DSE 5 #101 July 2, 2007 Quote And if the inmate had health problems and the state wasn't meeting his requirements, then there would be one more source for a "documentary" by MM to berate the country that gives him the freedom to do so. Sort of ironic, isn't it? Probably so.Worse, I'm sure that some enterprising filmmaker that wants to walk in Moore's shoes or ride his coattails is already figuring that one out now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #102 July 2, 2007 QuoteThey are the working poor.....the indigent getter treatment in many cases.. or those on welfare... because then the states in most cases kick in and pay for them.... which means YOU and I are paying for them. Of course that wouldn't bother those that favor the government being in charge of it for everybody, not saying you're one of them.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #103 July 2, 2007 Quote... this film has people talking, aware, and pissed off. Are you telling me people weren't talking, aware, and pissed off before Moore released SICKO? Moore does not present new issues. Moore presents issues that people are already talking about, aware off, and pissed off about because Moore knows that this will yield the largest amount of money. Talk is cheap. I've asked before and I'll ask again. Does anyone have an actual plan on how to implement socialized healthcare in a capitalist economy that will provide a higher quality of healthcare than the current system?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #104 July 2, 2007 QuoteHe uses it with a contextual bed that may not be 100%, but he doesn't lie, doesn't cheat. From what I've read about 911 and Columbine, he does lie. Some brush it off as just a little exxageration taken under the auspices of artisitic license. To me, presentation of information known to be false is lying. And based on my definition, he does cheat with his information. Telling part of the story, just the part you know will appear to support your cause and get people's undies in a bundle, is cheating. It is certainly manipulative, insincere, and deceiving - with the intent to do so. I've only seen a couple exceprts, but it doesappear he is at his manipulative best. In just the couple minutes I saw, he threw out 3 or 4 items that were at the least intentionally deceptive, at worst lies. I know health care financing very well, been in it for 23 years. I will hold full commentary until I see the film, but from the bits I've seen so far, it appears to be yellow journalism at it's best (worst?). There are real solutions. They are unfortunately mired in the quagmire of partisan politics and the resultant polarized masses. The biggest problem is that there is so much to be undone before fixes can even be attempted. The primary offenders are large corporations and their lobbies. They have spent decades building loopholes and exceptions for themselves. Dirty little secret #1: Insurance companies are not calling the shots. Almost all companies of any size are now self-insured. That means they make every decision, down to minute detail, on how the plan is administered. What's covered, who's covered, appeals decisions, procerdural exceptions, cost, . . .everything. In most cases they hide this as much as they can, letting the insurance company play the bad guy role. The worst part of this is that they have managed to exempt themselves from so much that an extremely disproportionate burden falls on the fully insured crowd - made up of individual purchasers and small business (typically with 2 to about 300 employees)." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #105 July 2, 2007 Quote Quote I have paid over 50K for insurance in the last 5 yrs. I never used any of it. So I decide to go get a 50 yr. check-up. Guess what? I HAD NO FUCKIN INSURANCE. I think that says something about the ins. in the U.S. for sure. Come 1st of the yr. I'm gonna take a day off every week and burn that shit up. How did you have insurance and then suddenly not have insurance? Did you miss paying a bill? Did your employer miss it? How long you had it and how much you paid isn't really relevant; how it went away is the issue." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #106 July 2, 2007 Quote Telling part of the story, just the part you know will appear to support your cause and get people's undies in a bundle, is cheating. It is certainly manipulative, insincere, and deceiving - with the intent to do so. Watched Fox News much???? Oh thats right as long as its the right wing doing it.. its FAIR AND BALANCED Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #107 July 2, 2007 QuoteMoore removes some context from time to time, so what? It's called "Artistic license." Hollywood does it all the time, but no one comments on it (Unless it's a 5 minute freefall in "Point Break" or "Get Smart"). Point Break wasn't presented as a documentary. Mr Moore is very aware of the perception, and makes quite a bit of effort to present his information as factual. If we are supposed to see Sicko as having as much fact as a Get Smart episode, then that would be saying that Mr Moore is a bumbling fool and pretty much anything he gets right, he gets right only by accident." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #108 July 2, 2007 Quote Quote Telling part of the story, just the part you know will appear to support your cause and get people's undies in a bundle, is cheating. It is certainly manipulative, insincere, and deceiving - with the intent to do so. Watched Fox News much???? Oh thats right as long as its the right wing doing it.. its FAIR AND BALANCED The old "use others bad behavior to justify your own" rationale. Most school kids quickly learn this is a bullshit ploy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #109 July 2, 2007 QuoteQuote... this film has people talking, aware, and pissed off. Are you telling me people weren't talking, aware, and pissed off before Moore released SICKO? Moore does not present new issues. Moore presents issues that people are already talking about, aware off, and pissed off about because Moore knows that this will yield the largest amount of money. Talk is cheap. I've asked before and I'll ask again. Does anyone have an actual plan on how to implement socialized healthcare in a capitalist economy that will provide a higher quality of healthcare than the current system? What a ridiculous position to take. Of course people were talking, that's what would have inspired the film. People weren't talking nationally, there weren't talk shows dedicated to the subject, society as a whole weren't talking. People talk here on the forums. Search the forum and find me an in-depth discussion that debates the merits of a social system vs privatized in the past. Yet here, people talk about everything. This is one of the roles of creative works in society; it can cause social focus. People had been talking for decades prior to "Schindler's List," but the release of the film changed perspectives and informed many individuals. "Brokeback Mountain" brought a new view to certain social issues, as did "An Inconvenient Truth," "Crash," or "Good Night, Good Luck," "Supersize Me," and *so* many other films over the past 80 years. Hollywood rarely leads discussions; they respond to discussions and brings them to the fore. A documentary such as "9/11," "An Inconvenient Truth" or "Sicko" doesn't present 'new' information, but rather generates a collective of what's already there and puts it to a form that society can comprehend. And people *want* to comprehend. Prior to "Farenheit 9/11," no film in the same category had made it to the big screen. It opened the doors (and minds) to the American public that a documentary didn't have to be a dry PBS presentation. "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Sicko" are following on that same trail, and there are other similar works that'll be in theatres over the next years. Yes, people were 'talking, aware, and pissed off' because it was personal. Now, we know it's social and nationwide, and we know more about it because the film brought out information on a wide scale of which most people were unaware. We all knew that McDonalds and other fast foods were bad for us, but "Supersize Me" generated a lot of radio, talk show, and comedic chatter that helped pave the way to suggested (and some forced) reform in the fast food world. "Sicko" may or may not (likely not) have a similar impact. As far as a national system? No one has the answers, but there are some damn good proposals. PNHP has a great proposal that has been tested/modeled on a 25 year system. It worked. Real world use will probably prove it to fail because big money means graft, greed, and dishonesty. But it's a good suggestion, IMO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #110 July 2, 2007 QuoteMost school kids quickly learn this is a bullshit ploy. Why do those of you on the right use it so much then???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #111 July 2, 2007 Quote And based on my definition, he does cheat with his information. Telling part of the story, just the part you know will appear to support your cause and get people's undies in a bundle, is cheating. It is certainly manipulative, insincere, and deceiving - with the intent to do so. I've only seen a couple exceprts, but it doesappear he is at his manipulative best. In just the couple minutes I saw, he threw out 3 or 4 items that were at the least intentionally deceptive, at worst lies. So then we can agree that Fox, Bill OReilly, Glenn Beck, CBS, anything owned by Sinclair, Belo, the Mormon Church, and other conservative broadcasters are yellow journalism, deceptive, and at worst, lies?" I could agree with that. You swing a 10lb hammer my way, I'm likely gonna swing a 10 or 12 lb hammer back. Moore does take the extreme view, but it's important, because of all the bullshit the other viewpoint shovels out. They've been shoveling bullshit for years, so why are they so damned afraid of a 90 minute response? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #112 July 2, 2007 QuoteI've said it here before and I'll say it again... "Public Health?" I've seen the results of "Public Housing" and "Public Education"... ...NO THANKS. I agree with billvon that a two-tier system based upon ability to pay is fairer and would be more efficient than "Universal Health Care". However, fatso Moore seems to think that a Socialist Worker's Paradise (TM) is preferable to a country that allows him to make money off his garbage. mh . It's strange that the left leaning crowd just does not get the value of competition. When Sen Wellstone was still alive and doing his best to hassle everyone remotely tied to health care, he kept telling us the business needed more open competition. Then out of the other side of his mouth came the demand for universal care administered by the government. In MN there are 3 big competitors, and a couple smaller ones. (Many of the nations really big players stay away because of the requirement to be not-for-profit in order to do biz here). So the running joke became that Wellstone thinks 3 carriers is not enough, but 1 is just right." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #113 July 2, 2007 Quote Quote Most school kids quickly learn this is a bullshit ploy. Why do those of you on the right use it so much then???? Irony. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #114 July 2, 2007 QuoteMM is the Liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. Both twist "Fact & Data" support their argument without regard to Truth. Both are entertainers not meant to be taken seriously. Both are extremist just trying to make a Buck off pushing their Distortions. BINGO! (At least as close to a Bingo as this thread has gotten so far)." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #115 July 2, 2007 QuoteAppreciate the car analogy opening. One of my favorites about health care is that most people want to pay Yugo prices, then when they need care they want the Cadillac doctor. When you try to talk nuts and bolts about health care financing many seem insulted because they can't even accept there should be a price tag, much less be price sensitive decisions to make. What we need is the government to step in and get them to give me a car for 90% off, or "free" at taxpayer expense, because that is what I and all Americans deserve as a human right. Maybe I should have gotten citizenship in Iraq, where gas was subsidized to $0.05 per gallon. I'd have a much better chance of surviving. They are my tax dollars, after all." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #116 July 2, 2007 Quote What a ridiculous position to take. What position are you referring to? QuoteSearch the forum and find me an in-depth discussion that debates the merits of a social system vs privatized in the past. Search the forum, media, etc... and find me an in-depth discussion that debates the merits of a social system vs privatized in the present (because of SICKO). QuoteAnd people *want* to comprehend. What does SICKO help them comprehend?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #117 July 2, 2007 Oh thats right...... the far right does not like to hear anything but your own right wing poppycock diatribe.. that is why I LOVE this place... you at least have to at READ a bit of something that does not agree with you.. unlike any other form of political discourse where you caqn have rallies ina political Negative La La Land. Tough Shit Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #118 July 2, 2007 Quote Oh thats right...... the far right does not like to hear anything but your own right wing poppycock diatribe.. that is why I LOVE this place... you at least have to at READ a bit of something that does not agree with you.. unlike any other form of political discourse where you caqn have rallies ina political Negative La La Land. Tough Shit It's a good thing we have your civil, objective insights to help promote an open exchange of ideas on this forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #119 July 2, 2007 QuoteSo then we can agree that Fox, Bill OReilly, Glenn Beck, CBS, anything owned by Sinclair, Belo, the Mormon Church, and other conservative broadcasters are yellow journalism, deceptive, and at worst, lies?" Sure. QuoteMoore does take the extreme view, but it's important, because of all the bullshit the other viewpoint shovels out. Are you saying that Fox, Bill OReilly, Glenn Beck, CBS, anything owned by Sinclair, Belo, the Mormon Church, and other conservative broadcasters taking the extreme view is important because of all the bulls**t Michael Moore and the other viewpoint shovel out? Or does it only work one way? QuoteYou swing a 10lb hammer my way, I'm likely gonna swing a 10 or 12 lb hammer back. You believe that the extremes should continue to swing their hammers (and increase in size) which hurts the people caught in the middle. I believe we should stop swinging hammers."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #120 July 2, 2007 Quote It's a good thing we have your civil, objective insights to help promote an open exchange of ideas on this forum. Civil is as Civil does... I am just responding in Kind from the Right Wing Posters who know no better.... YOU dont want an open exchange of ideas.. you just want EVERYONE to agree with you...Just like your Master in the Oval Office. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2870752#2870752 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #121 July 2, 2007 QuoteOne huge expense, that could be reduced is administration. You streamline processing, as well as get rid of all the commisions being paid to brokers, and the costs drop considerably. These non-medical costs are huge! Another biggie is competition for patients and consumers' demand for the best technology available. Hospitals, fighting for patient dollars, are constantly upgrading. You want the best, you have to pay for the best.... which leads us to... I'm not sure how to solve this dilemna... I'm just offering up some of the issues. It's actually a relatively small part in the big picture, but is being whittled away as carriers are taking their products directly to consumers. Similar to travel agents, insurance agents will increasingly be forced into niches. The big houses will always be there to do consulting and lobbying for the GM's, 3M's, & Honeywells of the world; but the corner office in the small town type of agent will be vanishing shortly. The typical administrative burden for a plan is about 10% of total costs. In many places these are becoming mandates (not a bad thing). Eliminating insurance companies as a way to relieve that assumes that the government will be able to do it for less (no way - no how). Also, it would represent a one-time hit, failing to address that health care costs have been going up 4 to 10 times the cost of living every year for the last 20 years running. The not-for-profit plans are not the ones getting fat off of the rising cost of health care. I can't speak for the for-profits like Kaiser. Things are for the most part as streamlined as affordable technology allows. Those that are lagging are either scrambling to catch up, on their way out, or merging to create scales of economy that work. More health care providers competing for patients is a treacherous path. It has been proven that excess capacity pushes costs up. In most major markets there is excess capacity. When every facility wants to be in the big boys club and own every new and incredibly expensive diagnostic toy available, the result is that patients are terribly overcharged." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #122 July 2, 2007 Quotewrong answer Jay. It is the insurance companies's lobyists that helped make these laws happen. Now if we did not have lawyers to help regulate this type of stuff then who would be watching the insurance companies.......NOBODY! Then they would do what ever the fuck they wanted which includes not paying alomost anything they didn't want to. It is a catch twenty twenty. The fact of the matter is that insurance companies would cut you loose in a heart beat if it was to cost them extra money. But they cannot because of laws that keep them from doing that. And guess what? It was lawyers that helped with that. You cannot have a world without attorneys just because there are some out there that are scumbags. A generalized comment like "the vultures just sit back and wait for them to make a mistake so they can pounce with lawsuits." Is not true. You are correct, it is no more true than the comment about insurance companies cutting you lose in a heartbeat because you cost them some money. Most of the laws are the brainchildren of legislators themselves; often but not always acting on what they see as the interest of their constituents; which often includes the health care providers in their area. Far and away the largest occupation represented in legislatures are lawyers." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #123 July 2, 2007 Quote Quote It's a good thing we have your civil, objective insights to help promote an open exchange of ideas on this forum. Civil is as Civil does... I am just responding in Kind from the Right Wing Posters who know no better.... This is a LIE! Quote YOU dont want an open exchange of ideas.. you just want EVERYONE to agree with you...Just like your Master in the Oval Office. This is a particularly offensive LIE. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #124 July 2, 2007 Interesti ng how facts appear to you as lies.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #125 July 2, 2007 QuoteAcutually I belong to Kaiser because I prefer the service they provide for the price. You spoke of administration costs as being out of control, I agree. Did you know that administration costs for medicare are approximately 2% in relationship to private healthcare companies that range between 15 to 30%. Statistically Americans pay about 40% more for healthcare than other industialised nations that subsidise their healthcare Bad numbers. What's your source? At the least, your bottom number is too high. I work for a Blue Plan, and our goal, which we are very successful at meeting for most lines of business is 10%. That means we pay in claims payments 90% of every dollar taken in. No fancy bookkeeping either. As a not-for-profit, our books are wide open to our regulators, legislators, and anybody else who wants to look. (As an aside, I am a very strong advocate of all health plans being not-for-profit. Quality health care should not be compromised by shareholder interest). I really question that top number too. Anybody tacking on 30% admin over claims experience is going to be priced out of business in a big hurry. Unless it is a highly unscrupulous profit motivated hit-and-run operation. How is that 2% for Medicare measured?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
