SpursReport.com

SpursReport.com (http://www.spursreport.com/forums/)
-   Hardball Politics (http://www.spursreport.com/forums/hardball-politics/)
-   -   "Capitalism is evil," says new Michael Moore film (http://www.spursreport.com/forums/hardball-politics/74347-capitalism-evil-says-new-michael-moore-film.html)

jessi 09-06-09 04:50 PM

"Capitalism is evil," says new Michael Moore film
 
VENICE (Reuters) - Capitalism is evil. That is the conclusion U.S. documentary maker Michael Moore comes to in his latest movie "Capitalism: A Love Story," which premieres at the Venice film festival Sunday.

Blending his trademark humor with tragic individual stories, archive footage and publicity stunts, the 55-year-old launches an all out attack on the capitalist system, arguing that it benefits the rich and condemns millions to poverty.

"Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil," the two-hour movie concludes.

"You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy."

The bad guys in Moore's mind are big banks and hedge funds which "gambled" investors' money in complex derivatives that few, if any, really understood and which belonged in the casino.

Meanwhile, large companies have been prepared to lay off thousands of staff despite boasting record profits.

The filmmaker also sees an uncomfortably close relationship between banks, politicians and U.S. Treasury officials, meaning that regulation has been changed to favor the few on Wall Street rather than the many on Main Street.

He says that by encouraging Americans to borrow against the value of their homes, businesses created the conditions that led to the crisis, and with it homelessness and unemployment.

Moore even features priests who say capitalism is anti-Christian by failing to protect the poor.

"Essentially we have a law which says gambling is illegal but we've allowed Wall Street to do this and they've played with people's money and taken it into these crazy areas of derivatives," Moore told an audience in Venice.

"They need more than just regulation. We need to structure ourselves differently in order to create finance and money, support for jobs, businesses, etc."

GREEN SHOOTS?

Amid the gloom, Moore detects the beginnings of a popular movement against unbridled capitalism, and believes President Barack Obama's rise to power may bolster it.

"Democracy is not a spectator sport, it's a participatory event," he told a news conference. "If we don't participate in it, it ceases to be a democracy. So Obama will rise or fall based not so much on what he does but on what we do to support him."

Moore also warned other countries around the world against following the recent U.S. economic and political model.The film follows factory workers who stage a sit-in at a Chicago glass factory when they are sacked with little warning and no pay and who eventually prevail over the bank.

And a group of citizens occupies a home that has been repossessed and boarded up by the lending company, forcing the police who come to evict them to back down.

The film re-visits some of Moore's earlier movies, including a trip to his native Flint where his father was a car assembly line worker and was able to buy a home, a car, educate his children and look forward to a decent pension.

But he brings it up to date with an examination of the financial crisis, demanding to speak to the bosses of companies at the center of the collapse and demanding that banks give back the hundreds of billions of bailout dollars to the country.

And he interviews an employee of a firm which buys up re-possessed, or "distressed" properties at a fraction of their original value and which is called Condo Vultures.

Capitalism is evil, says new Michael Moore film | Lifestyle | Reuters

Jason R 09-06-09 11:57 PM

Unregulated capitalism, I believe, can lead to its evil. Because it seems unregulated capitalism inevitably will produce several big businesses that stay completely out of each other's way to maximize their profits. It used to be that the general thinking was that profits were driven down by several businesses competing for the same market. Over the past few decades businesses instead go to other waters to maximize their profits while keeping a semblance of competition that doesn't pass benefits down to the consumer. The Japanese car industry did this to good effect for a good while, and some of the bigger businesses in the U.S. including HMO providers seem to be in the same basket.

Sith Lord 09-07-09 09:40 PM

And I can guess with 99% accuracy that most of the people he interviews in this movie are conservative. Because NO liberal has ever done anything bad.

Sith

Jason R 09-07-09 10:05 PM

Not so sure. Moore had no problem attacking Hillary Clinton despite pleading from the producers since she was a family friend.

Bryhn 09-08-09 09:28 AM

Because of capitalism, Moore has been able to make his movies and a lot of money along the way. Without captialism, we would all be limited in our ability to make a better life for ourselves.

TheLadiesMike 09-09-09 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryhn (Post 1160317)
Because of capitalism, Moore has been able to make his movies and a lot of money along the way. Without captialism, we would all be limited in our ability to make a better life for ourselves.

Exactly. I am so sick of rich liberals who want to tax the other "rich" people (which includes middle class folks) to "solve" problems but never offer up their own money. :rolleyes

WhiteChocolateJr 09-09-09 02:20 PM

I'm not a Michael Moore fan--but I do appreciate his passion for getting overlooked and ignored issues out there, discussed, and noticed. Specifically, Moore spotlights the unpleasant issues that we don't like to talk about. Issues such as: is the government for sale? Are politicians merely inept, or are they corrupt? Is America concerned with its poorest citizens?

Sure, Moore is a disingenuous mope at best, and at worst, a sleazy, fat liar...but even at that, there are better "Capitalist Libs" more appropriate to poke at.

As much as he's been vilified, Moore is reportedly generous in private, has publically reached out to help a FHB with whom he politcally disagrees, and donates much of the proceeds from his documentaries to the cause upon which the movie is based.

In other words: He ain't preachin' what he isn't willing to practice himself.

(As a related aside: You do realize that Pastor John Hagee rails against the evils of greed and gluttony in his weekly mega-church address...and then sits back in his Dominion mega-mansion and collects his MILLIONS/year. At least Moore doesn't pretend to be a mouthpiece for anyone other than himself while raking in the bucks. And to preempt the tired argument: NO. Moore is not, was not, and never will be "the spokesperson" for the left. Michael Moore is a self-described "entertainer"--just like Glenn Beck is for the right. Period.)

Jason R 09-09-09 06:29 PM

Well I wouldn't conflate conservative or Christian with approval of mega churches WC. I'm neither pro Hagee nore Pro Moore. I'm a raised Republican with two degrees and my msters coming down the pipe, a fully devoted servant of Christ with a long ministry history, and at the same time I voted Obama, am pro Health Reform, am not necessarily anti Socialist in terms of I believe some elements would help the system... and so on. I know you're not specifically addressing anybody and that it's hard to speak to a specific audience when on the internet we're pretty much winnowed to Conservative/Liberal, but I don't assume that because I feel you're liberal I think that means you embrace everything stereotypically associated with those elements. Neither do I make that association of Conservatives either.

You are right though, Moore has been at least somewhat generous with his earnings. As the movie the Watchmen tells us, life's more about the grays than the black and whites. Can't see a man through only one lens, and what a travesty if we only see them through their party affiliations.

WhiteChocolateJr 09-09-09 09:08 PM

^^^ I'm with you 100% Jase. Problem is, the grays don't lead the ratings.

medigerati 09-10-09 07:37 PM

I think Moore is attacking the wrong philosophy. Capitalism is based on paying a fair price for a good product. If you're not charging a fair price or offering a good product, you'll be out of business soon. No matter the size, Capitalism works.

What Moore should be questioning is why we've gone away from Capitalism. Obviously big businesses like GM (who he hates) and such stay in business, even when the free market tries to put them out of it. The reason is not Capitalism, but the government.

Look at who bailed out GM when they should have fallen flat on their faces for all the layoffs and overseas work they've done. The government. That's not a free market and that's not capitalism. Moore should be attacked the system that keeps bad business models in the running, today's overstretched government.

Jason, you complained about HMO's. Where do those come from? An oversized government. Where did lending companies get so much money that they were able to take extraordinary risks? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government inflated organizations.

Moore is right about one issue. The government isn't doing its job. That's who we need to attack. Where are his movies about that?

Bryhn 09-10-09 10:14 PM

Quote:

I think Moore is attacking the wrong philosophy. Capitalism is based on paying a fair price for a good product. If you're not charging a fair price or offering a good product, you'll be out of business soon. No matter the size, Capitalism works.

What Moore should be questioning is why we've gone away from Capitalism. Obviously big businesses like GM (who he hates) and such stay in business, even when the free market tries to put them out of it. The reason is not Capitalism, but the government.

Look at who bailed out GM when they should have fallen flat on their faces for all the layoffs and overseas work they've done. The government. That's not a free market and that's not capitalism. Moore should be attacked the system that keeps bad business models in the running, today's overstretched government.

Jason, you complained about HMO's. Where do those come from? An oversized government. Where did lending companies get so much money that they were able to take extraordinary risks? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government inflated organizations.

Moore is right about one issue. The government isn't doing its job. That's who we need to attack. Where are his movies about that?
__________________
Exactly, and it was started with TARP. All we have done is prolonged the pain. Had the government stayed out of it, it certainly would have been painful right away but would have recovered quicker and without puting our country in serious debt.

I do believe the government is needed to help regulate, but not be in business.

Many big companies gambled with their money, and they should pay the price. We all will pay the price to some degree, because most of Americans all the while were living beyond their means.

The government is acting like a spoiled teenager that has spent all his money and maxed out his credit card, but isn't worried because he will never have to pay it back.

Jason R 09-11-09 12:37 AM

Well don't take my support of Health Care Reform as a reason to think I support Moore over all; I only a week or two ago had a conversation about how I believe Capitalism is fundamentally a more revolutionary concept than Socialism, and has the entirety of support. My argument concerning HMOs has always been that they are using Nash equilibrium as opposed to typical market driven competition in order to maximize profits as opposed to drive down costs.

I do somewhat agree with the notion that certain companies are too big to fail; I don't have the entire economic grasp of it but there as so many attached businesses beyond the car makers, by which I mean the labor creating the components and such, not to mention the various shoot offs after the car reaches lot, etc. That to lose them all at once strikes me as what would have really tipped a depression. Maybe that is what needed to happen; but on the other hand the recession could also have been far more detrimental because of it.

admiralsnackbar 09-11-09 12:53 AM

I'll join the chorus of people who believe Moore is a manipulative blowhard, but I agree with WCJ that his redeeming attribute is as a creator of discussion. Just as it is premature to say Moore is an anti-capitalist (or condemn him a hypocrite for having had success in this country) before watching the film, so is it foolish to believe capitalism is without it's flaws.

If people would take the time to read Marx shorn of his cold war-inspired infamy, they'd find that Das Kapital is a brilliant and prescient criticism of unchecked capitalism which unfortunately happens to conclude with the naively utopian solution for which it is, alas, generally remembered. I love this country and its institutions profoundly, but to act as though it is flawless doesn't strike me as patriotic. We gathered to form "a more perfect Union," and that is a process, not an end.

As for the TARP, while the logic and spirit which led to it's passage is, IMO unassailably correct (the alternative would be for the entire country to suffer for the criminal indiscretions of bankers and insurers), its execution was seemingly as corrupt and botched as the situation which demanded it. If the result is a return to strict government regulation which shrinks and diversifies the corporations that crashed the economy, then it won't have been for naught. If all we're going to do is let these criminals off with a stern talking-to, then there is no question that Bush and Obama have done us and our children a grave injustice. Time will tell. Hopefully what is left of our journalistic core will keep us all informed enough to keep the pressure for regulation and transparency on the government agencies tasked with correcting the wrongs that led us to this place.

Bryhn 09-12-09 03:40 PM

Quote:

My argument concerning HMOs has always been that they are using Nash equilibrium as opposed to typical market driven competition in order to maximize profits as opposed to drive down costs.
I completely agree. HMO's will never be of any benefit. They are a rip off for the doctor, which turns out to be a rip off for the consumer.
But don't be fooled that a government option won't become a similar structure and situation.

WhiteChocolateJr 09-24-09 11:31 PM


Bryhn 09-25-09 10:16 AM

I watched this interview, and he does make some points. I agree with him that the current economy is above the general public and that it is being played with by big companies and politicians from both sides.

He never fully answered the question about the hypocricy. His claim that 75% of the general population wants universal health care is absurd. The only change this country is seeing, is the government jumping into the top of the pyramid he's talking about. Socialism will put us all at the bottom of the pyramid and less than 1% at the very top, and universal health care will be a huge step in that direction. He doesn't say he wants socialism, but universal health care is the heartbeat of socialism. What are we suppose to think?

I also notice the interview gets cut off when he is asked what he thinks about Obama continuing the bail outs. He lost some credibility at that point. He also has it wrong about banks. Banks are in business. They do not exist to serve the public. They offer a service and compete for our business (or should compete, the bailouts have removed competition). If you don't want to spend 5.00 at the ATM, then go through the drive-through and withdraw for free. The banks are businesses.

The banks basically gambled with their money. That is their fault. The government played a part in all of it ending with a huge bail out. We all got suckered by politicians from both sides of the isle.

The greatest thing he mentioned was what he felt John Adams intentions were many years ago and that we should all be on that same page.

admiralsnackbar 09-25-09 02:22 PM

Quote:

Universal health care is the heartbeat of socialism.
What does that even mean? :lol

And why health care? Why isn't public education "the heartbeat of socialism?" Or police departments?

Is Canada a totalitarian socialist state by virtue of having nationalized health care? Is Germany? Spain? Last I checked all three of their economies were doing alright and none were headed towards totalitarianism.

Bryhn 09-25-09 03:45 PM

Because universal health care leaves no alternative. You don't have to send your child to public school. Universal health care will be the end of private pay, which is why people from those other countries come here for treatment. Those countries may not be there yet, but they are closer to it.

Universal health care is not what this country is about, and to compare it to education and police force is rediculous. We are talking about insurance not health care. Everyone gets healthcare already, so why add to the expense? Why make the middle class pay even more than they already do? Universal health care is a giant leap toward socialism, so you keep laughing and we'll see how happy you are when your 70 years old and you're not going to get treated like dear old Ted. Make no mistake health care will most likely be rationed and quality of care will be reduced.

Jason R 09-25-09 04:40 PM

You're more likely to drive health care down through preventative means as opposed to expensive last minute surgeries.

Jason R 09-25-09 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar (Post 1162335)
What does that even mean? :lol

And why health care? Why isn't public education "the heartbeat of socialism?" Or police departments?

Is Canada a totalitarian socialist state by virtue of having nationalized health care? Is Germany? Spain? Last I checked all three of their economies were doing alright and none were headed towards totalitarianism.

Education is far more easily a cornerstone for socialism, I would say.

admiralsnackbar 09-25-09 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryhn (Post 1162393)
Because universal health care leaves no alternative. You don't have to send your child to public school. Universal health care will be the end of private pay, which is why people from those other countries come here for treatment. Those countries may not be there yet, but they are closer to it.

Universal health care is not what this country is about, and to compare it to education and police force is rediculous. We are talking about insurance not health care. Everyone gets healthcare already, so why add to the expense? Why make the middle class pay even more than they already do? Universal health care is a giant leap toward socialism, so you keep laughing and we'll see how happy you are when your 70 years old and you're not going to get treated like dear old Ted. Make no mistake health care will most likely be rationed and quality of care will be reduced.


What's up with the declarative statements? The USA is about adapting to the needs and desires of its polity, while remaining consistent with its constitution. Given that enough people are interested in some sort of nationalized health care to bring it to the table, I'd say it's perfectly American -- even if you disagree with the notion.

As far as the loss of choice... straw man. Health insurers aren't going anywhere, they'll just be forced to offer more specialized products. As you say: nobody forces you to go to public school in this country. Well, nobody will force you to accept nationalized health insurance if you'd rather keep your policy. Unlike education, however, you won't be taxed for it whether you use it or not: the plan appears to be that those who use it will pay for it.

As far as people from other countries coming here to use our hospitals, you neglect to add that those that do are rich and can afford to go to the best clinics and doctors in the world, not Average Joes like you and I. By and large, socialized medicine in the countries I listed has been an unqualified success.

As far as "making the middle class pay more," I'm not buying it, Brhyn. You and I both already pay for the uninsured folks who use emergency rooms in taxes and inflated premiums. Add to that immense, inefficient bureacracies and ridiculous executive salaries. If the private health insurance companies offer such a better product, they shouldn't be afraid to compete against it in the free market -- my guess is they can't and they know it.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but really all you appear to have are unsubstantiated declarations of this dystopian future tha will happen if something like a public option were to come to be. Where are your arguments? If you think comparing UH with other socialistic amenities of American life is ridiculous, back up your argument. I happen to not see why such comparisons are out of bounds.

Bryhn 09-25-09 11:22 PM

Quote:

Given that enough people are interested in some sort of nationalized health care to bring it to the table, I'd say it's perfectly American -- even if you disagree with the notion.
What is enough, and who are you to say it is a given? Do you really think the majority of this nation wants universal health care?

Quote:

Well, nobody will force you to accept nationalized health insurance if you'd rather keep your policy. Unlike education, however, you won't be taxed for it whether you use it or not: the plan appears to be that those who use it will pay for it.
Wrong...Universal health care means a single payer system, which WILL eliminate private pay ability AND there are strong indications that health insurance will be mandated. How in the world will they be able to pay for it if they don't? And you can bet your last dollar we will be taxed, fined or forced to pay for it. Call it what you want, but it is the government taking our money.

Quote:

As far as people from other countries coming here to use our hospitals, you neglect to add that those that do are rich and can afford to go to the best clinics and doctors in the world, not Average Joes like you and I. By and large, socialized medicine in the countries I listed has been an unqualified success.
The point is that the health care in this country is not only the best in the world, but the only care that is attainable for them. They are wealthy, and still can not get the type of care they want. Have you treated a patient from Europe? I have treated several, and it is a shame what they have experienced. And you think the average Joe has it bad now? Just wait. With universal health care the best doctors will be gone. They won't let the government dictate to them how to treat patients. To pay for the best doctors will be considered black market.

Quote:

Add to that immense, inefficient bureacracies and ridiculous executive salaries.
No kidding. You just described the U.S. government and it's many useless bureacracies. Medicare, Social Security? They are broke, and now for the baby boomers that have paid over 40 years into Medicare are about to have it taken away to fund yet another project.


Let's say you are 36 years old. You have had some complications with your bowel movements. You are on a universal health care system. You are under the age of 50. There is already a one year waiting list for a colonoscopy for those who are over the age of 50 and fall into the category of risks for colon disease. You on the other hand are not probable to have an issue at your age. You do not get one, even if your doctor thinks you ought to have one. Add to the fact that almost half the physicians in this country would consider retiring or quiting if some form of public option passes and that says a lot.

Quote:

I don't mean to sound harsh, but really all you appear to have are unsubstantiated declarations of this dystopian future tha will happen if something like a public option were to come to be. Where are your arguments? If you think comparing UH with other socialistic amenities of American life is ridiculous, back up your argument. I happen to not see why such comparisons are out of bounds.
I don't feel like you have really offered anything better. Universal health care establishes an enormous dependency on the government. Your very life to be specific. This breeds a more socialistic population and I believe the movement by the democratic/progressive parties early in the previous century did a good job of cultivating it. Our universities nurture it, and our media stokes it. Universal health care has (as many analysts refer to it) been the holy grail for the democratic party. I see it quite appropriate to view as I do.

It doesn't mean I am against good quality health care for everyone. I am just against a system that will give everyone coverage, but in only a very limited way. I do think that universal health care is a huge part of becoming socialistic. If you don't, I really don't care. It still doesn't make this o.k..

admiralsnackbar 09-28-09 07:12 AM

Quote:

What is enough, and who are you to say it is a given? Do you really think the majority of this nation wants universal health care?
I'm as leery of polls as the next guy, but have I seen enough polls to support the notion that a majority of Americans want a public option? Yes, yes, and yes. And don’t forget the baby boomers: the AARP wants it. And the AMA is waiting to see what shape the bill takes, which is probably the wisest course of action.

Anyway, whether or not you agree with those who seek UH or reform, I hope you would at least agree that our legislators need to be discussing this issue if our country still works the way we were taught it should in civics class. Even if something like UH is unprecedented, it isn't, by definition, un-American, as you wanted to paint it.

Quote:

Wrong...Universal health care means a single payer system, which WILL eliminate private pay ability AND there are strong indications that health insurance will be mandated. How in the world will they be able to pay for it if they don't? And you can bet your last dollar we will be taxed, fined or forced to pay for it. Call it what you want, but it is the government taking our money.
Considering there isn't a stable version of the bill to look at, we both probably need to shy away from saying what will and won't happen if a public option makes it into law, or if it does, how it will be implemented (one has to wonder if a tax hike could possibly be worse than the gouging Joe Schmo get from his insurance/annum, but that's neither here nor there). I WILL, however, disagree with your stance that a public option will necessarily destroy private pay ability.

Most people don't need police or fire a majority of the time. BUT, it IS safe to say we all could need those services at any time, and are glad to pay taxes to ensure those services are available. Now, to some people, the response time of fire or police is not adequate or satisfactory. Those people have hundreds of options. Our semi-free market system is loaded with alarm monitoring companies, private security firms, things like dedicated fire control systems for mission critical infrastructure in the corporate world. Those companies aren't getting put out of business by government provided fire and security. Those companies fill the gaps in those goverment services and thrive on the differences.

Your argument seems to be that if the government steps in, a vast majority of people won't support their private healthcare options provided by employers when a cheaper option is available. This will force private healthcare out of business and leave us with rationed government healthcare. I doubt it. If private healthcare wants to survive (much like our pals in detroit making cars) it MUST adapt. Right now there is no incentive to break the current broken system generating billions of dollars a year.

The whole idea that we, as consumers, can regulate the system by “voting with our wallets” is, sadly, wrong. Our system as it stands is set up to NEVER let that happen. Big healthcare companies like Aetna, Pacificare and Humana go after entire companies and industries and force them into an all or nothing approach to provide services. If I work for Valero and they have Humana, and I think Humana sucks; I can't reasonably afford to use another provider. Doing so would TRIPLE my annual healthcare costs. This is the way the game is rigged. There will never be reasonable competition on a individual level – nor will I ever have reasonable choices as a consumer -- the way things are.

Take our public library system, in which we all have access to free books. Perhaps we aren’t patient enough to wait for a book to become available (like rationed healthcare), or perhaps the book we want is too specialized and therefore isn’t and won’t be carried. In that case, you head out to your local Barnes and Noble, or hop online to Amazon.com, and shell out some cash. A public option doesn’t destroy the private industry, rather it makes both operations more efficient by forcing honest competition: if libraries don’t interest enough people to use their services, they lose funding, and are thus forced to provide better service more efficiently. By the same token, private companies are forced to be more efficient and offer products/services at competitive rates. Who wins? The consumer.

Or another example: the USPS. We all complain about how grossly inefficient and slow (like many pundits argue a public option would be) our government-run postal service is, and yet, many of us still use it. If we’re impatient and need a better, faster alternative, we call DHL, we call UPS, we call FedEx.

Here’s the USPS’ mandate:

“The mission of the Postal Service is to provide the American public with trusted universal postal service at affordable prices. While not explicitly defined, the Postal Service’s universal service obligation (USO) is broadly outlined in statute and includes multiple dimensions: geographic scope, range of products, access to services and facilities, delivery frequency, affordable and uniform pricing, service quality, and security of the mail. While other carriers claim to voluntarily provide delivery on a universal basis, the Postal Service is the only carrier with the obligation to provide all the various aspects of universal service at affordable rates.”

That sounds pretty good to me, but if I don’t like it, I have real, concrete options. Like I said... Obama's "plan" is a moving target, so I'm not endorsing it yet. But for you to say universal healthcare could never work is at the very least premature. This isn't government making a choice FOR you, it's government imposing a new option on an industry that is morally bankrupt at the highest levels. Can you imagine if police refused to protect citizens in the poorest part of the city, because "there was no money in it"? Access to care should never be based on ability to pay, any system designed on that principle is doomed to moral failure. That's what that oath you took was all about.

Quote:

The point is that the health care in this country is not only the best in the world, but the only care that is attainable for them. They are wealthy, and still can not get the type of care they want. Have you treated a patient from Europe? I have treated several, and it is a shame what they have experienced. And you think the average Joe has it bad now? Just wait. With universal health care the best doctors will be gone. They won't let the government dictate to them how to treat patients. To pay for the best doctors will be considered black market.
Then the faliure of their healthcare system is that they don’t allow for private competition to stimulate the market place. But before I feel sorry for the Europeans who can afford to travel over here because they don't get what they want, why don’t we beat our breasts for our fellow Texans who can’t even get insurance (TX has the most uninsured people per capita in the US)? Bad care is better than none, last I checked.

But even someone like myself, who pays his insurance bill every month... I can’t say with any reasonable certainty that I will receive the care I have been paying for if my provider decides my care will cost too much. You know all the tricks... I won't bore you.

And by the by, are you seriously telling me insurance companies don’t make decisions for you when they don’t agree to pay for a patient’s treatment, or make you jump through bureaucratic hoops (which my last policy forced my doctor to do) in order to receive payment? [PS, they ultimately stiffed him and he had to sue] The government payment system would differ how? Oh yeah... we don't know yet.

Quote:

No kidding. You just described the U.S. government and it's many useless bureacracies. Medicare, Social Security? They are broke, and now for the baby boomers that have paid over 40 years into Medicare are about to have it taken away to fund yet another project.
Again, since there’s nothing solid to talk about regarding legislation, the question isn’t how we’re going to pay for it yet, the question is “does it work?” I’m sure we could go for days about why Medicare/Medicaid and SS are in the state they are. But I’m watching Medicare and SS work pretty damn well for my father’s fight against esophageal cancer. And unlike our private policy, Medicare has yet to give us trouble.

Quote:

Let's say you are 36 years old. You have had some complications with your bowel movements. You are on a universal health care system. You are under the age of 50. There is already a one year waiting list for a colonoscopy for those who are over the age of 50 and fall into the category of risks for colon disease. You on the other hand are not probable to have an issue at your age. You do not get one, even if your doctor thinks you ought to have one. Add to the fact that almost half the physicians in this country would consider retiring or quiting if some form of public option passes and that says a lot.
Yet again, since neither of us knows what the legislation will look like, you have no basis to make this argument. Maybe the government WILL tell you how and when to treat your patients (in which case I’d stand beside you in protest) , but I seriously doubt it. The AMA is too strong a lobby representing too valuable a service to ever go for that.


[q] I don't feel like you have really offered anything better. Universal health care establishes an enormous dependency on the government. Your very life to be specific. This breeds a more socialistic population and I believe the movement by the democratic/progressive parties early in the previous century did a good job of cultivating it. Our universities nurture it, and our media stokes it. Universal health care has (as many analysts refer to it) been the holy grail for the democratic party. I see it quite appropriate to view as I do.

It doesn't mean I am against good quality health care for everyone. I am just against a system that will give everyone coverage, but in only a very limited way. I do think that universal health care is a huge part of becoming socialistic. If you don't, I really don't care. It still doesn't make this o.k..[/quote]

I’ll only add that to think you aren’t already part of a working socialist country seems wacky to me (we’re even communicating on a “socialist” medium... which I access through a private company. A familiar theme by now.)

We’ve very cleverly managed to balance free market economics with socialistic programs, and I don’t know why stimulating competition in an industry -- which hasn’t operated under anti-trust or anti-price-fixing laws since 1945, has time and again resisted policing itself and has, time and again, defrauded its clientsis – is going to spell our doom and force you out of business.

Money4Nothing 09-28-09 12:22 PM

Good points here, but don't misunderstand one of the mistakes that Moore made with his initial premise. Democracy and Capitalism are not competing ideologies. Democracy is a political system, and capitalism is an economic system. You can have both together, or one without the other, or neither. Capitalism does not necessarily make a democracy better, but Democracy most certainly makes Capitalism work better. Any basic college economics course or political science course can clear up these confusions.

These kind of elementary and ignorant conceptual errors are among the reasons that I dislike Moore. Worse are his various and numerous ineptitues with statistics.

Even though I admire his fundamental motivation to expose what he believes are dangers or inequities in our society, (and the quality entertainment factor of his movies) most of the time he's in over his head and ends up mangifying a small part of the issue into disproportionate importance.

He's a good filmmaker, but not a particularly well educated or skilled economist, scientist, or lawyer.

$

maurice13 09-28-09 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryhn (Post 1162393)
Because universal health care leaves no alternative. You don't have to send your child to public school. Universal health care will be the end of private pay, which is why people from those other countries come here for treatment. Those countries may not be there yet, but they are closer to it.

Universal health care is not what this country is about, and to compare it to education and police force is rediculous. We are talking about insurance not health care. Everyone gets healthcare already, so why add to the expense? Why make the middle class pay even more than they already do? Universal health care is a giant leap toward socialism, so you keep laughing and we'll see how happy you are when your 70 years old and you're not going to get treated like dear old Ted. Make no mistake health care will most likely be rationed and quality of care will be reduced.

To the US? The country with one of the most expensive and yet poorest quality of health care among developed countries? I'm not talking about a health care system, I'm talking about the quality of treatment.

US Health System Ranks Last Compared to Other Countries: Studies | CommonDreams.org

WhiteChocolateJr 09-29-09 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maurice13 (Post 1162803)
To the US? The country with one of the most expensive and yet poorest quality of health care among developed countries? I'm not talking about a health care system, I'm talking about the quality of treatment.

US Health System Ranks Last Compared to Other Countries: Studies | CommonDreams.org

No one would argue that the US doesn't have quality health care available; the debate is typically centered on access to that health care. Look at the life expectancy gap between the top echelon of society and the lower tier. Sure, the US has some of the best and highest technology in healthcare this planet has ever seen. The problem? Too many Americans just flat-out can't afford--and therefore, miss out on--that high quality medicine.

So...it's a safe assumption that the medical tourists referenced above didn't enter the US by walking across the border at night; it's much more likely that they were on a first-class flight.

maurice13 09-29-09 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteChocolateJr (Post 1162858)
No one would argue that the US doesn't have quality health care available; the debate is typically centered on access to that health care. Look at the life expectancy gap between the top echelon of society and the lower tier. Sure, the US has some of the best and highest technology in healthcare this planet has ever seen. The problem? Too many Americans just flat-out can't afford--and therefore, miss out on--that high quality medicine.

So...it's a safe assumption that the medical tourists referenced above didn't enter the US by walking across the border at night; it's much more likely that they were on a first-class flight.

I most certainly will argue that we don't have the highest quality of health care available. Study after study has shown that we lag behind other developed countries as far as quality of health care. Remember, there is no money in the cure only the treatment.

Whether you pay the most or the least, you are not getting bang for your buck in the US.

Jason R 09-29-09 02:13 PM

Hopefully not lost amidst all this... write your representatives.

Project Vote Smart - American Government, Elections, Candidates and Voting


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.7.4


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0