***OFFICIAL 'Sicko' Thread***

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: Antisocial Virge
It also brings up your other point about not having anything socialized, what about police and fire?

That's a great idea too, I like it. It would certainly clean up law enforcement at the very least.

 

[JImmyK]

Im pretty excited about watching it, I have worked in the health care industry in my younger days and peeple dont even believe half the stories I tell them...

 

[MisterJackson]

*waits for this to become a Michael Moore bashing thread*

Seriously though, I liked him when he was a nobody doing these side bits for one of the networks back in the day. After that, I really began to depise the guy. Whether he had a point or not was seriously outweighed by his polarizing nature.

That said, I saw him on Leno the other night, resisted the urge to turn it off and/or throw my remote at my TV, and was pleasantly surprised by the man.

I think I might start considering repecting the guy somewhat again. Especially after he went after Hilary Clinton for her flip flopping on her stance with national healthcare.

Apparently everyone's fair game for him now, not just the right. I'm not very political myself, I just hate people with skewed or one sided views.

Anyway, I will see this for sure. just don't know if it's worth a movie ticket or dvd rental (or the d/l rip version that he doesn't seem to mind floating out there )

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Haven't seen it, but if it suggests USA should adopt a social health care system, I piss on it. Subsidized possibly, but if you were being careless with your finances, got cancer and had no money to pay for treatment, sucks for you, I wouldn't give you a quarter. In some ways the system works, stupid people should die.</end quote></div>

I hope you never get sick, because your statement is just plain naive.
It's not just stupid irresponsible people getting bankrupted by medical bills.
</end quote></div>

This is why I said subsidized, where the treatment is covered partially if high in cost, this allows the free market to function in medical advancements as people are still required to make choices as to which treatment to pursue, unlike a socialistic method of being forced onto a range of treatments that have been preselected, unless you would rather pay for the entire thing yourself, the subsidies would also be restricted to people that don't have poor credit history. So even if you don't have the funds, perhaps of a young age and have not yet had the opportunity to develop savings, you will be subsidized, but you are still required to pay your share of the cost. If you don't have the money, you must take it on credit. If you have bad credit and cannot take it on credit, you will die. It's sad, but that's personal responsibility for you. Of course you can always get health insurance. Socialist healthcare is a close equivalent to forced health insurance, with additional drawbacks. In the current system you have a choice, sucks for you if you don't make the right one.

I'd rather take forced health insurance than forced death just because I don't happen to have a large enough credit line to pay for some high dollar cancer treatment.

 

[NanoStuff]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
I'd rather take forced health insurance than forced death just because I don't happen to have a large enough credit line to pay for some high dollar cancer treatment.
</end quote></div>
Would you prefer that insurance companies would allow you to obtain insurance after you get sick? If you don't want to die, get health insurance. Nobody is forcing you not to have insurance, but nobody is going to rescue you when you're dying because of a lack of it.

You want a pussy health care system, move to Canada. But in Canada they're starting to privatize healthcare. This is of course a good thing, but I'm sure you will have some problem with it because it's for-profit.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
I'd rather take forced health insurance than forced death just because I don't happen to have a large enough credit line to pay for some high dollar cancer treatment.
</end quote></div>
Would you prefer that insurance companies would allow you to obtain insurance after you get sick? If you don't want to die, get health insurance. Nobody is forcing you not to have insurance, but nobody is going to rescue you when you're dying because of a lack of it.

Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?

What, and the government can't say "we aren't paying for this"? There's no shortage of treatments social healthcare is unwilling to pay for. Strong health insurance is often much better.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?</end quote></div>

What, and the government can't say "we aren't paying for this"? There's no shortage of treatments social healthcare is unwilling to pay for. Strong health insurance is often much better.

Government is responsible to us, the voters. Insurance company is only responsible to its shareholders.

 

[timosyy]

If you ignore the Cuba bit (which was just obvious crap/excessive), it actually makes a pretty good point. I don't think he necessarily says we should go toward socialized health care, but simply that our health care needs to change.

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Government is responsible to us, the voters.

The last 8 years have shown how true that is.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?</end quote></div>

What, and the government can't say "we aren't paying for this"? There's no shortage of treatments social healthcare is unwilling to pay for. Strong health insurance is often much better.</end quote></div>

Government is responsible to us, the voters. Insurance company is only responsible to its shareholders.

Solve the $30-50trillion Medicad problem, then we'll talk about socialized healthcare.

 

[slackerinabox]

Michael Moore has changed - the backlash that he felt after F. 9/11 made him rethink his approach. Sicko isn't completely even-handed, but people who believe ANY documentary is even handed are pretty naive. Everyone has a point of view and they make documentaries to show that, let's not kid ourselves here. Michael Moore started with his thesis "our healthcare system is fucked" and worked backwards. But I have to say, our healthcare system is fucked... Sicko is an excellent visual essay and people here need to accept that he makes movies, pieces of entertainment with social commentary thrown in, not TEXT BOOKS.

It's funny seeing tools here trying to define what a documentary is when they have no idea what they're talking about. I betcha they never saw one, other than some crap on the discovery channel.

 

[eits]

for fvck sake... does everyone have to repost threads?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...rd1=official+AND+sicko

there's already an official sicko thread.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Government is responsible to us, the voters.</end quote></div>

The last 8 years have shown how true that is.

Anyways, if the current system works, Americans will keep voting against nationalized healthcare. If it fails, then they'll try something else. It's an issue that will resolve itself, so I am not particularly concerned either way. It's one of those things that should not be rushed.

 

[Confusednewbie1552]

I thought it was a great movie, to those of you that have seen it, what do you think about it?

 

[NanoStuff]

Haven't seen it, but if it suggests USA should adopt a social health care system, I piss on it. Subsidized possibly, but if you were being careless with your finances, got cancer and had no money to pay for treatment, sucks for you, I wouldn't give you a quarter. In some ways the system works, stupid people should die.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?</end quote></div>

What, and the government can't say "we aren't paying for this"? There's no shortage of treatments social healthcare is unwilling to pay for. Strong health insurance is often much better.</end quote></div>

Government is responsible to us, the voters. Insurance company is only responsible to its shareholders.</end quote></div>

Solve the $30-50trillion Medicad problem, then we'll talk about socialized healthcare.

You can solve it tomorrow. Put caps on what the government pays for drugs and services.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Haven't seen it, but if it suggests USA should adopt a social health care system, I piss on it. Subsidized possibly, but if you were being careless with your finances, got cancer and had no money to pay for treatment, sucks for you, I wouldn't give you a quarter. In some ways the system works, stupid people should die.

I hope you never get sick, because your statement is just plain naive.
It's not just stupid irresponsible people getting bankrupted by medical bills.

 

[Wreckem]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?</end quote></div>

What, and the government can't say "we aren't paying for this"? There's no shortage of treatments social healthcare is unwilling to pay for. Strong health insurance is often much better.</end quote></div>

Government is responsible to us, the voters. Insurance company is only responsible to its shareholders.</end quote></div>

Solve the $30-50trillion Medicad problem, then we'll talk about socialized healthcare.</end quote></div>

You can solve it tomorrow. Put caps on what the government pays for drugs and services.
</end quote></div>

Wrong that would only create more problems.

Medicad already has caps on what it pays for medical care. This is why a good deal of hospitals go bankrupt each year.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?</end quote></div>

What, and the government can't say "we aren't paying for this"? There's no shortage of treatments social healthcare is unwilling to pay for. Strong health insurance is often much better.</end quote></div>

Government is responsible to us, the voters. Insurance company is only responsible to its shareholders.</end quote></div>

Solve the $30-50trillion Medicad problem, then we'll talk about socialized healthcare.</end quote></div>

You can solve it tomorrow. Put caps on what the government pays for drugs and services.
</end quote></div>

Wrong. That wouldnt even solve 1/4 of the problem. And it would only create more.

Medicad already has caps on what it paysfor medical care. This is why a good deal of hospitals go bankrup each year.

No it isn't. They go bankrupt because people with NO insurance use the ERs when they are really sick because they don't get preventative care.

 

[tasmanian]

Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?</end quote></div>

What, and the government can't say "we aren't paying for this"? There's no shortage of treatments social healthcare is unwilling to pay for. Strong health insurance is often much better.</end quote></div>

Government is responsible to us, the voters. Insurance company is only responsible to its shareholders.</end quote></div>

Solve the $30-50trillion Medicad problem, then we'll talk about socialized healthcare.</end quote></div>

You can solve it tomorrow. Put caps on what the government pays for drugs and services.
</end quote></div>

Wrong. That wouldnt even solve 1/4 of the problem. And it would only create more.

Medicad already has caps on what it paysfor medical care. This is why a good deal of hospitals go bankrup each year.</end quote></div>

No it isn't. They go bankrupt because people with NO insurance use the ERs when they are really sick because they don't get preventative care.

Dont forget malpractice.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?</end quote></div>

What, and the government can't say "we aren't paying for this"? There's no shortage of treatments social healthcare is unwilling to pay for. Strong health insurance is often much better.</end quote></div>

Government is responsible to us, the voters. Insurance company is only responsible to its shareholders.</end quote></div>

Solve the $30-50trillion Medicad problem, then we'll talk about socialized healthcare.</end quote></div>

You can solve it tomorrow. Put caps on what the government pays for drugs and services.
</end quote></div>

Wrong. That wouldnt even solve 1/4 of the problem. And it would only create more.

Medicad already has caps on what it paysfor medical care. This is why a good deal of hospitals go bankrup each year.</end quote></div>

No it isn't. They go bankrupt because people with NO insurance use the ERs when they are really sick because they don't get preventative care.

ER visits cost most hospitals relatively little.

Its the elderly patients that spend weeks and sometimes months in the hospital on the governments dime that cost them huge amounts of money.

The government doesn't cover the cost of most procedures. Nor do they cover the costs of hospital stays or surgerys.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Wreckem
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: NanoStuff
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: senseamp
Insurance can say hey, we aren't paying for this. If you don't have money for treatment, what makes you think you'll have money for lawyers to fight them?</end quote></div>

What, and the government can't say "we aren't paying for this"? There's no shortage of treatments social healthcare is unwilling to pay for. Strong health insurance is often much better.</end quote></div>

Government is responsible to us, the voters. Insurance company is only responsible to its shareholders.</end quote></div>

Solve the $30-50trillion Medicad problem, then we'll talk about socialized healthcare.</end quote></div>

You can solve it tomorrow. Put caps on what the government pays for drugs and services.
</end quote></div>

Wrong. That wouldnt even solve 1/4 of the problem. And it would only create more.

Medicad already has caps on what it paysfor medical care. This is why a good deal of hospitals go bankrup each year.</end quote></div>

No it isn't. They go bankrupt because people with NO insurance use the ERs when they are really sick because they don't get preventative care.</end quote></div>

ER visits cost most hospitals relatively little.

Its the elderly patients that spend weeks and sometimes months in the hospital on the governments dime that cost them huge amounts of money.

The government doesn't cover the cost of most procedures. Nor do they cover the costs of hospital stays or surgerys.

Because these "costs" are insane. I am sorry, if you are charging someone's yearly salary for a week in the hospital, and you only get paid half of that by the government, my heart doesn't really bleed for you.

 

[Antisocial Virge]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Haven't seen it, but if it suggests USA should adopt a social health care system, I piss on it. Subsidized possibly, but if you were being careless with your finances, got cancer and had no money to pay for treatment, sucks for you, I wouldn't give you a quarter. In some ways the system works, stupid people should die.

Well your the perfect person to see it. It talks alot about people who had health care coverage only to be denied when they went to use it. One woman had cancer and was denied the cost of the chemo drugs.
It also brings up your other point about not having anything socialized, what about police and fire? How would you like those services to be for profit? "Sorry you were late a payment on your fire department payment so break out the marshmallows for roasting"

Countdown to the "he's fat" comments.

 

[Jmman]

I haven't seen it, but if you believe that Cuba has a better health care system than here you are crazy. In Cuba if you go to the hospital and you are not one of the elite you have to bring your own sheets, food, towels, etc. Our system has its faults, but socialized medicine is not the answer.....