posted July 08, 2007 08:17 PM         

Peace.
GG

posted July 08, 2007 09:22 PM         

I am a RN and totally support this film...have begun to watch it, will finish tomorrow....

American health care sucks!!!

posted July 09, 2007 08:43 PM         

I am ashamed to be part of American health care....

Blessings

posted July 10, 2007 05:33 AM         

Just kidding...
But really this is something most of us are quite aware of. We are at a loss however as to what we personally can do about it.

Thank you so much for posting this here
Already I've forwarded it to most of my friends and family.

Does anyone have any real advice or direction to take to make a real difference to make a change happen?

posted July 10, 2007 10:02 AM         

And we all know who runs the machine anyway...

My suggestions, play the game and know what you are in for. Protect yourself and family as well as you can.

That is why I support this film...not to change anything, necessarialy, just to make people aware!!!

And if you or a loved one does get sick, explore alternate (and less expensive) forms of healing.

O, and first and foremost---prevention---take care of yourself the best you can and be as well as you can...and if the unforseen does happen they you will atleast have done your best to remain as healthy as you can.

Take an active part in your healthcare, do not let some physician call all of the shots!

posted July 12, 2007 02:57 PM         

Edit:

The Senate rejected Sen. Judd Gregg's amendment Wednesday.

Partisan battle brewing over children's health insuranceStory Highlights
Senate turns back effort to trim expansion of children's health insurance program

Democrat bills would expand state children's health insurance plans (SCHIP)

Republicans say bill is a step towards socialized medicine

President Bush has threatened to veto both House and Senate bills
Next Article in Politics »

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican efforts to scale back expansion of a popular children's health insurance program failed in the Senate Wednesday, as a bitter partisan battle unfolded in the House over a more generous version that includes broad Medicare changes.

The Senate rejected Sen. Judd Gregg's amendment Wednesday.

The Senate rejected, 53-42, an amendment by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire, that would have cut federal payments for middle-income children and childless adults under the State Children's Health Insurance Program -- originally designed to cover only poor kids -- and limit future coverage for those populations.

Earlier, the Senate defeated, 58-26, an amendment by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada, that would have to shifted the bill's $35 billion SCHIP increase, financed through a tobacco tax hike, into treating diseases like cancer and heart disease. It would have left the program, slated to expire on September 30, funded at its current $25 billion level for the next five years.

The action came as House Republicans slowed the chamber to a crawl through parliamentary tactics in protest of $75 billion SCHIP bill they derided as the first step in moving toward government-run universal health care.

Don't Miss
Giuliani attacks Democrats 'socialized medicine' plans
Dems vow big agenda
Both versions are under veto threats from President Bush, who calls them overly expensive and an inappropriate shift away from private health insurance.

"The real plan here is to set the stage for a movement of the next gigantic step in the direction of what should be called Hillary-care -- national socialized medicine," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-California, referring to the failed Clinton administration health care effort, directed by then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Democrats are using the legislation as an opportunity to roll back years of Republican-driven changes to Medicare, cutting payments to Medicare HMO's and shifting the money to doctors and benefits for low-income seniors. They painted the GOP opposition as mean-spirited attempts by their political foes to deprive kids of health insurance.

"Health care for America's children cannot be delayed or denied," said Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Florida, as Republicans worked to stall the legislation through time-consuming procedural votes.

In the Senate, the picture is far different. There, home-state politics are colliding with Bush's health care agenda, prompting Republicans to line up with Democrats on expanding the children's health insurance program.

In threatening to veto the Senate measure, Bush argued it spends too much and covers too many middle-income people.

He faces an uphill battle in persuading Senate Republicans, whose states have come to rely on the program to cover an ever-larger chunk of their constituents, to accept a less-expensive version.

The $60 billion measure is on track to pass the Senate this week with wide bipartisan support. Bush had proposed spending half that on the program.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, the party whip, said his hunt for the votes to sustain a Bush veto is a challenge given senators' parochial interest in the program. It takes two-thirds of senators present and voting to override a veto, leaving Republicans in search of up to 34 votes to deny Democrats that chance.

"I thought this was the United States Senate, and if it is the United States Senate -- which I have my doubts about -- you vote against a program, even if it means more money for your state, if it's bad," Lott lamented. "But I don't think we do that anymore."

Lott and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, offered a scaled-down, $35 billion alternative that would limit eligibility for the program to those it was originally designed to cover -- people at 200 percent of poverty, or $41,300 for a family of four.

Since the program's inception, the Bush administration has issued waivers to several states that allowed them to extend coverage to children with higher incomes and to adults. Nineteen states have done so, allowing families earning as much as $82,600 to be covered.

Republicans accuse Democrats of using the program as a way to extend government health insurance to millions of people. In a veto threat issued Monday, the administration said the measure "essentially extends a welfare benefit to middle-class households" and "goes too far in federalizing health care."

The bipartisan bill would gradually move adults who don't have children out of SCHIP, giving states the option of covering them through Medicaid. The government also would lower payments for parents' coverage and be barred from issuing new waivers allowing states to cover parents. But states would still have the option of providing coverage to pregnant women through SCHIP.

In the Senate, many Republicans say they're sympathetic to Bush's criticism that the measure covers adults and children it was never intended to, but those worries take a back seat to their states' interests. E-mail to a friend

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/01/congress.childrens.health.ap/index.html

Democrats Pass Hike in Child Health Plan

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS,AP
Posted: 2007-08-01 21:12:52
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats pushed through legislation Wednesday to add 6 million lower-income children to a popular health insurance program while making deep cuts in federal payments to Medicare HMOs, defying a veto threat from President Bush.

On a 225-204, mostly party-line vote, the House passed the legislation, which would add $50 billion to the decade-old State Children's Health Insurance Program and roll back years of Republican-driven changes to Medicare.

The bill would slash federal payments to private insurance companies that cover elderly and disabled patients under Medicare and shift money to doctors and benefits for lower-income beneficiaries. The rest of the children's health increase would come from hefty increases in taxes on tobacco products.

The legislation sparked a bitterly partisan health care battle on the eve of Congress' monthlong summer recess, complete with parliamentary fireworks by angry Republicans. The back-and-forth engulfed a broadly supported program to insure working poor kids in a larger argument over whether the government or the private sector should provide health insurance to the nation's most vulnerable populations.

In the Senate, a more limited, $35 billion expansion of the children's health care program without broader Medicare changes appeared headed for a bipartisan endorsement by the end of the week, despite another threatened veto. Bush has proposed spending half as much on the program - scheduled to expire Sept. 30 - over the next five years.

In a veto threat of the House bill issued Wednesday, the administration said the legislation "clearly favors government-run health care over private health insurance," and spends far too much.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who has made children's issues a signature focus of her tenure, said the measure would "meet our moral obligation to our children."

The decade-old SCHIP program is designed to subsidize the cost of insurance for children whose families earn too much to participate in Medicaid, but not enough to afford private health insurance. Through federal waivers, however, the program has expanded in many states to include middle-income children and adults, prompting Republicans to argue that it has morphed into a backdoor way to extend government-provided health care to an ever-increasing population of Americans.

"This is not just about helping low-income children. This bill today seems to be spending government funds to lure middle class, upper middle class, even wealthy, perhaps, families, to opt out of private health coverage and go to government health coverage," said Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, the top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Democrats, betting that opposing the measure - which would insure a total of 11 million under SCHIP - would be a political loser for Republicans, painted the GOP opposition as mean-spirited and stingy.

"The bottom line is, where were you when this government, as big as it is, wanted to protect (11 million) kids in health insurance?," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., the Ways and Means chairman. "Come November (2008), people will be asking questions: ... Did you let this program expire? And were you there when the children called on you?"

Beyond health care for children, though, the measure reflected dueling Democratic and Republican health care priorities, especially on how to cover the nation's elderly, a potent voting bloc. Democrats have long worked to bolster government-provided coverage for seniors under Medicare, while Republicans have favored giving private companies incentives to insure them.

To help pay for the SCHIP increase, Democrats dipped into federal payments to Medicare HMOs, which they argue drive up premiums for the elderly in traditional Medicare by inflating the cost of care. Officials estimate the government pays an average of 12 percent more to these private plans than it does for traditional coverage.

Republicans said Democrats would live to regret the Medicare cut, which GOP strategists say will prompt angry seniors to exact a steep political price on the majority party.

"Don't use children as your shield," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. "This is the single largest cut to Medicare in the program's history."

Just five Republicans crossed party lines to support the measure, while 10 Democrats - including conservatives whose districts have high concentrations of seniors participating in Medicare HMOs - broke with their leaders to oppose it.

As the acrimonious debate unfolded in the House, the more modest Senate expansion of the program survived challenges from the right and left. Republican efforts to scale back the plan and a Democratic bid to increase it both failed.

The Senate rejected 61-35, a $35 billion alternative offered by GOP leaders that would have limited eligibility for the program to those it was originally designed to cover - people at 200 percent of poverty, or $41,300 for a family of four.

Also rejected were GOP attempts to freeze SCHIP at its current $25 billion level and to cut federal payments for middle-income children and childless adults and limit future coverage for those populations.

Senators also turned back, 60-36, an attempt by Democratic Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to increase SCHIP to the House's $75 billion level. Kerry had proposed paying for the boost by rolling back Bush's tax cuts for people making $1 million a year.

Many Republicans have lined up with Democrats in defiance of Bush to back the more limited SCHIP expansion in the Senate, but it's unclear whether enough will break with their president to hand the majority a veto-proof margin.

Since the program's inception, the Democratic and Republican administrations, including Bush's, have issued waivers to states that allowed them to extend coverage to children with higher incomes and to adults. Nineteen states have done so, allowing families earning as much as $82,600 to be covered.

The bipartisan bill would gradually move adults who don't have children out of SCHIP, giving states the option of covering them through Medicaid. The government also would lower payments for parents' coverage and be barred from issuing new waivers allowing states to cover parents. But states would still have the option of providing coverage to pregnant women through SCHIP.

It would be financed through a 61-cent-a-pack tax increase on cigarettes. The House-passed bill includes a 45-cent increase.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
08/01/07 21:11 EDT

Thousands of Americans Heading North
Numbers Outweighed by Canadians Moving to U.S., Survey Reveals

By MARCUS BARAM,ABC News
Posted: 2007-08-02 06:16:25
Filed Under: Nation News
(Aug. 2) - Blame Canada!

It may seem like a quiet country where not much happens besides ice hockey, curling and beer drinking. But our neighbor to the north is proving to be quite the draw for thousands of disgruntled Americans.

The number of U.S. citizens who moved to Canada last year hit a 30-year high, with a 20 percent increase over the previous year and almost double the number who moved in 2000.

In 2006, 10,942 Americans went to Canada, compared with 9,262 in 2005 and 5,828 in 2000, according to a survey by the Association for Canadian Studies.

Of course, those numbers are still outweighed by the number of Canadians going the other way. Yet, that imbalance is shrinking. Last year, 23,913 Canadians moved to the United States, a significant decrease from 29,930 in 2005.

"There has been a definite increase in the past five years -- the number hasn't exceeded 10,000 since 1977," says Jack Jedwab, the association's executive director. "During the mid-70s, Canada admitted between 22,000 and 26,000 Americans a year, most of whom were draft dodgers from the Vietnam War."

The current increase appears to be fueled largely by social and political reasons, says Jedwab, based on anecdotal evidence.

"Those who are coming have the highest level of education -- these aren't people who can't get a job in the states," he says. "They're coming because many of them don't like the politics, the Iraq War and the security situation in the U.S. By comparison, Canada is a tension-free place. People feel safer."

One recent immigrant is Tom Kertes, a 34-year-old labor organizer who moved from Seattle to Toronto in April.

Kertes attributes his motivation to President Bush's opposition to gay marriage, and the tactics employed during the war on terror since 9/11.

Feed

Tragedy at Rush Hour: Slow Recovery Process...
Bridge Collapse Survivors Tell Their Tales
Report: 34 Percent of Major Roads Are in Poor,...
More Stories"I wanted a country that respected my human rights and the rights of others," he says. "We joked about it after Bush won re-election, but it took us a while to go through the application."

Kertes, who moved with his partner, is happy in his new home. "Canada is a really nice country. My mother is thinking about it. My stepfather has diabetes and has health issues. So, he'd be taken care of for free if he moved up here."

Not that Kertes doesn't get homesick every once in a while. "I have no intention of giving up my citizenship. I have an American flag at home on the wall. I didn't have that in Seattle. All of a sudden, I'm a nationalist. On the Fourth of July, I really missed being home."

Jo Davenport, who wrote "The Canadian Way," moved from Atlanta to Nova Scotia in December 2001. She also cites political reasons for her move, saying that she disagreed with the Bush administration's decisions after 9/11.

"Things are totally different here because they care about their people here," she says, explaining that she's only been back home once or twice.

posted July 19, 2007 08:19 PM         

(Interesting sociopathy in biz, suggesting that yes people need to be beat over the head with the tears, though. I've seen that elsewhere. Our values suck. I almost went to work for a psychic biz that horrified me with its lack of ethics--and dignity--and at the time I was horrified, but now see that such vicious amorality is rampant everywhere.)

The ONLY thing I saw on there I didn't know about was that a yeast infection could cost you insurance. So I guess a sprained ankle or even jock itch can, too. <rolls eyes>

Some things that I think Michael Moore is wrong on, though.

Eg, in my reading on the history of this, it wasn't Nixon. Problems go back way back to the 50s at least, but the nightmare we have now didn't get started until after Jimmy Carter passed something that was then affected by Ronald Reagan that put all the top people over nearly every medical field (including drugs, etc) into the hands of CEOs that were concerned with the bottom line that looked at numbers on paper rather than people. (One book that goes into that in detail is Critical Condition by Donald L. Barlett & James B. Steele)

I asked a nurse who worked at many hospitals in the USA and Canada and she told me that the book was sensationalistic (and it's less so than Sicko), which is not to say it's untrue, but that it doesn't give the full story.

Btw, one of the major CEOs that ruined health care was hired by some European bank to do the same thing over there...(cf, Critical Condition I just mentioned for details.)

Anyway, just out of curiosity, does this flick go into...

That people with any kind of coverage (private or otherwise) actually pay less because of special deals made to draw in the appropiate company (that is, "cover our service and we'll give you a discount"), resulting in those without any coverage being charged a lot more. (In effect, it would be like someone who uses a credit card buying groceries getting a huge discount, so that like if the credit card user paid $40, someone without a credit card would be charged like $200.)

How about the FDA threatened local states that included working with Canadian businesses for medical needs, even after the FDA said that Canada was too lax in making sure their drugs were safe (though couldn't cite any cases of Americans harmed by Canadian drugs used correctly--and see next one). The FDA didn't follow through, but everything from lawsuits to federal ninjas were threatened with those who eschewed the USA companies for Canada (both privately and at the government level).

However, the drug companies got proactive themselves when the FDA scare tactics failed and threatened to shut off supplies to Canadian pharmacies if sales to Americans continued.

Up to what I saw, Moore only said that doing so was "tricky" (listing some tricks, including marrying a Canadian). My understanding, btw, is that Americans generally don't get the same health care in Canada as Canadians as we're not taxpayers, and are generally expected to pay more (but still cheaper than the USA).

In July of 2001, Health Canada (the FDA of Canada), issued a warning about nefazodone (antidepressant), aka Serzone by the Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. The claim is that this drug caused severe liver damage that required drastic medical responses and could be fatal. It took the FDA 6 more months to come to the same conclusion, a delay that would net profits in the hundreds of millions while also allowing some of the surplus to get used up. This was only to get warnings on the drug so that consumers could be aware of it.

In 2003, Health Canada and the US Public Citizen Health Research both continued to lobby for the banning of this drug, but the FDA wouldn't be stampeded. Even the company itself sent out a letter to enquirers that they couldn't predict who would get liver damage (possibly resulting in a fatality in less than a month), and quite a few were hit with it. In addition, other countries also banned the sale of it by this time, including Turkey and Spain. Plus, tests with placebos showed that the placebo was just as effective as the dangerous antidepressant. Eventually, the Company itself would remove the drug from the market not by any government prohibition but by the growing lawsuits against them by victims and families thereof.

In 1997, some in the USA went blind from using Cordarone, and at least a few others also suffered other ill effects that were sometimes fatal. However, in Canada, there was already a warning (not so until after 1997 in the USA), but in the USA the FDA simply suggested to stop prescribing it for general usage, but required no warning.

In addition, from Critical Condition:

"Mounting pressure to introduce new drugs as fast as new soups and soaps will pose ever-greater health risks, let alone costs, as doctors prescribe medicine without fully knowing or understanding the long-term consequences. It often takes years for a drug's truly serious side effects to show up. The same will be true for dangerous interactions between drugs, as people consume more kinds of pills for longer periods."

I knew someone who worked a few years as a coroner that saw plenty had done tremendous damage to their body from prescription drugs...

Btw, that nurse I asked did some work in drug companies and said not only was it unethical, but the studies sucked, only testing those in very controlled conditions, which isn't going to predict all the chaotic patterns that the drugs will be used under in the real world.

Ambulance Diversion: Because of pressures put on hospitals by insurers, HMOs, and Wall Street investors, hospitals cut cost (using the same business model as car production) including the cutting of staff and essential duties to maintain a clean, healthy workplace. With ambulances in particular, if too many beds (reduced in number to cut costs) become occupied for the staff (though they themselves can be overburdened by this time anyway), ambulances are radioed to rush to a different hospital. At the time the hospital reaches this "critical mass," it's called being "on divert status." In some cases this can get critical for the entire area, like when 14 of 16 ERs in St. Louis (including county) were put on divert status, one on divert status for 40 hours. In another case, an ambulance had to drive 40 miles to find an available ER.

However, on this the nurse I asked also said that the claim that the USA had a shortage of nurses because of the toxicity of the USA system isn't really true. The shortage is worldwide according to her, and thus can't be blamed on the USA system...that's like blaming SUVs for global warming on Mars.

Another thing is that drug and other medical companies do what the old snakeoil sellers did: convince people who aren't sick that they are. They knowingly and willfully use scare tactics to try to get people to fear that they are at tremendous risk which then hopefully inspires the purchasing of medical services and drugs to deal with this. In addition, cronyism between doctors, pharma executives, and health officials remain high with big bribes to help increase this. That is, not only is health care denied to those who can't afford it, but is just as likely to be pushed unnecessarily upon those who CAN afford it.

Btw, I've noticed that USA sources for explaining ailments tend to be "worst case scenerio" and often "be sure to see your doctor just in case," which I hear contrasts with plenty of non-American sources. Another guy once shared with me, too, that once fearing he may have OD, he was told to call an ER, I think by 911 and he couldn't understand anything the ER person said EXCEPT when they said for him to come in and they could examine him--that is, when it involved the bottom line they suddenly became clear and easy to understand. Not having the money for that, he decided to try one more option before he did that and called the Poison Center, who very quickly and efficiently explained to him what was going on, and no he didn't need an ER.

He also recounted to me how a hospital also tried to give him unnecessary surgery, but he was thankfully unable to afford it--had he gone through with the surgery, he'd have thought it WAS necessary, and who knows what additional health troubles he'd have as a direct result of that surgery, in addition to his ruined finances?

In addition, Economic Sodomy by Victor Santoro has 2 chapters on medical fraud and the like. While one chapter is on non-FDA approved charlatans, the chapter on FDA-approved charlatans is MUCH bigger and far more disturbing, especially in that many of the ways doctors and the like knowingly and willfully rip people off, and even knowingly cause harm to do so. Then there are those horror stories that crop up from time to time about stolen body parts: as just one example, I came across a copy of the Curry Coastal Pilot for May 6, 2006, page 15A, in which a woman got a bad bone transplant, in part with FDA help. Cases like that was causing other FDA people to "look for ways to address the problem," but it sounded like a lot of corruption was involved in the FDA, who got kickbacks for approval. Last month in the LA Times, there was another article critical of the FDA and big biz, though now I can't recall enough on what it was about.

One of the wildest experiences was how in California a guy had too much money in savings to get government coverage for a surgery that cost over twice what he had in savings. So the guy spent his savings on a sports car (as that was ok--encouraging fiscal irresponsibility) and THEN got the coverage. After the surgery, he sold his car and put it back into savings. :lol:

There are positive stories, btw. One shared how her insurance had an 800 number to call that gave her wonderful suggestions that solved her problems so she didn't have to go hang out for hours in a dirty, over-crowded, germ-filled ER. They were professional nurses who were helpful, competent, and friendly. She bets most carriers have this nice service available to their clients, but doubts many people use it, as she thinks we seem to be conditioned to run to a doctor with every little thing instead of looking for sensible ways to deal with non life threatening incidences.

And I personally helped a guy get a state health card in California (by hooking him and his wife up with another friend of mine). Their medical emergency was a nightmare, mainly with him being accused of "faking" pain to get drugs when the guy even avoids coffee and aspirin (ie, he's no druggie). The bills were a nightmare, but me and others have chipped in before and covered someone's bill that way before. Luckily, the card came through and paid nearly everything. (Interesting enough, a legal firm tried contacting him on suing the hospital for "any bad treatment" after he got the card--his getting the card apparently bringing his name to their attention--but even though he and his wife were ticked off by the treatment, they were grateful enough for the card and decided not to pursue it--though in part because "it would probably take years and the lawyers would no doubt get the lion's share anyway")

As one final note, I know someone who just got back from a trip to the UK and France, and she said Moore painted an inaccurate picture of health care over there (intentional or not, she doesn't know). And I know, via the internet, another guy who works in British health care, and he says there are a lot of problems, some of which are sure to cause even bigger problems in the future (possibly even total collapse of the system).

posted July 28, 2007 09:04 PM         

more health care = more taxes. and we know that when the public’s money is funneled into government programs, only the breadcrumbs actually go into social programs that actually benefit the people.

as much crap as the us health care system is, Europe's is crap in an entirely different way. A large number of Europeans are too dependent on pharma companies to save them from all sorts of wounds and sickness because, after all, it is "free". so we will take that pill for anything under the sun.

Because of lack of care in the US, people tend to tough it out on their own more. But both people from Europe and US remain ignorant to alternate healing and get screwed in different ways.
http://educate-yourself.org/fc/ (scroll down to Oxygen Therapies to begin)

I can't believe how much people are taxed in Europe for their national healthcare which isn't much better than the US, just different types of drugs from the same powerful companies.

When you take a drug from pfizer, ect you are just a guinea pig. There are better natural cures that are being suppressed, to keep us dependent on this monopoly that the drug company has on us and would continue to have under the guise of national health care.

National health care? so more dangerous pills can be pushed on us without giving us (natural) alternatives that are already being suppressed so pharma companies can reap the profits. Drug companies rule weather a country is under national health care or not, nothing changes, look for alternatives is really what my point is. seek them out, avoid whatever pill is the flavor of the week.

just sounds like another excuse to build a monopoly.

posted July 31, 2007 12:01 PM         

way to raise the level of the debate.

"The reviews of Michael Moore's “Sicko” have been fascinating, the editorial and op-ed commentaries on the film even more so.

"Apparently there is a rule in corporate journalism that every mention of Moore and his films, or Moore without his films, must contain at least two snide observations about his biases, his ever so naughty attacks on rich and powerful but somehow –- in the eyes of the corporate journalists -- defenseless people such as the chairman of General Motors, and, if you can slide it in, Moore's physical appearance.

"Four snide comments, two or three misrepresentations and an outright lie or two about Moore or the films is better, I gather."

http://michaelmoore.com/words/index.php

posted July 31, 2007 12:51 PM         

The truth about socialized health care is that it's an utter failure which is being used by socialists to change behavior...to suit their preceived ideas of a perfect little socialist gulag.

Not to mention these little socialist planners are killing people in the process and bankrupting the health care systems in nations nutty enough to adopt them.

Next time the bloated fathead Moore gets sick, let's send him to Cuba for treatment...but not to hospitals or clinics the communist elite use...but rather to hospitals and clinics the ordinary people of Cuba use.

Now, if you don't like controversy on FFA you might want to consider not posting controversal subjects here.

Michael Moore is not an icon to me or even someone due any respect, given his lying and outright hypocrisy.

posted July 31, 2007 06:24 PM         

Now I don't mean that as a dig against their system, though I know a guy via the net that works in that and he says the system isn't going to be able to work forever as it's highly abused by "all sides." Rather, Michael Moore didn't mention anything like that, did he?

posted July 31, 2007 10:13 PM         

I'm really curious as to why you have, it seems to me, a throw the baby out with the bathwater attitude, when it comes to socialism and communism? Just because people have committed horrible crimes against humanity whilst calling themselves socialists, or communists, doesn't mean that these systems have no value. By this reasoning, we should get rid of every major world religion. Are you Christian? There have been horrors perpetrated against humanity in the guise of "being *insert religion name here*, and doing *insert deity name here*'s good work." Does this mean we get rid of spiritual systems of belief or that they have no intrinsic value because of the actions of people who claimed to believe this particular religion all the while killing/raping/murdering/trampling the basic rights other beings?

If I recall correctly, you've stated that we should not speak ill of others who aren't here to defend themselves? (people who are critical of the administration should not be saying so) Doesn't that apply to Mr. Moore as well?

quote:

---

Now, if you don't like controversy on FFA you might want to consider not posting controversal subjects here.

---

Posting a link to a film made by a man who is pointing out the fact that the "health care" system in America is severly broken is controversial? If you want to provide information that will inform the community of mistakes made in the film by the filmmaker, like Dervish did, that would be constructive. If you just want to personally attack Mr. Moore, you aren't contributing anything to the discussion.

quote:

---

Michael Moore is not an icon to me or even someone due any respect, given his lying and outright hypocrisy.

---

Some people say the same things about the President and Vice President.

quote:

---

The truth about socialized health care is that it's an utter failure which is being used by socialists to change behavior...to suit their preceived ideas of a perfect little socialist gulag.

---

How do you know this for certain? You don't live in any of these countries, so that might very likely be a fantasy.

quote:

---

Not to mention these little socialist planners are killing people in the process and bankrupting the health care systems in nations nutty enough to adopt them.

---

Why does it matter to you? You aren't unfortunate enough to live in one of those countries so why do you care?

quote:

---

Next time the bloated fathead Moore gets sick, let's send him to Cuba for treatment...but not to hospitals or clinics the communist elite use...but rather to hospitals and clinics the ordinary people of Cuba use.

---

Have you ever been to Cuba to use one of these "ordinary" hospitals/clinics? How can you vouch for the disrepair of said clinics and hospitals unless you've been personally treated in one?

posted July 31, 2007 11:35 PM         

These murderous leftist thugs were following the Marx doctrines precisely.

Now, we have a leftist moron touting the Cuban health care system and as usual, Michael Moore is lying through his teeth. Health care for the average Cuban is an antiquated, unsanitary, miserable experience.

The Myth of Cuban Health Care: Michael Moore gives it a powerful boost
By Jay Nordlinger
Jul 12, 2007 - 2:11:24 PM

MICHAEL MOORE has made another piece of pure propaganda. This film, called Sicko, attacks the American health-care system. You will agree that there is a lot to attack. But Moore glorifies socialist systems, which have problems all their own. And perhaps his worst offense is to glorify Fidel Castro’s system, as has been done endlessly for as long as most people can remember.

Moore hit on an inspired idea: He took a group of sick Amer¬icans to Cuba, to seek health care. Not only are these unfortunate people Americans: They are 9/11 rescue workers, heroes. They have been denied the care they need in America (or so the film alleges), and must get it elsewhere.

As the group is heading to Havana, we hear a song: “I’m on my way to Cuba . . . where all is happy; Cuba, where all is gay.” And it appears exactly this way in Moore’s film. You may remember that, in his previous film, Fahrenheit 9/11 , Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was portrayed as a nation of happy kite-fliers. The same artistry is applied to Sicko .

The Left has always had a deep psychological need to believe in the myth of Cuban health care. On that island, as everywhere else, Communism has turned out to be a disaster: economic, physical, and moral. Not only have persecution, torture, and murder been routine, there is nothing material to show for it. The Leninist rationalization was, “You have to break some eggs to make an omelet.” Orwell memorably replied, “Where’s the omelet?” There is never an omelet.

But Castro’s apologists have tried to create one. Their hopes rest on three lies, principally: that Castro cares for the sick; that he is responsible for almost universal literacy; and that he has been a boon to blacks. Castroite propaganda has been extraordinarily effective, reaching even to people who should know better. Among the most disgraceful words ever uttered by a secretary of state were uttered by Colin Powell in 2001, when he said, “He’s done some good things for his people.” The “he,” of course, was Cuba’s dictator.

It was hard to know which was worse: the “his people,” which is certainly how Castro thinks of Cubans. Or the imagined omelet, the “good things.”

The myth of Cuban health care has been debunked in article after article, for the last several decades. (Remember that Castro took power in 1959.) But Michael Moore has given the myth fresh legs, necessitating another round of such articles. If I had a nickel for every article I’ve read entitled “The Myth of Cuban Health Care” . . . But here is another one.

SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL
To be sure, there is excellent health care on Cuba — just not for ordinary Cubans. Dr. Jaime Suchlicki of the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies explains that there is not just one system, or even two: There are three. The first is for foreigners who come to Cuba specifically for medical care. This is known as “medical tourism.” The tourists pay in hard currency, which provides oxygen to the regime. And the facilities in which they are treated are First World: clean, well supplied, state-of-the-art.

The foreigners-only facilities do a big business in what you might call vanity treatments: Botox, liposuction, and breast implants. Remember, too, that there are many separate, or segregated, facilities on Cuba. People speak of “tourism apartheid.” For example, there are separate hotels, separate beaches, separate restaurants — separate everything. As you can well imagine, this causes widespread resentment in the general population.

The second health-care system is for Cuban elites — the Party, the military, official artists and writers, and so on. In the Soviet Union, these people were called the “nomenklatura.” And their system, like the one for medical tourists, is top-notch.

Then there is the real Cuban system, the one that ordinary people must use — and it is wretched. Testimony and documentation on the subject are vast. Hospitals and clinics are crumbling. Conditions are so unsanitary, patients may be better off at home, whatever home is. If they do have to go to the hospital, they must bring their own bedsheets, soap, towels, food, light bulbs — even toilet paper. And basic medications are scarce. In Sicko , even sophisticated medications are plentiful and cheap. In the real Cuba, finding an aspirin can be a chore. And an antibiotic will fetch a fortune on the black market.

A nurse spoke to Isabel Vincent of Canada’s National Post . “We have nothing,” said the nurse. “I haven’t seen aspirin in a Cuban store here for more than a year. If you have any pills in your purse, I’ll take them. Even if they have passed their expiry date.”

The equipment that doctors have to work with is either antiquated or nonexistent. Doctors have been known to reuse latex gloves — there is no choice. When they travel to the island, on errands of mercy, American doctors make sure to take as much equipment and as many supplies as they can carry. One told the Associated Press, “The [Cuban] doctors are pretty well trained, but they have nothing to work with. It’s like operating with knives and spoons.”

And doctors are not necessarily privileged citizens in Cuba. A doctor in exile told the Miami Herald that, in 2003, he earned what most doctors did: 575 pesos a month, or about 25 dollars. He had to sell pork out of his home to get by. And the chief of medical services for the whole of the Cuban military had to rent out his car as a taxi on weekends. “Everyone tries to survive,” he explained. (Of course, you can call a Cuban with a car privileged, whatever he does with it.)

So deplorable is the state of health care in Cuba that old-fashioned diseases are back with a vengeance. These include tuberculosis, leprosy, and typhoid fever. And dengue, another fever, is a particular menace. Indeed, an exiled doctor named Dessy Mendoza Rivero — a former political prisoner and a spectacularly brave man — wrote a book called ¡Dengue! La Epidemia Secreta de Fidel Castro.

INFANT MORTALITY
When Castro seized power, almost 50 years ago, Cuba was one of the most advanced countries in Latin America. Its infant-mortality rate was the 13th-lowest in all the world, ahead of even France, Belgium, and West Germany. Statistics in Castro’s Cuba are hard to come by, because honest statistics in any totalitarian society are hard to come by. Some kind of accounting is possible, however: Cuba has slipped in infant mortality, as it has in every other area (except repression). But its infant-mortality rate remains respectable.

You might suspect a story behind this respectability — and you are right. The regime is very keen on keeping infant mortality down, knowing that the world looks to this statistic as an indicator of the general health of a country. Cuban doctors are instructed to pay particular attention to prenatal and infant care. A woman’s pregnancy is closely monitored. (The regime manages to make the necessary equipment available.) And if there is any sign of abnormality, any reason for concern — the pregnancy is “interrupted.” That is the going euphemism for abortion. The abortion rate in Cuba is sky-high, perversely keeping the infant-mortality rate down.

Many doctors, of course, recoil at this state of affairs. And there is much doctor dissidence on the island. Some physicians have opened their own clinics, caring for the poor and desperate according to medical standards, not according to ideology or governmental dictates. The authorities have warned that, in the words of one report, “new dissidences in the public-health sector will not be tolerated.” Anyone trying to work outside of approved channels is labeled a counterrevolutionary or enemy agent.

Furthermore, the shortage of doctors on the island is acute — which is strange, because there are abundant Cuban doctors. Where are they? They’re abroad. In fact, a standard joke is that, in order to see a Cuban doctor, a Cuban must contrive to leave the island.

In his film, Michael Moore speaks of the “generosity” of Castro’s health programs. What he means, in part, is that Castro has long sent doctors overseas on “humanitarian medical missions.” These missions are an important part of the dictator’s self-image, and of his image at large. Cuban doctors go to such “revolutionary” countries as Chávez’s Venezuela, Morales’s Bolivia, and Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. The missions are lucrative for Castro, bringing him about $2.5 billion a year.

Yet they are somewhat risky for him, too. The Cubans abroad are vigilantly watched, and the regime seldom sends unmarried doctors: They want wives and families back home, as hostages. Still, the Cuban doctors defect, and do so by the hundreds. They make a run for it in every country in which they serve, in any way they can. For example, doctors in Venezuela flee into Colombia; others try a friendly embassy, or start yelling in some international airport, during a transfer. Many of the doctors’ stories are heart-stoppingly dramatic. And when they have secured asylum, they tell the truth, about Cuban medicine both at home and abroad.

One of the things that sicken them, about their foreign service, is that they see what Cuba can provide: in equipment, in medications, in personnel. And yet this bounty is not available to Cubans (ordinary Cubans). It is sold to foreigners, to keep Castro’s regime in business.

And this brings up a point concerning Castro’s apologists: If they must concede that Cuban health care is a shambles, their fallback position is that it’s all the fault of the American “embargo.” And yet Cuba has no problem taking care of people in other countries, for show and profit. Moreover, American trade with Cuba in medical goods is virtually unfettered, and American humanitar¬ian aid is considerable.

THE PRESENCE OF HEROES
Above, I spoke of doctor dissidence — and a particularly painful aspect of Moore-like myth-making is that some of the most courageous, most admirable, and most persecuted people on the island are doctors: men and women who have rebelled against health-care injustices and injustices in general. Oscar Elías Biscet is possibly the most noted of such people. He is in one of Castro’s most wretched dungeons. Michael Moore would not even think of taking his cameras to it (and, in any case, he would not be allowed).

Biscet, like so many of the human-rights figures, happens to be “Afro-Cuban.” And, as Mary Anastasia O’Grady of the Wall Street Journal has pointed out, the regime is especially vicious toward such figures, because they are supposed to be grateful for all the Revolution has done for them. Dr. Mendoza, who wrote about dengue, is also Afro-Cuban. So is Dr. Dariel “Darsi” Ferrer.

He has managed to stay out of prison, somewhat miraculously — perhaps because there has been a fair amount of international attention on him. Ferrer operates the Center for Health and Human Rights. In 2005, he penned a statement called “Health Authorities and the Complicity of Silence.” Though he has avoided prison, the regime has subjected him to terrible abuses, including actos de repudio , or acts of repudiation. These are those lovely episodes in which mobs are unleashed on your home, family, and friends.

Hilda Molina Morejón is another doctor-dissident — a stunning case. She was the country’s chief neurosurgeon, the founder of the International Center for Neurological Restoration. She was also a deputy in the National Assembly. In the early 1990s, however, the regime informed her that the neurological center would start concentrating on foreigners, who would bring their hard currency. She objected, resigning her positions and returning the medals that Castro had awarded her. Then came actos de repudio and all the rest of it (but not prison). She has been forbidden to leave the island, and is banned from practicing medicine. She manages, despite the circumstances, to speak out.

“Live not by lies!” said Solzhenitsyn. “Live not by lies!” And yet Cuban Communism and its enablers have lived by them for a half-century. Totalitarians always depend on these lies. Robert Conquest, the great scholar of the Soviet Union, remembers a health official telling him, in private, that many hospitals lacked even running water. Yet public assertions were much different. And there have always been Potemkin-style visits, such as Moore’s. He is simply more talented than most of the others.

Once Communism collapses in Cuba — or if it does — will there be a reckoning? When I was growing up, East Germany was presented to me, by misguided teachers and professors, as a fine social democracy. Earlier this year, a movie called The Lives of Others won an Academy Award. It told some of the truth about East Germany. What will future generations make of Sicko , particularly its portrait of Cuba?

In the meantime, the movie will do a lot of harm, cementing the myth of Cuban health care, among other myths. Castro’s health minister, José Ramón Balaguer, is well pleased. “There’s no doubt that a documentary by someone of Michael Moore’s stature will help the world see the deeply humane principles of Cuban society,” he said. You wonder, sometimes — in the face of constant and powerful myth-making — whether articles in magazines, and the daring and anguished testimonies of Hilda Molina et al., and the cries of an entire society, can make a dent.

I have an indelible memory, from the mid-1980s. Armando Valladares was at Harvard, speaking to students. He had emerged from 22 years in the Cuban gulag, and had written the memoir Against All Hope . (Valladares is often called the Cuban Sol¬zhenitsyn.) In the Q&A, the kids spouted at him the usual line about Cuba: health care, literacy, and blacks. They had been carefully taught it by their teachers. And Valladares answered, in essence, “It’s all untrue — a pack of lies. But even if it were true: Can’t a country have those things without dictatorship, without tyranny, without gulags, without torture — with freedom?”

There is no omelet. There never is. But even if there were — so what?
http://canf1.org/artman/publish/home_page/The_Myth_of_Cub an_Health_Care_Michael_Moore_gives_it_a_powerful_boost.shtml

When I speak about not talking about people behind their backs...I mean members here talking about other members who are not here to defend themselves...or who are being talked about on threads on which they are not posting.

It is a fact that there are long waits for treatment and even long waits to see a primary care physician..let along getting referred to a specialist. This happens in countries with socialized medicine and it's happening more and more frequently in those countries.

Bill Clinton would likely be dead if he were a citizen of a nation with socialized medicine...oh, but wait, the elites go right to the front of the lines for treatment and everyone else be damned. But in America anyone with Clintons symptoms would have and do get the diagnostic tests followed by prompt treatment...whether they can pay or not and whether they have insurance coverage or not.

I'm amazed some people can't determine the difference between Health Insurance and Health Care.

Of course, you could have found all this out for yourself and easily too...if you actually had any desire whatsoever to find out the truth about Cuban medicine and socialized medicine in particular.

posted August 01, 2007 12:14 AM         

quote:

---

But in America anyone with Clintons symptoms would have and do get the diagnostic tests followed by prompt treatment...whether they can pay or not and whether they have insurance coverage or not.

---

Right. Why don't you ask the 47 million or so Americans without health insurance how simple that is. The emergency room is never prompt. Which is where most uninsured Americans end up, after waiting until the last possible moment of avoidance. Then there's the hassle of dealing with the receptionists and being treated like second/third class citizen because you have to tell them you have no insurance. And having to pay twice as much as an insured person would be charged, just because they can charge you that due to having no insurance. Or telling you they might just deny you care, unless you can pay for the procedure UP FRONT first.

If you've been fortuneate enough to never have to deal with this kind of degrading, spirit crushing, and demeaning experience, then count your lucky stars, and then praise god, allah, buddha, or whomever.

quote:

---

Jeez, must we endure yet another round of "give communism a chance". Echos from the 70's when the left was spouting the nonsense and general drivel that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho and Castro weren't/aren't true communists.

---

No I just want an answer to my questions:

I'm really curious as to why you have, it seems to me, a throw the baby out with the bathwater attitude, when it comes to socialism and communism? Just because people have committed horrible crimes against humanity whilst calling themselves socialists, or communists, doesn't mean that these systems have no value. By this reasoning, we should get rid of every major world religion. Are you Christian? There have been horrors perpetrated against humanity in the guise of "being Christian, and doing God's good work." Does this mean we get rid of spiritual systems of belief or that they have no intrinsic value because of the actions of people who claimed to believe this particular religion all the while killing/raping/murdering/trampling the basic rights other beings?

Peace.
GG

posted August 02, 2007 11:20 AM         

If you're talking about socialized medicine...socialized health care delivery...then I would suggest that in the communist/socialist governmental and economic system that "baby" is nothing larger than a spore in a bathtub the size of the Pacific Ocean.

However GG, this is your big chance to extol all the successes of communism and socialism. Please list all their triumphs.
1.
2.
3.

Warning, you may be falling into a trap.

In the meantime, socialized health care continues to be the dead end which really means rationing of health care, depletion of trained medical staffs..including physicians.. and the bankrupting of socialized health care delivery systems in nations which have adopted that system.

Do you want the DMV dispensing health care?
Posted: July 25, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56822

Americans 'lied to' about '47 million uninsured'
Bush, Hillary, Michael Moore said to greatly exaggerate stats on health care
Posted: July 19, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56742

With 'universal' health care, we all wait
Posted: July 6, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56522

Let me suggest to you GG that those waiting in hospital emergency rooms for treatment wait a hell of a lot less time than those just trying to get an appointment with a primary care physician in the socialized health care delivery systems, which is where it all starts in those systems...which is sometimes months and much, much much longer to get on the waiting list to see a specialist and the much, much, much, much longer wait to get actual diagnostics and/or treatment.

Socialized health care is the very definition of "sicko".

lalalinda

posted August 02, 2007 02:03 PM         

Jwhop, ever look at health statistics for our country versus countries with more socialistic systems in place? Yeah, I didn't think you had, or else you wouldn't go near this debate.

America where they'll do anything to save your life EXCEPT care about your health. We have a right to police, a right to firemen, a right to prison guards, a right to healthy foods and drugs (at least in theory), a right to laws (for instance speed limits), but no right to even health examinations or preventative medicine.

Now I know you're not using Communism and Socialism as excuses to be against socialized healthcare. Remember your excuse for hating these ideologies is due to the people who exploit their systems and turn them into murderous regimes. Providing healthcare doesn't turn a nation into a murderous regime. That's the most incongruous argument possible.

Also, I shouldn't have to point out the irony of a "Right to Life"r not believing that people should universally have access to healthcare. I don't get the Right's flip-floppy morals on health. Do people have a right to life or not?

posted August 02, 2007 03:57 PM         

quote:

---

Jwhop, ever look at health statistics for our country versus countries with more socialistic systems in place? Yeah, I didn't think you had, or else you wouldn't go near this debate.

America where they'll do anything to save your life EXCEPT care about your health. We have a right to police, a right to firemen, a right to prison guards, a right to healthy foods and drugs (at least in theory), a right to laws (for instance speed limits), but no right to even health examinations or preventative medicine.

Now I know you're not using Communism and Socialism as excuses to be against socialized healthcare. Remember your excuse for hating these ideologies is due to the people who exploit their systems and turn them into murderous regimes. Providing healthcare doesn't turn a nation into a murderous regime. That's the most incongruous argument possible.
Also, I shouldn't have to point out the irony of a "Right to Life"r not believing that people should universally have access to healthcare. I don't get the Right's flip-floppy morals on health. Do people have a right to life or not?
....acoustic

---

**Edit**

One more thing acoustic.

Please explain...in detail...why citizens of Canada and other nations with socialized health care come to the United States and PAY for health care here.

posted August 02, 2007 04:41 PM         

quote:

---

As usual acoustic, you cannot put together a coherent argument and are reduced to nibbling around the edges of issues....in typical leftist style.

---

I just threw your argument in the garbage, and you can't recover, so you say some BS to save some face? Way to go Sport.

quote:

---

Please explain...in detail...why citizens of Canada and other nations with socialized health care come to the United States and PAY for health care here.

---

Please explain to me in detail why it is that you think they immigrate here for our healthcare. As far as I'm aware, most of the people who move here from other parts of the world do NOT do so for health reasons. If you can prove otherwise I'd love to see it. I know for a fact that our healthcare system is not the envy of the world.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Ok, now that we've dispensed with the nonsense, let's move back to the topic at hand.

Statistics?:
http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states .htm http://www.nchc.org/facts/quality.shtml

Most Americans who cannot afford healthcare: http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

Great article about healthcare: http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1498