course poor folks will get the shaft, as they always have, as they always will. But can we agree, at least, that poor children deserve access to basic health care? That we have both a societal interest and a collective obligation to, at the very least, the children? And if we agree to that, how can you argue that we're not failing these kids as things stand?! One in four go without access to basic care!

The argument "The government still won't be fair to the poor, so screw 'em completely" is remakably weak.
06/25/2007 02:40:17 PM · #115
Originally posted by eamurdock:

But can we agree, at least, that poor children deserve access to basic health care?


They do and the government pays for it already. The Children's Health Insurance Program provides insurance to uninsured children. Through the Medicaid program, all children of low-income families are eligible for "All Kids" insurance, which includes dental.

For those with no experience of Medicaid, you can't get any better treatment.

Alabama was the first state to get on this program in 1997.

Message edited by author 2007-06-25 14:42:25.
06/25/2007 02:47:07 PM · #116
If you qualify for Medicaid, it can be nice, but you don't have to make all that much to not qualify. Consider a single parent with one child (age 7), making all of $16,000 a year: this family would not qualify, and no job that pays $16k a year will provide health insurance.

I got my numbers from here.

Message edited by author 2007-06-25 14:49:05.
06/25/2007 02:54:20 PM · #117
Originally posted by eamurdock:

[Ah so. Well, if you're going to dismiss the single most influential international agreement on human rights as "irrelevant" without so much as a word about why you feel that way, I don't think we have much to talk about.


Fine. But I'm dismissing it because it carries no weight. Try hiring a lawyer to sue the government for breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You won't even find one to take your case. The U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights is the only rights document that has any meat to it for an American.

Message edited by author 2007-06-25 14:55:14.
06/25/2007 03:05:39 PM · #118
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by eamurdock:

But can we agree, at least, that poor children deserve access to basic health care?


They do and the government pays for it already. The Children's Health Insurance Program provides insurance to uninsured children. Through the Medicaid program, all children of low-income families are eligible for "All Kids" insurance, which includes dental.

For those with no experience of Medicaid, you can't get any better treatment.

Alabama was the first state to get on this program in 1997.


The problem is not necessarily with people who qualify for Medicaid. Too many people make too much to qualify for medicaid, but don't have access to benefits elsewhere, either through an employer sponsored plan or private insurance.

06/25/2007 03:32:21 PM · #119
MediCare, our current version of a government-run, single-payer plan, spends something like 3-5% of its budget on administrative costs -- the rest goes towards patient care.

In the very best private health insurance companies those costs run closer to 10-12%, and in many companies run as high as 30%.

Private health care providers -- your primary care doctors and clinics -- have to spend close to 30% of their office personnel time billing (and arguing over reimbursement with) a myriad of companies and plans, each with their own rules, forms, and billing codes.

Private health insurance exists for only one reason -- to maximize returns for their shareholders -- if you've ever read any incorporation documentation you'll see that it is the Board's "fiduciary duty" to do so. Naturally, excluding anyone who might get sick from your pool of policy-holders will help in that goal, as will challenging, denying or delaying payments as much as possible.

Insurance works best when the pool is as large as possible -- you gain the most resources with the smallest contribution from each member. That "largest pool" is typically a country's population. By allowing the pool to be fragmented we get less bang for our (billions of) bucks, with a less healthy populace overall, stressed-out and overburdened health care workers, and corporate executives with multi-million dollar bonuses ...
06/25/2007 04:02:49 PM · #120
Too all of you Moore followers:
Why is it that Michael slams the government by saying they are a bunch or morons, but then wants health care to be run by the government?
Isn't there something wrong with this? Hello???? Can anyone answer this?
06/25/2007 04:11:02 PM · #121
Originally posted by GeneralE:

MediCare, our current version of a government-run, single-payer plan, spends something like 3-5% of its budget on administrative costs -- the rest goes towards patient care.

In the very best private health insurance companies those costs run closer to 10-12%, and in many companies run as high as 30%.

Private health care providers -- your primary care doctors and clinics -- have to spend close to 30% of their office personnel time billing (and arguing over reimbursement with) a myriad of companies and plans, each with their own rules, forms, and billing codes.

Private health insurance exists for only one reason -- to maximize returns for their shareholders -- if you've ever read any incorporation documentation you'll see that it is the Board's "fiduciary duty" to do so. Naturally, excluding anyone who might get sick from your pool of policy-holders will help in that goal, as will challenging, denying or delaying payments as much as possible.

Insurance works best when the pool is as large as possible -- you gain the most resources with the smallest contribution from each member. That "largest pool" is typically a country's population. By allowing the pool to be fragmented we get less bang for our (billions of) bucks, with a less healthy populace overall, stressed-out and overburdened health care workers, and corporate executives with multi-million dollar bonuses ...


I don't always agree with you Paul, but here you are singing my tune. :)

The current system is broken. BROKEN! It is crazy how many insurance companies my front office has to deal with. I'd take a 20% revenue cut any day because I'm sure I could save that much in costs and headache and walk away with just as much in my pocket.

One problem is everybody (and I mean EVERYBODY) in this little conundrum is shouting at the top of their lungs to protect their piece of the pie. Nobody can hear above the noise.

Message edited by author 2007-06-25 16:11:59.
06/25/2007 04:14:48 PM · #122
Originally posted by rugman1969:

Too all of you Moore followers:
Why is it that Michael slams the government by saying they are a bunch or morons, but then wants health care to be run by the government?
Isn't there something wrong with this? Hello???? Can anyone answer this?


Well...

First of all, I wouldn't call myself a Moore follower. I haven't seen one of his movies since "Roger and Me". But ignoring that part:

I think that the government represents the collective will of the people, to the best degree that it can be represented - that is to say, imperfectly. I believe in government by, for, and of the people. I believe that there are certain things that can only be done well by collective action (defending personal freedoms, for instance), just as there are things that are only done well by open markets. And so when it comes to those things which I consider basic rights (and this is an ethical statement, not a legal one) I think that society has an obligation to make sure it gets taken care of. Our system as yet has failed to protect the poor and disenfranchised, and I think the government, as a tool of the people, has a responsibility to respond. So that's why I support it.

I also think that government by, of, and for the people carries with it a great responsibility to the individual. We do not get to sit idly by and blame the failures on a corrupt system - the system is us. If it's broken, we must fix it. And the first step to fixing it is bringing the failures to light. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Does that help?
06/25/2007 04:37:19 PM · #123
Originally posted by rugman1969:

Too all of you Moore followers:
Why is it that Michael slams the government by saying they are a bunch or morons, but then wants health care to be run by the government?
Isn't there something wrong with this? Hello???? Can anyone answer this?


I've never seen a Michael Moore film.

I can't necessarily say that the single provider plan where the government extends Medicare (or a similar plan) to all is the best solution either. I will say this: The current system is BROKEN.
06/25/2007 04:46:30 PM · #124
Doc...

Since I'm not a doctor and don't play one on TV, what would you consider to be too much of a cut? You said 20% would be ok. What if it was 50% ?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

MediCare, our current version of a government-run, single-payer plan, spends something like 3-5% of its budget on administrative costs -- the rest goes towards patient care.

In the very best private health insurance companies those costs run closer to 10-12%, and in many companies run as high as 30%.

Private health care providers -- your primary care doctors and clinics -- have to spend close to 30% of their office personnel time billing (and arguing over reimbursement with) a myriad of companies and plans, each with their own rules, forms, and billing codes.

Private health insurance exists for only one reason -- to maximize returns for their shareholders -- if you've ever read any incorporation documentation you'll see that it is the Board's "fiduciary duty" to do so. Naturally, excluding anyone who might get sick from your pool of policy-holders will help in that goal, as will challenging, denying or delaying payments as much as possible.

Insurance works best when the pool is as large as possible -- you gain the most resources with the smallest contribution from each member. That "largest pool" is typically a country's population. By allowing the pool to be fragmented we get less bang for our (billions of) bucks, with a less healthy populace overall, stressed-out and overburdened health care workers, and corporate executives with multi-million dollar bonuses ...


I don't always agree with you Paul, but here you are singing my tune. :)

The current system is broken. BROKEN! It is crazy how many insurance companies my front office has to deal with. I'd take a 20% revenue cut any day because I'm sure I could save that much in costs and headache and walk away with just as much in my pocket.

One problem is everybody (and I mean EVERYBODY) in this little conundrum is shouting at the top of their lungs to protect their piece of the pie. Nobody can hear above the noise.
06/25/2007 04:51:15 PM · #125
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by rugman1969:

Too all of you Moore followers:
Why is it that Michael slams the government by saying they are a bunch or morons, but then wants health care to be run by the government?
Isn't there something wrong with this? Hello???? Can anyone answer this?


I've never seen a Michael Moore film.

I can't necessarily say that the single provider plan where the government extends Medicare (or a similar plan) to all is the best solution either. I will say this: The current system is BROKEN.

I understand the system is broken, and totally agree. What I can't understand is this guy is slamming the government(not that they don't deserve some of it), but saying the government should be doing something. Thats like saying the cars they sell suck, but I'm going to buy one from them anyway.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/16/2019 02:38:17 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/16/2019 02:38:17 AM EDT.