digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

10 Facts You Never Knew from "Sicko"

noedb.org — While most movie-goers see faults within the film, the truth is that Moore simply reflects reality. Nothing in his film is new, exciting, or even shocking if the viewer has read local, regional, or international newspapers or if the viewer has kept up with problems incurred within the health insurance and medical industry over the past few years. T

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • SilenceGold, on 10/10/2007, -27/+16All right, I'm convinced and will be going. Does the Cuba doctors take a check or credit card?
    • mikemil828, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4If Sicko is to be believed, they give you treatment at little or no cost. Hurray for communism
      • swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1In other words, for nothing so long as they get a video confession praising Castro and condemning every form of democracy ever invented.
  • foxhaze, on 10/10/2007, -22/+32Maybe if Americans didn't feel like suing over everything...
    • FreakyD, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11No chance. easy money.
    • darkfate, on 10/10/2007, -9/+36That has nothing to do with the healthcare system! The healthcare companies are screwing us over because they care about their profits more then their patients. It has nothing to do with suing people, that's a story in and of itself.
      • manstein01, on 10/10/2007, -12/+13That's a lot of *****. Malpratice insurance is the single largest expense doctor's incur. Yes, insurance companies are gouging us, but it's not like medical costs have remained static during that time.
        • billmccartney, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3That comment is so stupid. Lots of professionals need to buy insurance. Especially if they screw up. In fact lawyers pay WAY more than doctors for malpractice insurance.
          • evildemonic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6False.
          • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Philadelphia Neurosurgeons Malpractice Insurance: $150,000-200,000/year
          • redxii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe that is why they call it a "practice". Except practice here will never make perfect. I say sue them if they go something like "Hey, hold this scalpel while I go to the John."
        • rubyeyes, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Hey here's a thought if insurance is gouging us ... you think they might be gouging doctors too? So they make money on both ends - good to be in insurance.
      • TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Ask John Edwards!
      • TypeEE, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You must be kidding. People are suing for malpractice even when their 80 y.o granny died from a kidney transplant.
    • gtluke, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7then how is john edwards supposed to stay so rich? giving speeches about being poor? pft
    • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12No kidding. The tort system has become the new lottery system.
    • AbsurdParadox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Maybe if the American government didn't feel like crippling every industry it can.
  • dusingaz, on 10/10/2007, -54/+35Facts..... Sicko.... I'm confused?
    • PIPBoy2000, on 10/10/2007, -14/+2google it kthx
    • fasda, on 10/10/2007, -26/+14Facts.... any Michel Moore "documentary"...... I'm confused?
    • Hermitwise, on 10/10/2007, -8/+15"Sicko" is actually his most factual documentary so far. Where are all these inaccuracies you hint at?
      • Avor, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2"his most factual documentary so far"
        LOL all documentaries should be as 100% factual and unbiased as the next. If you create a "documentary" with an agenda in mind you've already lost credibility.
        • AmusedToDeath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6LOL yourself. Documentaries with no point of view are called "new reports". Obviously you don't quite understand what the function of a documentary is.
          • ISIfunded911, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree. Except news reports are usually far from objective. Just open a book by Chomsky about the media to be stunned!
      • jaywon, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1It's not inaccuracies so much as it's withheld information. He only tells one side of the story. The one that will stir up shock and rage for those people who only put the effort into learning about the health care issues today by watching a 90 minute "documentary". He leaves out information contrary to the points he is trying to make intentionally.
        • hatdrop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4you mean the part about the large amount of people who pay for insurance not getting proper coverage for what they pay for? he sure has a one sided agenda he's trying to promote there!
        • DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So, would you be complaining if all he did was talked about the other side?
          If you want something examining both sides, create your "documentary."

          Like you've never withheld information or slightly altered the facts to get what you wanted.
        • jaywon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0DangerMouse,

          For starters, yes I would be complaining if he only talked about the other side. Um... that was my whole point that he only talks about one side. Apparently you don't fully understand the meaning of the term documentary. And yes, I have altered facts, but the difference is I don't have millions of naive sheep listening to what I say, nor am I trying to promote any agenda.....either side.......deuchebag
    • arcooke, on 10/10/2007, -6/+21Almost every fact in Sicko is entirely accurate... Is it biased? Yes. They don't hear the other side of the story from insurance companies (whatever that story may be). But there's no reason for you to be attacking the accuracy of the facts in Sicko.
      • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Methinks all the Sicko haters work FOR the insurance industry.

    • TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5"Almost every fact" you say? You mean he stretches the truth in parts of his movie in which it supposed to be entirely accurate? Like when he says we have the lowest life expectancy and the high infant mortality rate?
      http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200706/1182 ...

      So I don't understand, why are we basing the quality of the health care system with the life expectancy? People in America are making themselves sick with hyper-tension disorder and heart disease. It's their lifestyle that is killing them. How is ANY health care system supposed to treat that?!
      • DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1By not being such greedy bastards so they can pay the least paid workers more, so they can afford better food, so they can be healthier, so they won't have heart problems from what they eat and the stress of not having enough to make ends meet.

        Here's an idea that would go over as well as the Hindenberg in an inferno, why not give our politicians the same health care that the average American family gets and the same pay that they get. Do you want to see how fast these problems would be solved then?
    • sansoncarrasco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Preventive medicine.
  • therightside, on 10/10/2007, -42/+17I hope when Michael Moore gets diabetes and inflamed pancreas from being a fatass he goes to Cuba.
    • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Glenn Beck, is that you?
    • DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Wow, you sure have a lot of pent up aggression.
  • johngr, on 10/10/2007, -32/+16One film he'll never do about the overweight problem in America: FATASS
    • DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Or one where you talk about the women in your life that you've talked to offline, and no "do you want fries with that" doesn't count.
  • h3smith, on 10/10/2007, -28/+29And? People in the UK commonly travel to India to get surgery, making "health holidays" to receive surgery they can't get though their health system because the waits are too long.

    Sorry, more government in the already most regulated industry in the United States won't help the issue. Less gov't will. Any doctor will tell you the two things that add the most cost to their operation are Medicare/Cade compliance and insurance claims.
    • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18 And you know this,how?
      Do you live in the UK?
      I doubt it.
      have you ever used UHC?
      I doubt it.
      • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6And somehow that discredits real facts?
        • kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Its not a real fact though. Yes some Brits do go to India. But in almost every case its for plastic surgery. For some reason the NHS spends its money on curing the sick NOT giving girls tighter breasts
    • rubyeyes, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17People travel from the US to India because it's cheaper travel costs included (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism). People go to Canada for cheaper prescriptions - what does your point prove?
      • h3smith, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2That there is less intervention in the medical market in India (less govt and insurance) so they have much cheaper prices.
    • thecatcantalk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Maybe so, but the British government is famously incompetent, so...what? The fact remains that U.S. healthcare costs twice as much as in any other nation, while only three industrialized nations lack Universal Health Care: the U.S., red China, and...wait forit...South Africa (source, 'The Economist' newspaper, a trade magazine for investment bankers. Look it up.).

      The fact that British health care is poorly managed, proves nothing.
  • brokenspatula, on 10/10/2007, -26/+9CNN's response to Michael Moore
    CNN adds the context moore decided to leave out
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/15/moore ...
    • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23That's nice, but it doesn't contest the facts and it only covers about 15 minutes of the total movie.
      • lastdeadmouse, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18And Moore also posted a very widely accepted reply.
    • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12 I trust CNN about as far as I can fling an elephant.
  • offspring06, on 10/10/2007, -20/+47The health care should not be a for profit industry. When money gets involved we all know who loses out.
    • therightside, on 10/10/2007, -24/+12oh yeah because free markets dont work and socialism does....
      • offspring06, on 10/10/2007, -7/+18Yeah because everything is black or white in your fantasy world. If we take the profit out of health care than that money goes back into the system and not into the hands of the insurance industry.
        • genericcynic, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4...which is true for all other socialist enterprises. They still can't compete in most every business.

          (And it is ok for you lefties to hate capitalism; it isn't nice. The only advantage is that it sucks less than any other tested alternative for societies with more than a few millions in population.)
      • kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16In fact it does. It works every single day. You know that police force, Fire brigade, teachers, roads, parks ,librarys there all a form of socialism. The point is where you let free markets rule. many countries spend less on healthcare and have a better service from a model like the UK rather than the US. that should tell you something.
      • TypeEE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15depends on what is your definition of "work". For economy wise, free market will work for sure. However, if you want to minimize death for poor people, you need a bit of socialism.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -15/+6Yeah...Socialism does. (Points to Norway and Vermont)
      • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9It does indeed.
        offspring06 is correct. These companies only reason to exist is to maximize their profits for themselves,their shareholders and their CEO...Anytime they can deny you coverage,they will do it in a heart beat.
    • caehlan, on 10/10/2007, -13/+8The Environment?
      Wait, I'm confused, which hippie issue are we talking about again?
    • theblooms, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16Pharmaceutical companies in the US are for-profit. The vast majority of all pharmaceutical technologies are developed in the US. See the correlation? Profit breeds motivation which breeds innovation. Because of basic ingrained human nature, like it or not, the quest for profit will ALWAYS trump the quest for the 'greater good'.

      Of course there /are/ people who get into healthcare and pharma out of the goodness of their hearts, with a general will to want to help their fellow man, but they are the exception rather than the rule.
      • calmeacham, on 10/10/2007, -10/+9Amen theblooms....... but you have to understand most digg readers want it given to them for free, so they can sit at home on digg all day long.
        • kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Who is talking about Pharmaceutical companies? the UK has two of the largest in the world floated on our stock market. We also have the NHS and private healthcare.
      • div2n, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The problem with health care is more to do with connecting a patient with a doctor and not the medicines prescribed. Pharmaceutical companies are selling a product. Health insurance companies are selling the illusion of coverage. They don't make money if they pay every single claim. The more they deny, the less people go to the doctor. Drug companies don't make money if they don't produce good quality drugs that are effective. Health insurance companies are not bound by the same parameters so your analogy using them is a bad one.
      • hatdrop, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3ooh you mean all those commericals for those medications that might cure my symptoms but also gives me a chance for 2 billion other symptoms like bloody anal leakage, painful urination, cramps, respitory problems, aches, etc etc, are a good thing? love all that innovation going on...
      • ISIfunded911, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Pharmaceutical companies spend twice more on advertising than on research. Which means they could spend three times more on research. And even more if they used their profits to do more research. And pharmaceutical companies take advantage of public research. And they corrupt doctors and hospitals to sell you bad/dangerous/expensive medicines. And they create new imaginary illnesses to create new markets, destroying millions of lives in the process. And they did fight preventive medicine from the start, more than a century ago. Pharmaceutical companies should be sued to financial death and then nationalized once and for all. And their big bosses should be ordered to take all their medicines everyday.
        Cooperation + emulation > competition + greed
    • manstein01, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Right, and when government gets involved, everybody wins. Right?
      • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8 If done properly,yes.
        Just ask people in the EU and Australia about their health care and how much they would want our for profit system...Somehow i don't think they would be lining up.
    • jcastillo81, on 10/10/2007, -11/+14Yep, competition in the market has never produced anything good... except our abundant food suppy... and ever increasing computer technology... and the automobile... and...
      • wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10All of that progress also bred horrible work and living conditions for people, which were mollified by safety nets provided by either the government (disability, unemployment, equal opportunity, 40 hour work week, no child labor), or unions.
        • Avor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3All societies have gone through the same processes when climbing the economic ranks. We see it in China, and I bet sometime soon they will grow out of it as well. It didn't "breed horrible work and living conditions," they were better off than they were before, but still incredibly subpar compared to today's standards.
      • idconvict, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Not to disagree with your point, but even with our abundant food supply, people are still starving on the streets. We haven't been the top in technology for awhile, and foreign cars are arguably better than domestic cars at this point
      • CptofMySoul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Are you seriously using 'abundant food supply' as an example of a free market in action? Wikipedia 'Farm Bill' sometime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm_bill
      • kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8er..... U mean the farming industry that is supported by billions of Government subsidy?
  • ilkeryoldas, on 10/10/2007, -15/+48LEAVE MICHAEL MOORE ALONE!!!!
    • Ihatehillary, on 10/20/2007, -7/+4When he takes his fat greasy pudgy hands out of my bag or Doritos!!!!
    • dcrooks, on 10/20/2007, -5/+1LOL!!!
    • neuropsychguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Why because we should ignore him or because he doesn't want the attention? He wants the attention, even if he's being attacked.
    • bronyraurstomp, on 10/20/2007, -4/+1Don't taser Michael Moore, bro!
      No, I'm not just making a funny remark, It's to remind US citizens that they are in fact living in a Police State which uses brutality to silence the voices that question authority. Michael Moore shall soon be killed, just like the killed Malcom X, MLK, JFK, Bill Hicks, John Lennon, etc...
      • da420, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You are comparing Michael Moore to MLK and Lennon?

        lol....
  • wonky73, on 10/10/2007, -33/+16HaHA... you used facts and Sicko in the same sentence.... That's funny.
    • offspring06, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16Here we go again. Did you actually research the facts yourself or do you listen to everything Ann Coulter says.
      • Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4No, it's just that we realize that Michael Moore is the left's Ann Coulter. Some of us treat both with equal disdain.
    • Scottamus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You people must have a hard on for the health insurance company. This has nothing to do with red and blue. This is black and white. Healthcare is as evil as kicking puppies and kittens and the only reason you disagree is because Moore did the documentary? You are a *****.
  • jetboyterp, on 10/10/2007, -27/+11Putting "Michael Moore" and "facts" in the same sentence is a bit of an oxymoron...


    "...the truth is that Moore simply reflects reality"....WHAT reality is THAT? A bad acid trip?

    • echinda, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Rather than just spouting off, how about offering up a link to someone that refutes what the article says - Sicko is based on facts. You think it isn't? OK - say why ...
      • jetboyterp, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Sure! Here's one for ya:

        http://politics.propeller.com/story/2007/06/28/a-l ...
        • raintheory, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah thats funny... The first thing that article says: "The odds of a nine-fingered man actually playing a guitar are slim to none." ... Jerry Garcia had nine fingers. He played guitar quite well I might add.
      • reedatschool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually took the time to read through this rebuttal. Now I have wasted another 10 minutes of my life! The author just rants about obscure stupid stuff that has literally nothing to do with this whole debate.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19I love how the article gives us a very selective reality. By placing the United States only with developed countries, it fails to account for those THIRD WORLD countries with higher life expectancies than us (Costa Rica, por ejemplo). In reality, the US is 40th in life expectancy in the world.
    • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3You do realize that the healthcare system can only do so much for life expectancy and most of what changes life expectancy is lifestyle and genetics. Japanese Americans live almost as long as mainland Japanese as an example.
      • Aninhumer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I imagine America on the whole has a similar lifestyle and genetics to Britain, but for some reason Brits live longer.
  • codehkr, on 10/20/2007, -4/+35I agree that U.S doesn't have a very good health care, but we as citizens need to take precaution also...

    like:

    Stop eating F***ing hamburgers and driving to a store that is less than 100 yards away.
    • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7best comment so far!
    • rald84, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1i think you left off a zero. unless you live in the downtown area of a major US city, you're not going to find any store within 100 yards of a house/apt bldg. 1000 yards (about 1/5 of a mile) is more realistic also because its very walkable.
      • codehkr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This is a complaint to be filed with your local government.
        Cities are planned in a way that forces people to use their cars. Most cities also suck at public transportation. This drives car sales, oil sales, ect..
        • madeingermany, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2we are living in a newly developed area (with a lot of city involvement in the planning). A large open space was reserved for Retail development.
          Unfortunately no Retail Store wanted the space, because they feel that part of town is already saturated.
          But the next store with groceries is about 2 miles in each direction. That is a bit far for walking....
      • Aninhumer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Errm, 1000 ft might be about 1/5 of a mile, but 1000 yards is more like half a mile... (Still very walkable of course)
        FFS, I don't even use these units normally.
  • offspring06, on 10/10/2007, -19/+27If your a Republican your just going to put your hands over your eyes and sing "Jesus loves me".
    • Wind8reaker, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10If you're too stupid to learn how to grammatically compose a sentence you just start espousing leftard crap.
  • GeauxLSU, on 10/10/2007, -9/+16One of the main reasons the US has more expensive healthcare and shorter life expectancies should be evident by looking at Moore himself….Obesity. The US also happens to have the highest rate of obesity in the world. Addition to junk food and fast food is a HUGE causality that was grossly underrated by Moore’s movie. Irony!
    • DavidJay, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2In England healthcare is free and is considered a human right. Cost doesn't enter into it.
      • Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7That's ridiculous. You obviously don't understand what a "right" is. You simply cannot have a right to something that someone else must provide for you. What happens if they're not around to provide it? Are your rights being violated? No. Saying you have a right to someone else's productivity is just stupid and illogical.
        • WATYF, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Damn! Well said.
        • DavidJay, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I know what a right is, in England, medical care still costs money, the difference is that the government foots the bill. I don't understand why Americans are so unwilling to pay a little more taxes for the good of themselves and their fellow man. It is certaintly very un-Christian.
          • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, Jesus knew very well that you do not help your fellow man by giving him food, but by teaching him how to fish instead.
      • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Don't be an idiot. Nothing is free. You pay for it with taxes. Only you call it "National Insurance".
        0% for the first £100 per week
        11% on income up to £670 per week
        1% on any income above £670 per week

        Right? So, with that and my current income, I'd be paying roughly $8000 a year for your "free" healthcare.
        • nezroy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Which is very likely less than you pay for your healthcare right now.
          • WATYF, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2um... not even close. My healthcare premiums are under $1000 per year.
          • nezroy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3@WATYF: Then you've never seen how much your employer pays for the rest of your healthcare premiums, and how much of your taxes are going to it as well. What comes out of your pocket is only a small portion of the cost, even for folks in the US. I know, it's tough to grasp, but on average, a US citizen is paying *more* for healthcare than anyone else in the world.
          • exegesisClique, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5You fail to include the taxes that you already pay for a system that isn't working. According to the article, ~$5000. So what, you pay approximately $5800 a year? For $2200 more in taxes a year (Assuming its the middle class that would end up paying for it) your company would no longer have to pay for health care, wouldn't have to deal with the process entirely. You wouldn't have to deal with it either. Also there are benefits to having a more health conscious society. What you people fail to see is the benefits to society when it's people don't have to worry about health care.

            In fact, I think if you don't want to participate in society, perhaps you should remove yourself. The rest of us *want* other people to be insured. We *want* them to have healthy children and healthy lives. I know you'd rather they die then consider the *remote* possibility *your* taxes might go up. (Not likely at all) So why don't you do us a favor and leave. Why don't you go to your human hating paradise where they don't give a ***** about people. Maybe you can belong to a club that murders old people at a certain age because they are no longer useful. Oh *****, nevermind, you'd have to spend your own money on bullets to kill them.

            You don't want to contribute to a society, get the ***** out of it. The rest of us are willing to do so.
          • WATYF, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I called my HR dept to see what my actual premiums were and how much my company pays. I pay $26 every two weeks, and they pay $75. That's about $100 bi-weekly, which comes to $676 for me per year, and $1950 for them. Again... no where close to $8000.
        • digithed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3No you wouldn't be paying $8000 a year because if you had a health system like in the UK your salary wouldn't be so high since your employer wouldn't need to factor in the exorbitant cost of the private health insurance that you currently need to pay for in order to receive treatment somewhere close to what you would receive in the UK if you became sick or injured.
          • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Uhh, my "enormous cost" for my health insurance is far less than $8000 per year. It's under $2000, in point of fact. That includes what my employer pays.

            So, you fail.
        • madeingermany, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2But the big difference is what happens if you can no longer pay your premiums, when you get fired or your company goes bottom up.

          A coworker in my company came down with leuchemia. He was fired, when he couldn't return to work after one year. That's what I'm very afraid of in the US.
    • Magni1154, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yes, I guess it doesn't help that the government gives subsidies to corporations put high fructose corn syrup and other addictive ingredients in their products. American consumers are set up to lose. Medical health care professionals love it. More sick people, more procedures, more money! Americans truly are the victims here it.
  • lastdeadmouse, on 10/10/2007, -9/+16Again, essential services, such as healthcare, should not be left to "free" market corporations. Give it back to the people.
    • offspring06, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6That what I'm trying to say but all they do is call you a commie.
      • Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Because that's what you are, or at the very least socialist.
        • DavidJay, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4No, it means he doesn't think essential services should be free market.
          • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Exactly. He wants them to be socialized. Therefore he is a socialist. What's so hard to understand here?
          • DavidJay, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3There is a difference between a limited free market and socialism. Just because he thinks the very few services that can be considered essential shouldn't be left to a free market, doesn't make him a socialist.

            It's not all or nothing.
      • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Have you considered that perhaps they do that because your ideas are socialist in nature?

        It's worth consideration.
        • nezroy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Then they should call him a socialist, not a commie. Worlds of difference...

          And happily enough, in a mixed Keynesian economy, there's room for both socialism and free market principles, depending on the service. Life is so much more interesting when you go from 1-bit to 8-bit.
    • xocomil, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Ummm... The government or "the man" is not the people. Private enterprise providing health care is the people. Only a socialist or a communist would consider the government "the people".
      • nezroy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"Private enterprise ... is the people." -- Yeah, that was true about 40 years ago in the US. It really was. Small businesses, mom & pop shops, executives that made "only" one order of magnitude more than their employees, etc. Those were, without exaggeration or irony, the golden years of US small business, and private enterprise really was the people. Ivy league schools still taught morality, noblesse oblige was not an abandoned concept, and business was about building a better future, not solely maximizing profit.

        However, if you think private enterprise today in the US is the people, then, yeah... either you're one of the power elite, in which case GTFO, or else you have bought into a serious mass delusion. You might want to find out who runs, owns, and controls private enterprise these days before you put your life in the hands of that rabble.
        • Takalth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2The real question that people need to answer is "what changed?" The answer is that the government became heavily involved. All of the laws that were presented as restricting corporations or forcing them to treat their employees better were designed with loopholes so that some businesses could be favored while others blasted. All of these laws mean that corporations don't play by the same rules as we do.
          The solution isn't to magically change human nature so that government creates a bunch of laws and restrictions that happen to be perfectly fair. It's to get rid of these restrictions so that we go back to the free market where success depends on giving people what they want instead of cutting deals with politicians.
      • DavidJay, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That is a stupid semantic argument. The intent of the poster is obvious, be ashamed of yourself. It's not who is providing it, it's who it is being provided to.
  • offspring06, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16Canada has junk food too and free health care. Canada rocks.
    • codehkr, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Yet you don't see anyone fleeing towards canada... hmmm
      • nezroy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Then please explain why Canada has one of the highest net immigration rates in the world?
        • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Compared to what? The US?
        • DavidJay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3@imperium2000

          No idiot, the world. Canada is number 18, USA is 31.
        • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2US: 1,200,000 per year (plus approx 700,000-1,500,000 illegals)
          Canada: 300,000 per year

          Sure...Canada has a smaller population than the US, so sure. Just curious where which website is that data from?
        • nezroy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@imperium2000: here's one site that shows the net per capita rate: http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/simdiff.htm

          Though my original exposure to this was from the Canada immigration sites vis-a-vis stats Canada, but I can't find those at the moment.
    • swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7just don't get anything seriously wrong with you
      • nezroy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Why not? Canada's healthcare is good. In fact, I'm guessing this is a comment by someone, probably Canadian, who has never actually experienced the US healthcare system and has no clue about how good Canadians have it by comparison. While there are significant flaws with Canadian healthcare that do need fixing, please, please, please, do not underestimate just how messed up US healthcare really is. Be thankful for a Canadian system that really does mostly work and provide for most people's needs most of the time.
        • Avor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I lived in Washington state and talked to several people who came down from Canada for American doctors. The system must really be awesome!
        • nezroy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@Avor; yeah, some Canadians with money travel to the US to get elective surgeries done more quickly (since wait-times for elective stuff are generally longer up here; mainly because we don't fail to treat 15% of the population). Just like some Americans travel to Canada for cheaper prescription drugs, some UK folks travel to India for cheap elective care, and any other number of examples shown in the replies to this story so far. No system is perfect, and if you have mobility and money, you'll fill in the gaps as best you can.

          That said, I definitely know which country I'd rather be in, and which healthcare system I'd rather be dependent upon, for the majority of care.
          • WATYF, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Well that's cool. You like it that way, so stay there. I'd rather it be a market system here, so I'll stay here. See how that works. :o)
        • WATYF, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Actually, I'm Canadian-American, and I've experienced both health care systems. When in Canada, as a youth, my brother was on a waiting list for ~9 months for a routine surgery. Now that I'm an adult in the US, I pay very little for my healthcare premiums, and the last surgery I had required about a two week wait (based mainly on finding free time in my schedule). Don't get me wrong... there are flaws in the US healthcare system, but it isn't the unavoidable ass-reaming that some socialist minded people (and Michael Moore) would have you believe. There are plenty of people with great health coverage and low premiums.
        • nezroy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0@WATYF: Iif you have the money and a good job that pays insurance then you probably are going to be OK for healthcare in the US, if not even a little better off. At least for a while. Wait until you actually have serious illness, lose your job, or in anyway have a disruption that limits your access to the first-tier of the system, and, well... yeah. Good luck with that. (Oh, and you also don't have any idea how much your employer is paying for your healthcare, by the way, if you think your premiums are low. Try looking up what the actual COBRA cost would be to you for whatever your current coverage is, for a far more realistic price).

          The difference with Canada is that while your brother had to wait 9 months for a routine surgery, so did everyone else. Everyone. Including that homeless guy on the street and the old guy who lost his job and the single mother whose husband died in an industrial accident. Everyone. Yeah, the wealthy cannot buy their way into the top-tier of the system like you can in the US, but remember that wealth is transient, and you'll find it has a surprising way of vanishing on you, especially right about the time you start needing that healthcare to keep you healthy enough to keep the wealth rolling in.
          • WATYF, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So, as long as something horrible doesn't happen to me, I should be fine...? well go figure. In that case, how about we create a system that serves as a safety net for when something horrible goes wrong, instead of forcing that an expensive safety net on the entire population (regardless of whether they need it or not)?

            Btw, I do have an idea of how much my employer is paying. I called my HR dept and found out that I pay around $676 per year and they pay around $1950 per year. Still nowhere close to the level of taxation involved in UHC programs.

            What you're essentially saying is, we should *screw* everyone equally. "Sure you had to wait 9 months, but as long as EVERYONE has to wait 9 months, it's OK." No... it's not OK. It's a sucky system, and it doesn't work. There are problems in the US system, no doubt... but the solution is most definitely not to make the system SUCK for everyone, so everyone can experience the downside of slow, expensive health care *equally* (all in the name of "fairness").
          • Aninhumer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think the point was, the homeless guy still got the surgery, he didn't die just because he couldn't pay insurance.
          • artemisjade, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@WATYF

            Yes, you and your company spend $2500 per year if you DON'T get sick. How much would you pay if you did?

            And part of the idea here is that a large part of the people without insurance would go in for routine care if there were national health care instead of waiting for a symptom to escalate to something disastrous.

            It's not that everyone should be screwed equally any more than your stance is '***** the poor, they should get better jobs' and you know it. Everyone should have access to routine, preventative medical care as well as life-saving surgery. If national health care isn't the answer, what is?
    • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Liar. Canada does not have free health care. They pay for it through various taxes and insurance systems. Not to mention that most Canadians also have private health insurance.
      • nezroy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0And yet, all told, Canadians are still paying less than you are, with none of the attendant hassles. Not to mention a guilt-free life knowing that your fellow citizens are taken care of in times of need, and not dumped on the street or simply left to wait until they must visit the ER as a last-resort, unlike 15% of US citizens. So while "free" is a misnomer, "cheaper" is entirely accurate, and "better", while subjective, is something I'm willing to go to bat on.
        • Takalth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Canada also gets a lot of its health care innovation from the U.S. because you can make money for finding better ways to treat people. That's the part of the equation that all of these reports leave out is who is doing the most to improve health care. If countries couldn't share their medical knowledge with each other, U.S. would be WAY ahead of any socialist system.
          Before people deliberately misinterpret me, I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't share medical knowledge. Only that we should weigh in the details there in deciding who truly has the best system.
        • Syric, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Because, of course, Americans invented everything that was ever useful to anyone.
          /sarcasm
  • zeitgueist, on 10/10/2007, -7/+26Jesus *****, what is wrong with you people. We pay more than anyone for healthcare, and don't get even into the top 10 in pretty much any useful statistic, like life expectancy and infant mortality. Every other modern country has UHC. 18000 people die every year because they have no insurance. Government run hospital systems like the VA are very highly rated.
    What is your motivation behind trashing the concept?
    • DavidJay, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Health care is for filthy liberal communist scum. Real patriots don't get sick.
    • Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6The VA is highly rated? By who? Certainly not by its patients.
      • nezroy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6By everyone that knows medicine (i.e. the New England Journal of Medicine, for starters, among many others). The quality of care provided by VHA hospitals is routinely top ranked and outperforms non-VHA hospital ratings on a regular basis. And, it does all this at a lower average cost.
    • palustris, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The VA? The last place I'd want to go for healthcare. All we heard several months ago is how run down and awful they all were - did you miss that controversy? Government run anything is usually not very good - the government is terrible where anything requiring motivation is key. Maybe reducing the complication of healthcare and increasing liability for MANAGEMENT (not focusing on just the doctors/nurses) would allow our system to function at a lower cost while still pushing the best and brightest into the field.

      • nezroy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Except they aren't awful or rundown at all. The "controversy" was about one hospital, which was obviously mismanaged. Luckily, anecdotes do not statistics make (unless, of course, you are the news media). On average, VHA hospitals outrank non-VHA hospitals in quality of care provided, and they do it at lower average cost.
      • dvandewalle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1maybe the problem is YOUR government is running it? let the English, Canadian or Cuban governments take a shot, might be surprised..... or just proven wrong, we can't have that now.....
      • zeitgueist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Walter Reed isn't part of the VA hospital system.
    • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4>>>"We pay more than anyone for healthcare"

      Define "we". Because I paid very, very little for healthcare last year. Why? Because I didn't need any major healthcare.

      Perhaps if we moved to a system where you pay for your own healthcare instead of trying to take my money away from me to pay for it, then we'd all be better off.
      • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6So when you need healthcare, who's going to pay for it?

        That's how insurance works, it spreads the cost among the participants. If young healthy people will not buy insurance when they're healthy, the cost of insurance goes up; so when you have to buy it, it is very expensive.
        • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1>>>"So when you need healthcare, who's going to pay for it?"

          Uhhh... Me? It's my health, after all. If I get sick, then I fully expect to pay for it.

          It's called personal responsibility. Get some.
      • AmusedToDeath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Otto's only 31. Give him a few years and he'll be eating those words. I'm only 30, but I'll be shelling out about $10,000 this year for healthcare, and I'm not even that sick.

        I'm convinced that most of the single-payer opponents in this country are twits like Otto who haven't had the opportunity of being royally ***** in the ass by their health insurance company yet. But when it finally happens to them, I bet they scream the loudest.
        • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1$10k? WTF is wrong with you? I spent under $2k for insurance, and didn't use *any* of it.

          A normal healthy human being should not spend that much on health care. So, my conclusion is that you're not normal or healthy. Bummer. Sucks to be you and all, but don't expect me to pay for your problems.
    • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1 They have been brainwashed by the for-profit health "care' industry...And the thought of changing scares the ***** out of them cause that's the goal of the health "care" industry..They want to keep things as they are so they can keep bleeding the public forever...And as time goes on,they will only demand more and more blood and provided less and less care...Like an HMO on steroids. These companies only care about feathering their own nests...And everyone (except the rich and politicians) run the risk of them turning them down when they need help the most.
    • xkhaozx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The whole idea behind health care insurance is that when you get sick, you might not be able to work and be able to pay off the medical costs. Sure, you don't need it now, but anything can happen. If your really believe that health care insurance is pointless, then ask yourself this: do you have house insurance? car insurance? life insurance?. Why bother with house insurance, I mean, your house didn't burn this year, right? And you probably haven't gotten into a major accident this year, right? Why are you bothering with those forms of insurance?
      • zeitgueist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'm not sure what you're responding to, but it doesn't appear to be my comment.
        • xkhaozx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0lol, i meant to reply to Otto's comment, oh well....
    • Takalth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Where the crap did that 18000 come from. American hospitals are required to treat patients regardless of whether they can pay.
      Maybe 18000 go bankrupt every year because they can't pay for health insurance (which wouldn't be nearly as many as who go bankrupt over taxes), but if they're dying because they don't have health insurance, it's because they need a health insurance company to tell them which way to the hospital.
      • jdoe562, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You are confusing hospitals with emergency rooms. If I go into an ER with my stomach cut open, of course they'll help me, but if I need a cochlear implant (stealing an example from Sicko), they will make me fill out forms and potentially turn me down if I don't have insurance.
  • swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -10/+12number six is wrong and number nine is a stretch
    We do have the best health care and doctors are required to save your life even if you can't pay.
    • MiDri, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2But the nurses are allowed to drag it out long enough that it will cost you a fortune... Oh you got your hand cut off in an accident? well sign these papers whilst you develop a staff infection (hospital is the worst place in the world to have an open wound.)
    • Damian91, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Did you not see the people who were turned away in the documentary? A family had donor and doctor approvals but were turned away by their insurance company, and yes, he died. If I could Id rather get my health care in Cuba rather than be under a money hungry system.
      • Avor, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0I blame Michael Moore for being rich and so patriotic about other's health yet letting someone else die for his film.
        • Damian91, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You blame him over the health insurance company? Are you kidding me...
    • DavidJay, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6We don't have the best healthcare, and no they aren't. Thousands have been turned away to die at home after being denied life saving operations.
      • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Really? Please show me the statistics because it is against Federal law.
    • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2 No they are not...if you can't pay...Too bad for you.
  • JohnnyXmas, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4These are all facts that were blatantly presented in the film. Thus, these are facts I DID know from Sicko. Buried.
  • rude0197, on 10/10/2007, -8/+21. Sicko isn't about lack of health insurance.
    Nor does he claim it is.
    2. If you want to stay healthy in America, don't get sick.
    Really?
    3. Travel to Cuba is de rigueur.
    Travel to Cuba for medical treatment is not. Journalism and tourist trip as most common.
    4. Cuba's healthcare is superior to U.S. healthcare.
    This claim was never made.
    5. Seeking Medical Help in Cuba isn't unusual.
    By definition of most US citizens who travel to Cuba are not going for medical treatment.
    6. The U.S. does not have the best healthcare system in the world.
    This was never argued for only against. The “system” is flawed.
    7. American patients don't have the longest wait times.
    Never claimed in the movie, rather wait times in countries with universal healthcare were stated.
    8. The U.S. is the only industrialized country in the world without a universal health insurance system.
    Newly emerged industrialized counties will change the inclusion of the word “only” above. It still doesn’t change the intention on the statement of comparing US to its peers.
    9. Eighteen thousand U.S. citizens die each year because they are uninsured.
    And?
    10. Moore could provide more context?
    Yes he could, but as CNN reported the facts are all verified.
    • boxybrzown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You're confusing me...this list was arguing in favor of Sicko, not against it. Which are you doing?
  • MeatRo20, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Wow, out of this entire story, the worst part about it.... Is that March of the Penguins is the #1 documentary in America...
    1. March of the ***** Penguins
    2. Sicko
    3. An Inconvenient Truth
    4. Fahrenheit 9/11

    .........WHO THE ***** CARES ABOUT GODDAMN PENGUINS?? ***** PENGUINS!!
  • Dhalgren, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4This totally ruins that episode of House...
  • ghank, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19"However, patients in the U.S. had shorter wait times than every country except Germany when it came to getting an appointment with a specialist for nonemergency elective surgery, such as hip replacements, cataract surgery, or knee repair."

    well of course the wait time isn't very long. When few people can afford the surgery, the line tends to be smaller.
  • Pinkertinkle, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Stupid article. Buried
  • BlackJackJester, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3***** big government
  • nytel, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3That article was all common sense, if you watched the movie.
  • nytel, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4That article was all common sense, if you watched the movie.
  • professorchaos1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5How come diggers are mostly for Universal Health Care?
    Aren't most people here Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters?
    • TypeEE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I know, it's contradicting and people don't see the 2 sides of an argument.
    • Dezik, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Ron Paul isn't even a real libertarian. They just think he is because he says he is. There's no such thing as a Libertarian who's against Gay Marriage.
      • sgtpppr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You're mistaking 'being gay' with 'entering into a legally binding contract'. The morality or legality of homosexuality has nothing to do with it (at least it shouldn't). Gay marriage is more about tax law than tradition or morality unless you're a republican stooge trying to use religion for votes.
    • nezroy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Because despite what fundamentalist capitalists would have you believe, it is not a contradiction to argue that the free market is effective at promoting competition and efficiency in something like, say, the donut shop business, while at the same time acknowledging that something as fundamentally important as healthcare should *not* be left to greed and profit-motive. And most Libertarians I know don't really have a problem reconciling those two viewpoints.
      • allthosemoments, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Libertarians believe that market competition is what drives innovation. Tell me how someone reconciles that with believing the government should pay for everyone's health care? Is innovation not necessary?
        • Syric, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Alexander Fleming didn't discover penicillin because he wanted to get rich.
  • UnknownHero, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2I go to a Caribbean medical school and work with some Cuban-trained doctors here.

    THEY ARE ALL INCOMPETENT. EVERY LAST ONE. My favorite time was when the celebrated general surgeon talking about the heart started confusing the chambers. Badly. Or when the plastic surgeon told me to cut through all the ligaments in the neck we were supposed to be preserving then yelled at me for 15 minutes for not following the book (which told me to preserve the ligaments in the first place). That's just the tip of the iceberg. I don't envy Cuban health care, and I think any glamorization of it is a farce.
    • nezroy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That sounds like every other intern's story from just about anywhere in the world. Yeah, incompetence is pretty much a global phenomena, even *gasp* in medicine. Anecdotes do not statistics make. So, do you have a study of any kind that shows how Cuban-trained doctors compare to doctors the world over, or are you just going to vent some more?
  • AbsurdParadox, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2I have a few facts about public healthcare, myself.

    1. It is immoral - Forcing me to pay for your healthcare is theft, plain and simple. How would you feel if I literally pointed a gun at you and made you give me a few hundred dollars for a Dr's visit? That wouldn't be right... but thats exactly what you're asking the government to do for you.

    2. It will be low quality - Ever go to the DMV? They have no reason to give you good service because they are guaranteed money due to a true monopoly. Competition breeds quality and better prices.

    3. Private Healthcare may become illegal - In many socialized nations, its actually illegal to open a private healthcare center for those who want to pay for better quality. This would be government killing freedom to help me protect myself. This would be just as wrong as the war on drugs.

    People, asking the government to provide you with healthcare is completely illogical. You're asking to trade an expensive system for a crippled system. That'd be like replacing one neo-con president with another neo-con.

    If you REALLY want to help people, we need to get government out of healthcare COMPELTELY. It is currently regulation that makes healthcare so expensive, thus causing insurance companies to try to deny so many claims. Without a government stranglehold on the system, many people wouldn't even NEED insurance, because prices would come back down to acceptable levels.

    • wautrey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21.Firstly, you're ALREADY paying for someone elses' healthcare. Have you no idea how the hell insurance works? Also good to mention, most of the money you give to your insurance company pays for advertising, and to line THEIR pocker. Insurance is a big business, *****. Or did you just forget all of that.

      2. Competition in healthcare? Not unless you have a six-figure salary and can afford to go out of country. Your HMO TELLS YOU where to go. You don't pick.

      3, No one's outlawing private practice. You'll just have to pay a premium for it. Only difference is while the doctors may be cheaper, so will their standards. IE, you can't sue them for ***** up, because they won't be part of National Healthcare. TOO BAD FOR YOU.

      With no healthcare regulation, STANDARDS WILL FALL and CORNERS WILL BE CUT. Wal-Marting healthcare is the absolute LAST thing anyone wants.
    • nezroy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+31. You are forced to pay for my fire trucks, police service, school district, power lines, as well as a host of other social services. Believe it or not, there are a *lot* of socialized services already present in the US. So if you really want to argue the immorality of the matter, then you'd better *at least* go all the way. And if you do, then we'll be happy to discuss how a mixed Keynesian economy compares to the kind of fundamentalist capitalism that you hold in such high regard.

      2. Studies have routinely shown that socialized healthcare systems can and do provide excellent quality service. While service issues due to monopolization are always something you have to watch out for (oh, and by the way, monopolization happens routinely in the free market too, so it's not just a "socialist" problem), there are many effective techniques to deal with this. The "competition" solution is only one approach of many, and it is not always appropriate for every situation.

      3. Yes, private healthcare in many "socialized" nations is illegal. It is illegal because it prevents the system from becoming a "two-tier" system. If the wealthy can circumvent the public system, then problems with the public system tend not to get fixed. Government regulation exists in all shapes and forms. Unless you advocate an anarchist opinion, it's pretty tough to argue that at least some government regulation isn't necessary. Arguing the degree is fine, but don't act like this is some foreign concept that doesn't already exist in a hundred different ways in even the US free market.

      In short, yeah, as with any fundamentalist opinion, the world gets a lot more interesting when you go from 1-bit to 8-bit. I hope you manage the transition someday...
      • AbsurdParadox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11. I am absolutely willing to go that far. Force is evil, all actions should be voluntary. As for Keynesian economics... while I'm no economist, its always seemed like extremely flawed logic. I'm a fan of the Austrian school of economics.

        2. I always hear about these studies, but I've never seen them. As for monopolies, can you point to one monopoly in the free market, that wasn't a result of government intervention of some sort? I'm extremely confident that you will not find a single one, and the ones that you find will most likely be a result of regulation without one realizing it at first. What I'm getting at is that I've used and seen this argument used many, many times, and I've never seen anyone come up with a valid answer.

        3. I do advocate an anarchist opinion, although I do not like the term. I believe no GOVERNMENT regulation is necessary. Just look at organizations such as Underwriters Laboratory, or any other private quality assurance company. Also, don't be fooled, we do not have a free market in the US.
        • Syric, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If you're no economist, then why should anyone listen to your opinions about economics?
          • AbsurdParadox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Does one need a degree to form an opinion?
    • zeitgueist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2None of what you said is a fact. They are opinions. Like my opinion that you're an idiot.
      1. Immoral: Oh where to start. Letting 18k people die a year because they can't afford overpriced medical care ISN"T immoral? You pay for every visit fully in cash when you do use your insurance? Oh wait, you pay the copay, and the other people in your HMO pay the difference through premiums. I assume you're against every other tax-funded program too, right?
      2. Low quality: This is possible. If only we had some kind of smaller scale pilot program where we could could see how the government runs healthcare....oh wait thats the VA system, which is consistently lauded for it's high quality of care and low operating costs.
      3. Private healthcare may become illegal: Possible, but incredibly unlikely. I only know of one country that does, this, feel free to educate me on the whole list.

      You're incredibly naive if you think that regulation is causing the high price of healthcare, instead of greed. I'm sure the HMO's will happily lower their profit margins if the big mean government stopped getting in the way of them doing so.
    • AmusedToDeath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So, do you work for Blue Cross Blue Shield or Humana?
      • AbsurdParadox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No, and infact I have no health insurance.
    • AbsurdParadox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It seems to me that some of the replies assume that I'm arguing FOR the current system, why I absolutely am not.
  • TypeEE, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5This is the reason I am skeptic about voting for Ron Paul. He has everything to go against universal health care. I understand this will make everything US citizen poorer in the long run. However, I don't feel confident in the current HMO or PPO system if I do get really sick.
  • siszam, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You know Michael Moore is righteous because the truth he presents pisses people off so bad. The only thing left to do is call him names.
    • allthosemoments, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0This seems to be a response to the name calling people are allegedly doing, so why didn't you use reply on one of the name calling comments. Most likely because people are actually bringing up logical arguments against him rather than name calling...
  • allthosemoments, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2There are so many factual inaccuracies in here it was disgusting. The Cuban healthcare system is miserable. Cuban doctors do not go to Venezuela for charity, they flee from Cuba to work in Venezuela because they can't make money under the Cuban system. The WHO simply believes whatever health statistics Cuba gives them. Anybody remember the Iraqi Information Minister?

    Only a fool would actually celebrate the Cuban healthcare system. If anything it is an example of what nationalized healthcare looks like when everything goes wrong.
    • Crushyerbones, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1 Where I come form, most of middle-wealth people prefer to go to Cuba rather than use our own "socialised healthcare" as you call it. I've never heard anyone complaining.

      You might say though, that Cubans don't get to see the doctor much, I'd believe that.

      Hell, a small town is even sending it's elderly there to get surgery because the surgery lines here are huge. Yes, I just pointed out a problem in socialized healthcare, everyone gets it.
      • allthosemoments, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The people where you "come from" or that "small town" aren't the deciding factor at all. If you want to talk about people traveling to get healthcare America does just fine. Foreign leaders and wealthy people alike all travel to America for medical attention. Cuba almost certainly lies to the WHO and even then America is still ranked higher.
  • axxxul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6How can you be against universal health care? It's not civilized to let someone DIE because he is poor!
    • allthosemoments, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0It's also not fair to force others to subsidize other peoples health care. When the government is paying for something people don't care about price and spend excessively. Then national health care gets more expensive and people have to spend even more money subsidizing others. Socialized health care only makes health care more expensive and prevents innovation that would be created by market competition.
      • jdoe562, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4OK, then I suggest you just stop paying your taxes, because you are currently paying for everyone to read books, educate their kids, keep them safe, and put out fires in their houses. Man, what a ***** up country, where you actually have to help other people!
      • jdoe562, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2OK, then I suggest you just stop paying your taxes, because you are currently paying for everyone to read books, educate their kids, keep them safe, and put out fires in their houses. Man, what a ***** up country, where you actually have to help other people!
      • Syric, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, taxing is the government's right. Yes, libertarians, I said it.
        • allthosemoments, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0wtf? No one ever said the government doesn't have the right to tax. Libertarians simply believe that taxing less and having the government do less is better.
  • CoolWind, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13 of the 10 so-called facts have to do with Cuba. Like who cares about Cuba?
  • allthosemoments, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1It's also not fair to force others to subsidize other peoples health care. When the government is paying for something people don't care about price and spend excessively. Then national health care gets more expensive and people have to spend even more money subsidizing others. Socialized health care only makes health care more expensive and prevents innovation that would be created by market competition.
    • siszam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You expect others to subsidize murder. We pay for war that killed Americans and citizens of other countries. We spend billions in propaganda around the world. You don't have a problem with that but you want people to die from lack of care. That says it all about the kind of person you are. There are ZERO facts to back up what you said. ZERO. You and your kind make up things that are lies. Do you like that America is behind the rest of the civilized world?
      • allthosemoments, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Who even said I support the war in Iraq? You're a fool who wants to believe anyone who disagrees with you is some sort of stereotypical Republican. As a matter of fact, I think the war in Iraq was a mistake. I am in favor of America having a military however. God forbid I should want a national defense.

        It is more than facts that back up my argument, it is pure economics, it is just how the market works. Money creates competition and competition creates innovation. The fact that you refuse to realize this is only showing how closed minded you are.
        • Syric, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How is national defense any different from health care? In the sense that both are nothing more than the government providing for the protection of its citizens. The general welfare is in the preamble of the constitution.
          • allthosemoments, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Simple, national defense is one of the few things private industry cannot do better than the government.
      • Aninhumer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1To most of us who live in countries with UHC, we would have the same reaction to privatising the healthcare system as you would to privatising defence.
  • thecatcantalk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Only three industrialized nations lack Universal Health Care: the U.S., red China, and South Africa. Weird, but true. And U.S. health care costs TWICE as much as in ANY other country, so STFU about "expensive" socialized medicene, people.
  • Magni1154, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0When I go to the doctor, they ask me what kind of insurance I have before they decide on a treatment plan. I had an orthopedic surgeon strongly discourage bone grafting surgery for my shoulder because he wouldn't make much from my crap insurance plan. The bones remain broken.

    I personally know at least five people in their 20's who have been denied health insurance for such reasons as asthma. They've been applying for years.

    Health is a fragile thing. In a second, an accident, sudden illness, countless things could put you in a vulnerable state which is extremely difficult for a healthy person to imagine. But you will age (not everybody dies young). Then sometime in the future, you will certainly be fragile and vulnerable and will have wished that you hadn't been so arrogant and supported universal health care.
  • jlyoung, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Best fact: The U.S. is the only industrialized country in the world without a universal health insurance system.
    WTF. get in the game U.S.
  • krunk4ever, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1download the HD trailer here:
    http://www.hd-trailers.net/preview.php?id=sicko
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.