PDA

View Full Version : Had to watch Michael Moore's "Sicko" in class..




RileyE104
04-05-2011, 10:55 PM
Let me start off by saying I do not support socialism.

However, after watching this movie, I started thinking to myself...

WHY do we have to put up with this?

I mean, all throughout watching this movie, I just kept getting PISSED about how our government would rather drop bombs on Muslim countries than take care of people here.

In other words, militarism and an interventionist foreign policy, destruction > human life.

I DO NOT SUPPORT SOCIALISM, but I would so much rather be eliminating costs for poor people instead of giving trillions of dollars away to the military industrial complex.

----------------------------
I think that Ron realizes this too, and that is why he has stated multiple times that as president, instead of going after domestic spending he would mainly focus on foreign policy and militarism. [And obviously the Federal Reserve.]

sailingaway
04-05-2011, 10:58 PM
Well, Ron says he'd rather put the money into paying for domestic spending than the empire, for those who can't afford it, too. But Sicko is massively massaged and doesn't address the fact that the REASON prices go up is because when the govt pays for it people aren't price sensitive and get the maximum/most expensive as easily as the actual amount they need. That means price goes up so much no government can afford it either, which is why NHS has blatantly rationed and is now speaking of outright cuts. When there is no longer a private market of any substance.

I'd say change medicare to make deductibles for those who can afford it but keep in the catestrophic coverage that would begger anyone, whether they planned or not. Not go the other way and give everyone annual check ups but no one expensive care when they need it. The reforms the govt is looking at are bass ackwards when they use rationing.

RileyE104
04-05-2011, 11:01 PM
Well, Ron says he'd rather put the money into paying for domestic spending than the empire, for those who can't afford it, too. But Sicko is massively massaged and doesn't address the fact that the REASON prices go up is because when the govt pays for it people aren't price sensitive and get the maximum/most expensive as easily as the actual amount they need. That means price goes up so much no government can afford it either, which is why NHS has blatantly rationed and is now speaking of outright cuts. When there is no longer a private market of any substance.

Ya, I get that.
It just really pisses me off that people here, in America, are dying because our government would rather sustain an interventionist Empire. :(

sailingaway
04-05-2011, 11:06 PM
Well, and because the govt messed with medicine to begin with, requiring HMO crap etc. When over half of medical care is paid by a faceless fund (government) there is no regaining control of the cost curve. Before the 70s, everyone had medicine, insurance was for catestrophic care almost exclusively, and people paid out of pocket. Rand will tell you that of all the procedures he does, only Lasik, which isn't covered by any insurance, has gone down in cost, because competition has forced innovation.

Wren
04-05-2011, 11:07 PM
Was it a sociology class? I personally can't stand professors that want to give their political $0.02 on how THEY think the government ought to be run. If you're young and just starting college with no previous understanding of political ideologies, they can easily get you to think the way they do and thus feed you Michael Moore documentaries which serve no purpose except perhaps to mentally jack you off.

sailingaway
04-05-2011, 11:11 PM
Just as an example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12964360

this happens to be front page of drudge

JCLibertarian
04-05-2011, 11:22 PM
Kind of confused about your point, Government Programs like Medicare and Medicaid artificially bid the cost of healthcare up. Government regulation through agencies like the FDA barring the foreign importation of pharmaceutical drugs along with the prohibition of the purchase of insurance across state lines. These are just a couple of ways the Government distorts the market and brings prices up.

RileyE104
04-06-2011, 12:00 AM
Kind of confused about your point, Government Programs like Medicare and Medicaid artificially bid the cost of healthcare up. Government regulation through agencies like the FDA barring the foreign importation of pharmaceutical drugs along with the prohibition of the purchase of insurance across state lines. These are just a couple of ways the Government distorts the market and brings prices up.

My point was just to say that our government cares more about maintaining an Empire overseas than it does about the well-being of citizens of this country.

Kregisen
04-06-2011, 12:08 AM
My point was just to say that our government cares more about maintaining an Empire overseas than it does about the well-being of citizens of this country.

Just because there are two evils doesn't mean one of them has to be your friend.

End the wars and end socialistic programs.

prmd142
04-06-2011, 01:11 AM
OP says "I don't support socialism, however...... "

"I don't support socialism, but.... "

Seems like a socialist in the making. If a Michael Moore movie got you thinking then you are going in the wrong direction.

If Michael Moore wrote the first post I can't imagine how he would have written any different.

american.swan
04-06-2011, 01:17 AM
Watch Stossel's Youtubes on Health Care. He explains it perfectly!!

teacherone
04-06-2011, 06:02 AM
The government takes your money and hands it out to those rich enough to buy access to politicians.

The more money the government takes in, the more the rich flock to Washington lobbying for their piece of your pie.

The argument that the rich keep getting richer is a true one--- because idiots keep voting for bigger and bigger government.

The government throws a few crumbs your way here and there while the elite feast on caviar.

Cowlesy
04-06-2011, 06:24 AM
Was it a sociology class? I personally can't stand professors that want to give their political $0.02 on how THEY think the government ought to be run. If you're young and just starting college with no previous understanding of political ideologies, they can easily get you to think the way they do and thus feed you Michael Moore documentaries which serve no purpose except perhaps to mentally jack you off.

One of the first movies I watched at college was Roger & Me.

Indoctrination 101.

outspoken
04-06-2011, 06:34 AM
our main concern should be cost containment of health care for the working class. everything else is charity and should be perceived as such otherwise it creates dependency and entitlement. And, when govt is involved it drastically increases costs for all as competition is decreased. Read Milton Friedman's Free to Choose.

Dreamofunity
04-06-2011, 06:35 AM
I understand Op's point. And I agree to the utmost. The point is that trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt is bad; however, while theoretically I disagree with welfare spending of any sort, I would still much rather cut the majority of military spending, end all the wars, bring all the troops home, etc, even if that meant having to spend a little more here domestically for those who are currently dependent (then we can ween them off over time, or whatever).

I'd much rather have the government steal from me to buy people 'healthcare' or feed starving kids than steal for the purposes of blow up and murdering people over seas. Of course, theft sucks regardless, but that's not the point, they're going to steal from me either way.

There is also the issue of economics, namely that welfare/centralized production/etc is actually worse for achieving certain goals (I.e. if you goal is for poor people to have healthcare, having the government provide it is a terrible way to achieve that goal). But I think again, if I'm going to be stolen from, I'd much rather my money go to people in need, than creating people who need.

I know, I know; false dichotomy, but eh. I just don't like the slaughtering of innocent people.

"Let's first stop breaking legs before we take away the crutches."

Ron makes this point recently here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNRXzVC_E5s&feature=player_embeddedt

leonster
04-06-2011, 06:48 AM
Without having watched much of his stuff, it seems Michael Moore actually understands freedom when it comes to other countries. Stay out of their business, let them organize their own lives the way they want to.

But making the leap from that down to the individual level seems too hard a task for him. Goodness no, we can't have government staying out of *individuals'* business, letting *common people* be free to organize their own lives the way *they* want to; that would be a catastrophe!

fisharmor
04-06-2011, 06:56 AM
...Michael Moore documentaries which serve no purpose except perhaps to mentally jack you off.
Oh, that's perfect. I'm using that.


My point was just to say that our government cares more about maintaining an Empire overseas than it does about the well-being of citizens of this country.

FOCUS.

You just equated socialized health care with caring about the well-being of citizens of this country.

If anyone is concerned with the well-being of the citizens of this country, that person needs to realize that market forces increase standard of living and well being, and the state decreases same.

Those who advocate for socialized health care are demonstrably not truly concerned with the well-being of citizens. They may have all the good intentions in the world, but facts are facts - if you truly care about well-being, GET OUT OF THE WAY.

Don't fall for the "look what we could be doing with that money" argument. As soon as you assume that that's "our" money, you're diminishing the well-being of citizens of this country, before you even talk about how it will be used.

outspoken
04-06-2011, 07:10 AM
I agree with you and that is a good thing because it means you have a heart. As a doctor, I have seen firsthand how entitlement thinking kills the heart and soul of any human being. All personal responsibility is lost and one's own health care becomes the responsibility of the provider. Personally, I think as we move towards a more free nation I think it'd be best to at least provide children health care as they can't pick their parents. But the system isn't designed that way cause children can't vote and politicans get their power from voters.

sailingaway
04-06-2011, 07:16 AM
The government takes your money and hands it out to those rich enough to buy access to politicians.

The more money the government takes in, the more the rich flock to Washington lobbying for their piece of your pie.

The argument that the rich keep getting richer is a true one--- because idiots keep voting for bigger and bigger government.

The government throws a few crumbs your way here and there while the elite feast on caviar.

Unfortunately, some are using budget CUTS to continue this, in essence cutting benefits required by insurance or the government but not cutting the tax nor the take of the companies. I just glanced at Paul Ryan's plan, what is mostly being discussed is medicare on the internet right now, and it looks like he turns upside down what a rational reform would look like from the consumer/taxpayer point of view. If you do what Rand Paul and Ron have talked about in the past, you are raising deductibles, creating Health Spending Accounts to cover deductibles, and putting everyone in the same boat to drive down costs, at least barring the poor who literally can't afford it. Unfortunately, what Ryan's plan does by shifting an allowance from the taxes you paid in to an insurance payment is institutionalize rationing. The cherry pick costs, basic cold, physical, flu, broken bones, will be covered, but increasingly the more expensive procedures won't be covered by the insurance. To the extent there was ever any justification for medicare it was that expensive costs become more likely but not easier to plan for, in old age. It goes back to the idea that what people really want and need insurance for is the catastrophic costs. Ryan's plan marries a forced high cost curve (given that those over 55 today will still be fully subsidized regardless of income and won't be cost sensitive) with a defined premium payment which predictably will cover less and less. Maybe I am reading it wrong, or, quite possibly, the stories I read might be describing it wrong (I didn't read the original) but it looks like this continues the corporatist Obamacare approach of first protecting Pharma and insurance company margins by creating a guaranteed income for them in the 'cherry picking' high profit treatments/medications, while shifting the risk of high cost needs which would begger most individuals to the individual. That kind of seems like the worst of all worlds.

Again, I've just glanced at this but it really seems like it was written by the same folks who wrote Obamacare.

I'm interested in getting a take on this from either of the Drs Paul. It isn't the direction they had been talking about.

fisharmor
04-06-2011, 07:22 AM
Personally, I think as we move towards a more free nation I think it'd be best to at least provide children health care as they can't pick their parents.

The free nation already does provide children with health care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_McDonald_House
http://www.stjude.org
http://childrensmiraclenetworkhospitals.org/
http://www.sdcharitycup.com/
http://www.looktothestars.org/charity/349-childrens-hospital-los-angeles
http://www.mchf.org/
http://www.phoenixchildrens.com/patients-visitors/before-you-arrive/phoenix-children-s-hospital-charity-low-income-and-uninsured-program.html
http://birminghamchildrenshospitalcharity.wordpress.com/
http://www.unitedcharity.com/charity/childrens-hospital-charity.php
http://www.choa.org/
http://www.childrenmedical.org/

RM918
04-06-2011, 07:32 AM
Government health care may be tyrannical, but I'd rather the government spend that money doing ANYTHING other than maintaining the empire. I don't care if they take that trillion bucks a year and give it directly to Michael Moore so he can buy all the fancy cars and swimming pools and prostitutes he wants or whatever the hell he does. It will still be better than what it's being used for now: Killing hundreds of thousands of people and ruining the lives of countless others for no good goddamn reason.

Sure, I'd rather they don't spend that money at all. But if they do something else with it that I disagree with in exchange for abandoning the empire? I wouldn't have to think it over for a second.

Krugerrand
04-06-2011, 07:44 AM
Ya, I get that.
It just really pisses me off that people here, in America, are dying because our government would rather sustain an interventionist Empire. :(

I don't support the interventionist empire either. Remember ... it is under the false pretense of national security. National security is one of the valid functions of government.

Food, housing, medical care do not fall under the list of valid functions of government. Yes - I want people to eat, not sleep on the streets and have their medical needs tended to ... but it's just not the function of the government to do it. Even if the government is grossly abusing what it should be doing, that does not change the fact that feeding, housing, and medicating are not valid function of government.

Plus, considering that the government involvement in these areas has been the primary factor in the spike in prices ... giving it more control over those areas should the last option taken.

thedude
04-06-2011, 07:51 AM
I don't support the interventionist empire either. Remember ... it is under the false pretense of national security. National security is one of the valid functions of government.

Food, housing, medical care do not fall under the list of valid functions of government. Yes - I want people to eat, not sleep on the streets and have their medical needs tended to ... but it's just not the function of the government to do it. Even if the government is grossly abusing what it should be doing, that does not change the fact that feeding, housing, and medicating are not valid function of government.

Plus, considering that the government involvement in these areas has been the primary factor in the spike in prices ... giving it more control over those areas should the last option taken.

I am simply playing devil's advocate, so don't slaughter me...

Article II, Section 8
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

This is what is being used to explain the authority congress has for the functions you claim the government doesn't have. Explain to us why these are not providing for the general welfare.

Thank you.

Krugerrand
04-06-2011, 07:58 AM
I am simply playing devil's advocate, so don't slaughter me...

Article II, Section 8
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

This is what is being used to explain the authority congress has for the functions you claim the government doesn't have. Explain to us why these are not providing for the general welfare.

Thank you.

The US Constitution is written as a document to CONSTRAIN the powers of the federal government. Anybody who thinks those words were intended to allow the federal government to do whatever the hell it wants should first have to answer why have the rest of the Constitution at all.

ItsTime
04-06-2011, 07:58 AM
general welfare of the United States;

it does not say


general welfare of the citizens;

thedude
04-06-2011, 08:17 AM
it does not say
general welfare of the citizens;

Okay, I'll take that. But why then do people interpret

provide for the common defense...of the United States;
as

provide for the common defense...of the citizens
?

Or am I missing something? Does the congress have no authority to defend the citizens and only the United States? In which case, wouldn't war for the interests (oil, etc) fall into this category even though we were not attacked?

Krugerrand
04-06-2011, 08:19 AM
Okay, I'll take that. But why then do people interpret

as

?

Or am I missing something? Does the congress have no authority to defend the citizens and only the United States? In which case, wouldn't war for the interests (oil, etc) fall into this category even though we were not attacked?

Court rulings where people have sued the government for failure to protect have consistently determined that the people have no expectation of protection from their government.

review this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?228509-The-Myth-of-Police-Protection

Inkblots
04-06-2011, 08:21 AM
Court rulings where people have sued the government for failure to protect have consistently determined that the people have no expectation of protection from their government.

Exactly. The Constitutional duty of the Federal government is to protect the national borders and defend the States from attack and invasion - not to guard individual citizens.

thedude
04-06-2011, 08:37 AM
Court rulings where people have sued the government for failure to protect have consistently determined that the people have no expectation of protection from their government.

review this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?228509-The-Myth-of-Police-Protection

Right on! Like I said, just playing devil's advocate. This information is good for folks who need to know how to answer these questions over the next few months.

Sola_Fide
04-06-2011, 08:47 AM
Let me start off by saying I do not support socialism.

However, after watching this movie, I started thinking to myself...

WHY do we have to put up with this?

I mean, all throughout watching this movie, I just kept getting PISSED about how our government would rather drop bombs on Muslim countries than take care of people here.

In other words, militarism and an interventionist foreign policy, destruction > human life.

I DO NOT SUPPORT SOCIALISM, but I would so much rather be eliminating costs for poor people instead of giving trillions of dollars away to the military industrial complex.

----------------------------
I think that Ron realizes this too, and that is why he has stated multiple times that as president, instead of going after domestic spending he would mainly focus on foreign policy and militarism. [And obviously the Federal Reserve.]


That is where you are going wrong my friend. Government doesn't take care of people, it enslaves them. People take care of themselves and their families and their neighbors through voluntary means.

Government destroys families, it introduces distortions into the market, limits the free decisions of people, indoctrinates young children to be mindless drones, creates debt slaves out of all of us, etc. etc. etc.

Government is just as inept at "taking care of us" as it is "spreading democracy". Both actions involve coercive force. It's evil and wrong.

Travlyr
04-06-2011, 09:03 AM
Ya, I get that.
It just really pisses me off that people here, in America, are dying because our government would rather sustain an interventionist Empire. :(

For me... this is the big con game right here. The government is not responsible for the empire building... they are the "tool." This is a very important distinction. Empire builders use government to control people. Central bankers use governments to go around the world profiting from war, inflation, and fractional reserve banking backed by taxpayers. Government gets the blame... while the bankers pocket the profits.

The only way to end the empire building is to face the enemy (central banks).

End The Fed... and fight for honest money. Ron Paul says it... I agree with him.

lester1/2jr
04-06-2011, 09:30 AM
first of all, good for you in getting something out of it. I really have no time for conseratives who whine about the liberal bias in education. It gives you the perfect oppurtunity to challenge those ideas. Obviously liberals shouldn't indoctorinate kids but people like david horowitz are worse.

I haven't seen sicko but yes the state has it's OWN priorities that are distant from ours.

I saw his movie Bowling for Columbine. He goes to Canada where they have no gun control and the murder rate is much lower. then he comes back here and goes on and on about gun control, apparently having learned nothing in Canada! It's economic dude.

lester1/2jr
04-06-2011, 09:31 AM
the dude- the general welfare and common defense mean they don't provide for some groups over others. the general welfare, not specific welfare.

Brian4Liberty
04-06-2011, 09:42 AM
Let me start off by saying I do not support socialism.

However, after watching this movie, I started thinking to myself...


Was there any discussion about the movie afterwards? Any critique? Moore is a propaganda film maker, and he plays on pure emotion. Take notes, and you can find where he contradicts himself multiple times. He also utilizes music to create emotion. He will build to some emotional outrage with emotional music to match; this leaves the brain open to the next suggestion he will throw out. His movies are interesting to analyze.

Your point is valid about the priorities of taxpayer money. Taking care of a few poor people is preferable to dropping bombs (and the vast majority of the other things that government does with our money).

We really have the worst of all worlds when it comes to health care. We have the incompetence and taxing authority of the government, combined with corporatism where insurance, medical and pharma corporations have oligopolies, with the added feature of the direct consumer not be able (or caring) to price shop. If you do attempt to price shop, you will find that the oligopoly in cooperation with government has fixed prices, so there is no real shopping to do.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
04-06-2011, 09:53 AM
Deregulate the medical industry, reform tax code, and allow people to opt out of medicare/medicaid..........case closed.

Krugerrand
04-06-2011, 09:58 AM
Deregulate the medical industry, reform tax code, and allow people to opt out of medicare/medicaid..........case closed.

Tort reform would help a good bit as well.

Vessol
04-06-2011, 09:59 AM
So OP, let me get this straight.

You don't support the use of violence by the military in order to pillage and loot the people of third world nations.

However, you DO support the use of violence in order to involuntary rob peaceful individuals in order to pay for social welfare programs.

You don't think the means matter(violence), but rather it is the end goal that matters.

Because, no matter how you cut it, taxation is violent coercive theft. The only moral way to help people is through voluntary and mutual agreements.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs

fisharmor
04-06-2011, 10:04 AM
Exactly. The Constitutional duty of the Federal government is to protect the national borders and defend the States from attack and invasion - not to guard individual citizens.
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

The federal government doesn't even have the authority to do what you suggest.
It doesn't have the power to use an army to repel invasions: it has the power to call forth the Militia.
It doesn't have the power to create agencies that enforce laws (including immigration law): it has the power to call forth the Militia.
It doesn't have the power to create one Militia: it only has the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the several militia.
Those several militia, as far as I can read, are still ultimately under the control of the states.



it does not say "general welfare of the citizens; "

Win.
Citizens are not the states.
Another example of misconstruing what the document says.

YumYum
04-06-2011, 10:12 AM
Those several militia, as far as I can read, are still ultimately under the control of the states.

I think they are ultimately under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief.

Also, should hospitals be allowed to refuse emergency care to accident victims who cannot pay nor have insurance? Of course, in denying them care they will die, but shouldn't that be the hospitals choice?

erowe1
04-06-2011, 10:15 AM
In other words, militarism and an interventionist foreign policy, destruction > human life.

I'm with you on being against military interventionism.

But I don't follow you on this line. It seems like you're implying that socialized medicine would somehow count as being pro-human life. Is that really what you mean?

Krugerrand
04-06-2011, 10:16 AM
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

The federal government doesn't even have the authority to do what you suggest.
It doesn't have the power to use an army to repel invasions: it has the power to call forth the Militia.
It doesn't have the power to create agencies that enforce laws (including immigration law): it has the power to call forth the Militia.
It doesn't have the power to create one Militia: it only has the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the several militia.
Those several militia, as far as I can read, are still ultimately under the control of the states.




Win.
Citizens are not the states.
Another example of misconstruing what the document says.

Not to split hairs, but you left off a couple tools that congress has ... a navy and 2 years of an army.

SEC 8:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

fisharmor
04-06-2011, 10:22 AM
I think they are ultimately under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief.
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

Notice the word "actual" there.


Also, should hospitals be allowed to refuse emergency care to accident victims who cannot pay nor have insurance? Of course, in denying them care they will die, but shouldn't that be the hospitals choice?

Sure, they should absolutely be able to do that.
If hospitals are denying emergency care based on whether or not they have insurance, doesn't this mean that there's a paperwork session that has to happen before they start treatment?
If the hospital really wants to let a patient bleed out and die on the emergency room floor in order to get this information, then they should be allowed to do that.
And I should be able to start a website called hospitalfuckups.com which catalogs all of those cases where people died or got serious complications from having to sit through their paperwork session.
And people should be able to freely visit that website and figure out where not to go for emergency care.
And lawyers should be free to start a free service (paid for by contingency fee) whereby registrants keep a pin or bracelet or wallet card with an obvious symbol on it that tells the hospital that if they do that, they're getting the ever living shit sued out of them.

The horror story you imagine is only possible in our current, totally messed up system.

fisharmor
04-06-2011, 10:27 AM
To raise and support Armies,[B]

Well, let's go ahead and quarter it.
Congress not have the specific power to repel invasions with armies. Congress does have the specific power to repel invasions with the militia. The obvious intent is for the militia to be used as a defensive force until a currently nonexistant army can be raised.
If the constitutional standing navy can be used to repel an invasion, great. Let's let it happen once, and then modify the document to account for that in the future, instead of just doing whatever we damned well please.

ChaosControl
04-06-2011, 10:27 AM
Our health care system is a sick joke.
And yes, I'd rather we provide coverage in it than all our military adventurism nonsense.

Regardless the system needs reform, I think that is something all but the insane can agree on, we just disagree on what the reform should be.

Travlyr
04-06-2011, 11:22 AM
Our health care system is a sick joke.
And yes, I'd rather we provide coverage in it than all our military adventurism nonsense.

Regardless the system needs reform, I think that is something all but the insane can agree on, we just disagree on what the reform should be.

The health care reform solution is simple... let the free market operate... it works.

True story:
In the 30's, a young girl fell off her bicycle and hit her head on a rock. She spent 6 months in Children's Hospital and had to undergo brain surgery. She spent much of her life dealing with that injury... in and out of hospitals. Her father paid the hospital bills while earning a meager living farming. Later, she raised a large family, and her husband paid for her medical expenses as he was the sole breadwinner, and paid out-of-pocket for the children's births, the occasional broken bone, and family illness when necessary. The health care bills were affordable because there was competition, much less litigation, and Daddy Warbuck's money was not driving the prices out-of-reach for families.

All that changed with the socialist system of the 60's. Medicare & employer golden insurance packages meant that the consumer was no longer concerned with how much it cost to go to the doctor. It was all paid for by someone else. The "I don't care what it costs... fix it" mentality took over and since it is compassionate for 'government' to take care of their own, then the prices began skyrocketing and haven't stopped. Medical corporations will not stop taking government money until we take the government credit card away from them.

The only way to return to sanity in health care, in jobs/opportunity, and a peaceful society is to End The Fed... use honest money when dealing with each other... and accept responsibility for our actions.

ChaosControl
04-06-2011, 11:48 AM
Well of course I am going to agree that the best reform is getting government out of the equation, I'd also say get insurance out of the equation as well.
Although I would be fine with the community deciding to form a pool to provide for unforeseen events that may happen to community members. But I do not want the State involved in any form and I'd like to see insurance corps cease to exist as they are completely worthless.

Krugerrand
04-06-2011, 11:53 AM
Well of course I am going to agree that the best reform is getting government out of the equation, I'd also say get insurance out of the equation as well.
Although I would be fine with the community deciding to form a pool to provide for unforeseen events that may happen to community members. But I do not want the State involved in any form and I'd like to see insurance corps cease to exist as they are completely worthless.

I agree completely. Insurance is a bad model. It adds expense and no value.

georgiaboy
04-06-2011, 12:27 PM
so OP, will there be any movie shown to present a differing view than Mr. Moore's? If not, that's sicko.

NYgs23
04-06-2011, 01:21 PM
What the government should do is give the money back, plain and simple. Barring that, it might as well dump it down and pit. At least, that would increase the value of the dollars we still have.

lester1/2jr
04-06-2011, 01:43 PM
http://mises.org/daily/3643


Hans hermans hoppe article on reforming is GREAT.

heavenlyboy34
04-06-2011, 01:50 PM
The health care reform solution is simple... let the free market operate... it works.

True story:
In the 30's, a young girl fell off her bicycle and hit her head on a rock. She spent 6 months in Children's Hospital and had to undergo brain surgery. She spent much of her life dealing with that injury... in and out of hospitals. Her father paid the hospital bills while earning a meager living farming. Later, she raised a large family, and her husband paid for her medical expenses as he was the sole breadwinner, and paid out-of-pocket for the children's births, the occasional broken bone, and family illness when necessary. The health care bills were affordable because there was competition, much less litigation, and Daddy Warbuck's money was not driving the prices out-of-reach for families.

All that changed with the socialist system of the 60's. Medicare & employer golden insurance packages meant that the consumer was no longer concerned with how much it cost to go to the doctor. It was all paid for by someone else. The "I don't care what it costs... fix it" mentality took over and since it is compassionate for 'government' to take care of their own, then the prices began skyrocketing and haven't stopped. Medical corporations will not stop taking government money until we take the government credit card away from them.

The only way to return to sanity in health care, in jobs/opportunity, and a peaceful society is to End The Fed... use honest money when dealing with each other... and accept responsibility for our actions.

+infinity

heavenlyboy34
04-06-2011, 01:51 PM
What the government should do is give the money back, plain and simple. Barring that, it might as well dump it down and pit. At least, that would increase the value of the dollars we still have.

The Money Hole!
http://www.theonion.com/video/in-the-know-should-the-government-stop-dumping-mon,14289/ lulz :D;)