Michael Moore's New Movie - Sicko

[ComfortEagle]

Has anyone seen this yet? I've heard that it's along the same lines as the other stuff Moore has done, but does anyone know exactly what it's about?

Who plans on seeing it?

[CarD_Krazi_5]

hmm i havent heard anything about it...but...if it is made by michael moore then i will more than likely see it!

[DevilsWin]

Has anyone seen this yet? I've heard that it's along the same lines as the other stuff Moore has done, but does anyone know exactly what it's about?

Who plans on seeing it?
It's about the health care/Insurance industry.

Here's the Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joaAfBr9tAE

[Beef]

Which...the movie IMO is going to be complete BS.

It is about having a National Health Care Program. While this would be a good idea, it would not work and the health care industry as a whole would suffer.

[RavenBoy]

Michael Moore is Crazy and so are we, buy giving him Money when we watch his movies.
Lets all just buy some goats or something.

[Beef]

Have yet to see a movie. Not that I won't view another (although idiotic) view, I just don't want to give him more money.

[DevilsWin]

Which...the movie IMO is going to be complete BS.

It is about having a National Health Care Program. While this would be a good idea, it would not work and the health care industry as a whole would suffer.

Why would this not work Beef?

[cig107]

Which...the movie IMO is going to be complete BS.

It is about having a National Health Care Program. While this would be a good idea, it would not work and the health care industry as a whole would suffer.

It works for Canada, why not us?

[15thRegionCrazy]

I will probably watch it.

[Advance Eagles]

I can't wait to see it,but it's not @ the movies in my area.I've been told it will be soon.Looking forwad to it.

[PLAYBOY5]

I hate Michael Moore..He will not be getting my money! If he is so concerned with all of the problems wrong with this country, then take ALL of the money that he makes off of his films and give it to whomever! He kill me..!

[DevilsWin]

I hate Michael Moore..He will not be getting my money! If he is so concerned with all of the problems wrong with this country, then take ALL of the money that he makes off of his films and give it to whomever! He kill me..!
I bet you would feel different if he did something to help you or your family.

[DevilsWin]

Here are some reviews:

"It's as uplifting and heart-rending a thing as you will see at the movies all year. And it speaks of Moore's enduring faith -- his angry, nettled, exasperated belief that 'despite all our differences, we sink or swim together.' " -- Amy Biancolli, Houston Chronicle

"The weight of evidence Moore marshals for taking the profit motive out of medicine is overwhelming. In a summer of dumb, shameless drivel, Moore delivers a movie of robust mind and heart. You'll laugh till it hurts." -- Peter Travers, Rolling Stone

"'Sicko' is a beyond brilliant, nonpartisan expose' on American politics that should be mandatory for every student in America. Some rich person -- like maybe Angelina Jolie -- should sponsor a program where DVDs are sent to families or free screenings are held at local churches." -- Caroline Kepnes, E!

[PLAYBOY5]

I bet you i wouldn't! And I KNEW YOU WOULD QUOTE ME..You always do..So how is this..I hate everything that you like..Is that any better!

[Beef]

Why would this not work Beef?One of the main reasons that I have heard is pharmaceutical research that is done in the US. There are billions of dollars (80+ percent of world money in this area) spent by private companies here trying to produce new products to help the sick, and with this, they have the ability to sell the products and make a profit (what this country is about). If you were to implement a national health care system, there would be a lot less invested in these areas. Companies would have no incentive to discover new drugs when they know that they can only sell these drugs in America for little if any profit after spending billions.

Would it be a good thing? Yes, it would help a lot of people, but when you look into the future, it would hurt because companies would drastically reduce their R&D, therefore, we would have less drugs in the future to help people with new problems and there along with not finding cures to problems that we currently have.

And is it REALLY free? There would be an increase in taxes for all to cover this program, and in the end, the upper class would be covering the lower class. There should be help from class to class, but where are people guaranteed health care? They are not in the US Constitution and the middle and upper class already cover the costs of all other government functions. There is not one government agency that runs efficiently, so what makes one think that this can? Does Social Security seem to be working correctly?

As of now, all Americans can receive emergency health care. If it were free, people would be less flexible with where they go and the treatments they receive. Not only this, individuals would go to the doctor more when they don't need to, in effect, raising the money spent on health care way above what it is now.

Lastly, why should healthy people who take care of themselves and don't need the doctor as much, pay for those who destroy their body -- smoking, drugs, over eating, etc.?

It just doesn't seem like the best way to go IMO.

[PLAYBOY5]

Very well put Beef! Very well put my friend!

[DevilsWin]

I bet you i wouldn't! And I KNEW YOU WOULD QUOTE ME..You always do..So how is this..I hate everything that you like..Is that any better!

:lmao:

[DevilsWin]

One of the main reasons that I have heard is pharmaceutical research that is done in the US. There are billions of dollars (80+ percent of world money in this area) spent by private companies here trying to produce new products to help the sick, and with this, they have the ability to sell the products and make a profit (what this country is about). If you were to implement a national health care system, there would be a lot less invested in these areas. Companies would have no incentive to discover new drugs when they know that they can only sell these drugs in America for little if any profit after spending billions.

Would it be a good thing? Yes, it would help a lot of people, but when you look into the future, it would hurt because companies would drastically reduce their R&D, therefore, we would have less drugs in the future to help people with new problems and there along with not finding cures to problems that we currently have.

And is it REALLY free? There would be an increase in taxes for all to cover this program, and in the end, the upper class would be covering the lower class. There should be help from class to class, but where are people guaranteed health care? They are not in the US Constitution and the middle and upper class already cover the costs of all other government functions. There is not one government agency that runs efficiently, so what makes one think that this can? Does Social Security seem to be working correctly?

As of now, all Americans can receive emergency health care. If it were free, people would be less flexible with where they go and the treatments they receive. Not only this, individuals would go to the doctor more when they don't need to, in effect, raising the money spent on health care way above what it is now.

Lastly, why should healthy people who take care of themselves and don't need the doctor as much, pay for those who destroy their body -- smoking, drugs, over eating, etc.?

It just doesn't seem like the best way to go IMO.

Just curious Beef.... Where did you get all of these "facts".

[DevilsWin]

Here's what happens when saving a health insurance company money becomes more important than providing health coverage for someone paying into Humana Health Insurance.

This guy is alive today only because Michael Moore decided to help him in his fight to recieve a pancreas transplant.

This piece was done during the Clinton Administration and after viewing this you can no longer say that Michael Moore is a partisan propagandist.

See for yourself it's just a 10 minute clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm4sNMKp0Mw

[Beef]

Here's what happens when saving a health insurance company money becomes more important than providing health coverage for someone paying into Humana Health Insurance. I think by not having it we are more than saving the health insurance companies some money, we are actually saving the health insurance (and all the jobs they provide)

And I believe that the only fact I reported is that the US has 80% of the investment into research and I heard that on TV one day. The fact that they would reduce this is just common economics.

[PLAYBOY5]

I think Beef would like to save 10 minutes of his life by not watching that junk that he puts out! Like Beef said, it is common economics!

[DevilsWin]

Afraid you might learn something? Keep living in the bubble boys and we'll all pass you by. So long.

[PLAYBOY5]

Speaking for myself, I wish you all would pass us by and get out! You can take you, your little gasless lawnmower engine of a car that looks like a hat on wheels, your tasteless organic whatever it is that you feed yourselves/don't kill animals and please no guns, save a tree/smoke more weed sticker, don't kill the man who murdered my family and ****ed on them because they are humans just like me attitude and PLEASE LEAVE US STUBBORN *** HOLLER RAT HILLBILLIES ALONE! THIS IS EASTERN KENTUCKY PAL...IT IS THE WAY IT IS AND WILL BE LIKE THIS FOR ETERNITY!

[PLAYBOY5]

And Myself..i Like It Just Like It Is!

[DevilsWin]

Charles Darwin wrote a book one time called " The Origin Of Species". This is where the theory of evolution was first documented for study. In that study Darwin found that what allowed some species to flourish was their ability to adapt to their environment. It is also in this book where the phrase "Survival of the Fittest" was born.
If you refuse to adapt you will perish.

Martin Luther King Jr once said,
"We should all learn to live together as brothers or we shall perish as fools."


Albert Einstein said,
"Change is always met with violent anger from mediocre minds."

Robert Hunter said,
"The Wheel is spinning and it can't slow down, you cant let go and you can't hold on. You can't go back and you can't stand still. If the Thunder don't get you then the lightning will.



Are you going to survive Playboy?

[Beef]

Keep living in the bubble boys and we'll all pass you by. So long.
What bubble am I living it? By not believing that National Health Care would be a good thing for our country? I agree that humans need to adapt, but this is not needed. Isn't it "Survival of the fittest?"

[Beef]

PLEASE LEAVE US STUBBORN *** HOLLER RAT HILLBILLIES ALONE! THIS IS EASTERN KENTUCKY PAL...IT IS THE WAY IT IS AND WILL BE LIKE THIS FOR ETERNITY!I don't agree with Playboy here.

[bball fan]

My daughter watched it but she didn't pay for it thank goodness. She watched it on one of those illegal DVD's that people sell that have been filmed from inside the theater. She said it was a boring movie and she didn't even finish it!

[DevilsWin]

My daughter watched it but she didn't pay for it thank goodness. She watched it on one of those illegal DVD's that people sell that have been filmed from inside the theater. She said it was a boring movie and she didn't even finish it!
Does your daughter have a health plan that she pays into?

[More Cowbell]

One of the main reasons that I have heard is pharmaceutical research that is done in the US. There are billions of dollars (80+ percent of world money in this area) spent by private companies here trying to produce new products to help the sick, and with this, they have the ability to sell the products and make a profit (what this country is about). If you were to implement a national health care system, there would be a lot less invested in these areas. Companies would have no incentive to discover new drugs when they know that they can only sell these drugs in America for little if any profit after spending billions.

Would it be a good thing? Yes, it would help a lot of people, but when you look into the future, it would hurt because companies would drastically reduce their R&D, therefore, we would have less drugs in the future to help people with new problems and there along with not finding cures to problems that we currently have.

And is it REALLY free? There would be an increase in taxes for all to cover this program, and in the end, the upper class would be covering the lower class. There should be help from class to class, but where are people guaranteed health care? They are not in the US Constitution and the middle and upper class already cover the costs of all other government functions. There is not one government agency that runs efficiently, so what makes one think that this can? Does Social Security seem to be working correctly?

As of now, all Americans can receive emergency health care. If it were free, people would be less flexible with where they go and the treatments they receive. Not only this, individuals would go to the doctor more when they don't need to, in effect, raising the money spent on health care way above what it is now.

Lastly, why should healthy people who take care of themselves and don't need the doctor as much, pay for those who destroy their body -- smoking, drugs, over eating, etc.?

It just doesn't seem like the best way to go IMO.

Preach on, brother! :thumpsup:

[A Blessing & A Curse]

I saw him on TV the other night... He said something along the lines of that the US is ranked something like 35th in health care programs world wide.

[Beef]

I'm sure the US is low because we don't provide National Health care but those that are do are suffering. If I am not mistaking, England is having financial problems with theirs.

[A Blessing & A Curse]

I'm sure the US is low because we don't provide National Health care but those that are do are suffering. If I am not mistaking, England is having financial problems with theirs.

Very true!

[DevilsWin]

Moore gets challenged by Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/10/gupta.sicko/index.html

[LCC_Cougar]

IMO .. Michael Moore is a complete idiot. Thats all I got to say.

Edited to say that:

If he doesn't like the way things are here, they should take his citizenship away. Or better yet, he should just move to a place where he does like it.

[FOX SPORTS]

IMO .. Michael Moore is a complete idiot. Thats all I got to say.

Edited to say that:

If he doesn't like the way things are here, they should take his citizenship away. Or better yet, he should just move to a place where he does like it.
While I disagree with Michael Moore and his ultra liberal US bashing, I still am naive enough to believe he has complete rights to his opinions.

Just as we have the right to choose to either watch his highly slanted propaganda or not.

[bigman61]

I Hate Moore Hes a ********

[thecavemaster]

Blessed are the poor...for their jobs are taken to Mexico and China and Thailand where the poor of those nations can be exploited by large multinational corporations.
Blessed are the poor...who labor all day to have bread so that some might have lobster.
Blessed are the poor...who wait for hours in emergency rooms to try and get some help for their child who has been coughing and vomiting for days.

[ComfortEagle]

Moore recently received a subpoena for his trip he took to Cuba in the movie, which is apparantly illegal.

[thecavemaster]

NOTE TO PLAYBOY: I may know you: were you almost
killed by ladies and Jim Beam in 1973?

[FOX SPORTS]

Moore recently received a subpoena for his trip he took to Cuba in the movie, which is apparantly illegal.
Good to see he is not getting special treatment.

There have been numerous occasions over the years that american citizens have seeked permission to travel to Cuba for various reasons only to be turned down and some that have gone there without permission have been charged with a crime.

[PLAYBOY5]

NOTE TO PLAYBOY: I may know you: were you almost
killed by ladies and Jim Beam in 1973?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I wasn't on Earth in 1973!:p

[DevilsWin]

Moore recently received a subpoena for his trip he took to Cuba in the movie, which is apparantly illegal.
No it is not illegal. It's just the Justice Dept pickin gon him because he exposes people for what they truely are. In cas you haven't noticed the people who hold all the power no longer have a monopoly on the spread of information(thanks to the internet) and they are scared to death.
Reporters frequently travel to Cuba. Just ask Matt Lauer.

[More Cowbell]

Moore recently received a subpoena for his trip he took to Cuba in the movie, which is apparantly illegal.

Moore probably thought that the laws of this country don't apply to him, just because he's in tight with the Hollywood elite. Good to see that they're not letting it slide because he's famous.

[FOX SPORTS]

No it is not illegal. It's just the Justice Dept pickin gon him because he exposes people for what they truely are. In cas you haven't noticed the people who hold all the power no longer have a monopoly on the spread of information(thanks to the internet) and they are scared to death.
Reporters frequently travel to Cuba. Just ask Matt Lauer.
Sorry, but it is illegal., except in certain circumstances.
There are and have been sanctions against Cuba for many years.

Here's some info regarding travel and sanctions with Cuba:
(answers the question as to how Matt Lauer could travel there)

US and Cuba Travel Policies

Introduction (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm#intro)
Overview of Travel Regulations (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm#overview)
What are "Travel-Related Transactions"? (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm#transactions)
What role does OFAC have in dealing with the Cuban Sanctions? (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm#role)
General Licenses (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm#general)
Professional Research and Professional Meetings (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm#meetings)
Officials of the U.S. Government, Foreign Governments and Certain Intergovernmental Organizations (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm#officials)
Journalists (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm#journalists)
Restrictions on travel to Cuba are authorized by the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, which grants the power to prohibit financial transactions in time of war. Citing national security concerns, the U.S. government imposed an economic embargo on Cuba in 1961. In July 1963, the U.S. Treasury Department released the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, which codify the essential elements of the economic embargo against Cuba. Such elements include a freeze of all Cuban-owned assets in the U.S., a prohibition on all non-licensed financial and commercial transactions between Cuba and the United States and between Cuban and U.S. nationals. The financial prohibition includes the spending of money by U.S. citizens for travel to Cuba, which essentially creates a travel ban on the island for all non-licensed U.S. citizens.
The embargo regulations have been eased and tightened several times over its forty year history. In 1977, the Carter Administration removed all restrictions on travel to Cuba. However, the Reagan Administration reinstated an even stricter travel ban in 1982 and travel restrictions on most U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba continues to this day.

[More Cowbell]

His punishment = permanent residence in Cuba :)

[DevilsWin]

Sorry, but it is illegal., except in certain circumstances.
There are and have been sanctions against Cuba for many years.

Here's some info regarding travel and sanctions with Cuba:
(answers the question as to how Matt Lauer could travel there)

US and Cuba Travel Policies

Introduction (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm#intro)
Overview of Travel Regulations (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm#overview)
What are "Travel-Related Transactions"? (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm#transactions)
What role does OFAC have in dealing with the Cuban Sanctions? (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm#role)
General Licenses (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm#general)

Professional Research and Professional Meetings (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm#meetings)
Officials of the U.S. Government, Foreign Governments and Certain Intergovernmental Organizations (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm#officials)
Journalists (http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/policy.htm#journalists)
Restrictions on travel to Cuba are authorized by the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, which grants the power to prohibit financial transactions in time of war. Citing national security concerns, the U.S. government imposed an economic embargo on Cuba in 1961. In July 1963, the U.S. Treasury Department released the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, which codify the essential elements of the economic embargo against Cuba. Such elements include a freeze of all Cuban-owned assets in the U.S., a prohibition on all non-licensed financial and commercial transactions between Cuba and the United States and between Cuban and U.S. nationals. The financial prohibition includes the spending of money by U.S. citizens for travel to Cuba, which essentially creates a travel ban on the island for all non-licensed U.S. citizens.
The embargo regulations have been eased and tightened several times over its forty year history. In 1977, the Carter Administration removed all restrictions on travel to Cuba. However, the Reagan Administration reinstated an even stricter travel ban in 1982 and travel restrictions on most U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba continues to this day.
He was given a journalistic license

[FOX SPORTS]

He was given a journalistic license
Not being a smart mouth, just looking for real answers...
Was he??? You sure?
Why the subpoena then????

IMO, Michael Moore and journalist in the same sentence is a stretch.

[ComfortEagle]

He was given a journalistic license

He might have been given one, but he took others with him who might not have been given permission under that same license.

[DevilsWin]

Not being a smart mouth, just looking for real answers...
Was he??? You sure?
Why the subpoena then????

IMO, Michael Moore and journalist in the same sentence is a stretch.
I never post anything I'm not 100% sure about.

[whos your momma]

Nicely said Beef (on #15). I guess this would explain the life span nearly doubling in just 60 years. This is due to medications that are discovered by those pharmaceutical companies that Moore is destined to destroy(antibiotics, polio vaccine and such). That is a fact that devil can't dispute. Does anyone know what percentage of sales any industry puts back into R & D? On average 3%. Pharmaceutical companies put 20%.

Government run healthcare would be a mistake, big mistake. Has anyone been in a VA hospital lately? Where would you chose to go?

[Fenix]

People from countries with National Healthcare come here to have complex operations done, because we have the best doctors who work here. Does anyone know why the best doctors would want to work in a country without a National Healthcare plan is?

[whos your momma]

People from countries with National Healthcare come here to have complex operations done, because we have the best doctors who work here. Does anyone know why the best doctors would want to work in a country without a National Healthcare plan is?


Because here they will actually get paid for their expertise and they will have the power to treat each "individidual" instead of an assembly line which is what it would be with national healthcare.

I watched Michael Moore on one of the late night talk shows and he said that private insurance would still be available under "his" plan. That is because he is a millionaire and wants to make sure he won't have to use this wonderful national healthcare plan.

[thecavemaster]

Because here they will actually get paid for their expertise and they will have the power to treat each "individidual" instead of an assembly line which is what it would be with national healthcare.

I watched Michael Moore on one of the late night talk shows and he said that private insurance would still be available under "his" plan. That is because he is a millionaire and wants to make sure he won't have to use this wonderful national healthcare plan.

Michael Moore is a wealthy man who, without a doubt, is
sensationalistic and often exploits the very people who
feature in his movies. However, simply because Martin
Luther King may have stepped out on Coretta a few times
does not mean that the injustice he saw and fought was
not real or valid. It simply means he was a flawed man,
like Moses, like King David, like Peter and James and
John. The same with Michael Moore: he does not have to
be a perfect, without flaw or blemish man in order for
the issues he dramatizes to be valid. Most advocates
of universal healthcare for the US see it as a supplemental,
not replacement, of private health care. I, for one,
believe that poor and rich alike should not have to suffer
with an abscessed tooth until pain becomes intense to
suffering...

[Fenix]

Because here they will actually get paid for their expertise and they will have the power to treat each "individidual" instead of an assembly line which is what it would be with national healthcare.

I watched Michael Moore on one of the late night talk shows and he said that private insurance would still be available under "his" plan. That is because he is a millionaire and wants to make sure he won't have to use this wonderful national healthcare plan.

The exact answer I was looking for. Nice of Mr. Moore to leave a loophole for others like himself with loads of money.

[OffTheHook]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I wasn't on Earth in 1973!:p


What was said to you came from a Hank Williams Jr. Song "Family Tradition".:)

[Fenix]

Michael Moore is a wealthy man who, without a doubt, is
sensationalistic and often exploits the very people who
feature in his movies. However, simply because Martin
Luther King may have stepped out on Coretta a few times
does not mean that the injustice he saw and fought was
not real or valid. It simply means he was a flawed man,
like Moses, like King David, like Peter and James and
John. The same with Michael Moore: he does not have to
be a perfect, without flaw or blemish man in order for
the issues he dramatizes to be valid. Most advocates
of universal healthcare for the US see it as a supplemental,
not replacement, of private health care. I, for one,
believe that poor and rich alike should not have to suffer
with an abscessed tooth until pain becomes intense to
suffering...

Comparing Michael Moore to any of those men is a joke.

[thecavemaster]

Comparing Michael Moore to any of those men is a joke.

I was not comparing Michael Moore to Martin Luther
King or the Biblical examples: I was suggesting
that human frailty and episodic failure does NOT
invalidate the whole of a person's life or work, and
certainly does not make inconsequential the issues
they raise. Michael Moore is Michael Moore and sinks
or swims on his own...as do the others.

[Fenix]

I was not comparing Michael Moore to Martin Luther
King or the Biblical examples: I was suggesting
that human frailty and episodic failure does NOT
invalidate the whole of a person's life or work, and
certainly does not make inconsequential the issues
they raise. Michael Moore is Michael Moore and sinks
or swims on his own...as do the others.

I respect any man that stands up for what he truly believes in, but in Moore's case he doesn't help the situation. If he is such a proponent of National Healthcare he wouldn't leave a loophole for the wealthy, he would want the same thing for all of us including himself. It seems as though he just wants to make the Republican Administration look as bad as possible.

[thecavemaster]

I respect any man that stands up for what he truly believes in, but in Moore's case he doesn't help the situation. If he is such a proponent of National Healthcare he wouldn't leave a loophole for the wealthy, he would want the same thing for all of us including himself. It seems as though he just wants to make the Republican Administration look as bad as possible.

Of course, Moore is a liberal. Moore sees the inconsistencies
in others, but perhaps lacks that ability in himself. "Would
some power the gift give us to see ourselves as others see us."
That's a human nature problem, not a liberal/conservative one.
Again, I think most proponents of "make sure everybody has
coverage" healthcare in the US don't visualize the throwing
away of private insurance. I don't think a guy working two
jobs, both part-time, not covered either place, should have
to suffer an illness without care in the United States of
America. I think EVERY child, regardless of income level,
should receive as good a care as possible. I don't think
we have to socialize medicine to get there.

[Fenix]

Of course, Moore is a liberal. Moore sees the inconsistencies
in others, but perhaps lacks that ability in himself. "Would
some power the gift give us to see ourselves as others see us."
That's a human nature problem, not a liberal/conservative one.
Again, I think most proponents of "make sure everybody has
coverage" healthcare in the US don't visualize the throwing
away of private insurance. I don't think a guy working two
jobs, both part-time, not covered either place, should have
to suffer an illness without care in the United States of
America. I think EVERY child, regardless of income level,
should receive as good a care as possible. I don't think
we have to socialize medicine to get there.

I don't think children can be turned down for healthcare, can they?

[DevilsWin]

I don't think children can be turned down for healthcare, can they?
Absolutely! Here is an example I know someone who had a child on a Govt Medical card. When the childs father got a job, the medical card got cancelled. With less than 3 months on the job he got laid-off. So that left them with no health coverage for their child during the period he was out of work. 8 million children in the U.S. have no health insurance or coverage. Some hospitals will refuse treatment due to the lack of insurance and the liability problem.

I saw a piece on 60 minutes a couple weeks ago where the new prescription drug bill had taken away the Gov't's ability to negotiate prescription prices for patients on medicare(which you pay into). The Veterans Administration is allowed to negotiate prices. The result is that a common prescription that the VA is allowed to negotiate would cost a Veteran like myself $150 bucks. But the same prescription bought by a Medicare patient would cost more than $1400 for the same amount. This is what needs to change. Oh and BTW the Republican Congressman who championed this bill was made the head of a major drug manufacturer after the bill was passed, and given a 2 million dollar annual salary.

[Fenix]

Absolutely! Here is an example I know someone who had a child on a Govt Medical card. When the childs father got a job, the medical card got cancelled. With less than 3 months on the job he got laid-off. So that left them with no health coverage for their child during the period he was out of work. 8 million children in the U.S. have no health insurance or coverage. Some hospitals will refuse treatment due to the lack of insurance and the liability problem.

I saw a piece on 60 minutes a couple weeks ago where the new prescription drug bill had taken away the Gov't's ability to negotiate prescription prices for patients on medicare(which you pay into). The Veterans Administration is allowed to negotiate prices. The result is that a common prescription that the VA is allowed to negotiate would cost a Veteran like myself $150 bucks. But the same prescription bought by a Medicare patient would cost more than $1400 for the same amount. This is what needs to change. Oh and BTW the Republican Congressman who championed this bill was made the head of a major drug manufacturer after the bill was passed, and given a 2 million dollar annual salary.

Then healthcare for children is something we can completely agree on. No matter what the case a child should never be turned down for healthcare, that's not a partisan stand Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on this. I personally feel if our current system of SSI (those who can't physically or mentally work) was enforced better we would be in better position to provide healthcare to more people. But people who can work abuse the system and it drains the goverment, that is a whole different debate though.

[More Cowbell]

Absolutely! Here is an example I know someone who had a child on a Govt Medical card. When the childs father got a job, the medical card got cancelled. With less than 3 months on the job he got laid-off. So that left them with no health coverage for their child during the period he was out of work. 8 million children in the U.S. have no health insurance or coverage. Some hospitals will refuse treatment due to the lack of insurance and the liability problem.

There are a lot of problems with the system. On one hand, you have families like the one you mentioned who need help and can't get it. Then you have people that come from families with tons of money and never need to work a day in their life. Yet, because they show no actual income, their children get free medical care, all while the family drives to the doctor's office in a brand-new Mercedes. Take those people off the rolls, and you have more money to help people who actually do need it.

[thecavemaster]

There are a lot of problems with the system. On one hand, you have families like the one you mentioned who need help and can't get it. Then you have people that come from families with tons of money and never need to work a day in their life. Yet, because they show no actual income, their children get free medical care, all while the family drives to the doctor's office in a brand-new Mercedes. Take those people off the rolls, and you have more money to help people who actually do need it.

Agreed...but it would seem to me that the number of children
who are without medicare as a result of a flawed system is
MUCH greater than "show no income" rich kids who get free
medical care.

[More Cowbell]

Agreed...but it would seem to me that the number of children
who are without medicare as a result of a flawed system is
MUCH greater than "show no income" rich kids who get free
medical care.

You're probably right about the numbers, but my point was that the whole sysytem needs fixed. Some kids should be taken off Medicaid, while many more kids from 'the working poor' need to be added on.

It's really not the kids from extremely poor families that are being left out, they will always qualify for government assistance. It's the people who work very hard for modest wages who are the ones feeling the pinch. The government says they make too much money to qualify, yet after paying for the family's essentials they do not have very much money, certainly not enough to pay for the care of a very sick child.

Bottom line, no sick child should ever be denied medical care.

[thecavemaster]

You're probably right about the numbers, but my point was that the whole sysytem needs fixed. Some kids should be taken off Medicaid, while many more kids from 'the working poor' need to be added on.

It's really not the kids from extremely poor families that are being left out, they will always qualify for government assistance. It's the people who work very hard for modest wages who are the ones feeling the pinch. The government says they make too much money to qualify, yet after paying for the family's essentials they do not have very much money, certainly not enough to pay for the care of a very sick child.

Bottom line, no sick child should ever be denied medical care.

Absolutely agreed... the "working poor" don't get much slack
from the government.

[More Cowbell]

Absolutely agreed... the "working poor" don't get much slack
from the government.

There would be more money available to help the working poor if we got all the people off government assistance that don't need to be on it. It's ridiculous how many lazy slobs are on disability that are perfectly able to work but won't. I have all the respect in the world for someone who goes out every day and works hard, and I feel like the government needs to help the working poor much more then they currently do. But I have zero respect for someone who draws a check (partially funded by my taxes) simply by sitting at home and watching Springer all day.

Side note, I know someone who works for a bank who tells me that there are some people who come in each month with enough government checks to walk back out with over $4000.

[Fenix]

There would be more money available to help the working poor if we got all the people off government assistance that don't need to be on it. It's ridiculous how many lazy slobs are on disability that are perfectly able to work but won't. I have all the respect in the world for someone who goes out every day and works hard, and I feel like the government needs to help the working poor much more then they currently do. But I have zero respect for someone who draws a check (partially funded by my taxes) simply by sitting at home and watching Springer all day.

Side note, I know someone who works for a bank who tells me that there are some people who come in each month with enough government checks to walk back out with over $4000.

I honestly don't think I could agree more. It makes me sick to see people who can work sit at home and draw a check. That ruins the system for those who actually need it.

[DevilsWin]

I honestly don't think I could agree more. It makes me sick to see people who can work sit at home and draw a check. That ruins the system for those who actually need it.

Me Too! I totally agree!

[thecavemaster]

Here is a man or woman who sees it as their
"task" in life to be "on the draw." My life experience
suggests that these folks lead fairly unfulfilling lives,
albeit fairly stress free ones. And, a lot of these folks,
it seems to me, have convinced themselves that they are
disabled in some way, whether or not medical science would
agree or not. Question: would you want to trade places
with these people, because you seem to have a disdain for
them that has to have envy in there somewhere. I agree
that those with able bodies and minds should find something
for their hands to do that financially suports them; however,
I've never talked to anyone who says and believes, "****,
I can work just fine, but I'm too lazy to do it." Instead,
they learn to believe in their own disability, whether or
not it exists.

[More Cowbell]

Here is a man or woman who sees it as their
"task" in life to be "on the draw." My life experience
suggests that these folks lead fairly unfulfilling lives,
albeit fairly stress free ones. And, a lot of these folks,
it seems to me, have convinced themselves that they are
disabled in some way, whether or not medical science would
agree or not. Question: would you want to trade places
with these people, because you seem to have a disdain for
them that has to have envy in there somewhere. I agree
that those with able bodies and minds should find something
for their hands to do that financially suports them; however,
I've never talked to anyone who says and believes, "****,
I can work just fine, but I'm too lazy to do it." Instead,
they learn to believe in their own disability, whether or
not it exists.

Look, I don't know if you are an actual psychologist or just fancy yourself one, but you are way off if you think I am envious of these people. On the contrary, I would never want to end up like that. I have a good job and work hard for what I earn, and at least I can go to bed at night knowing that I'm not going through life mooching off others.

What burns me up is that these people are getting a cut of my money that I earn, even though they've done nothing more to earn it than lie on the couch all day. I want my taxes to go to people who may need some help but still work hard anyway.

[Fenix]

Here is a man or woman who sees it as their
"task" in life to be "on the draw." My life experience
suggests that these folks lead fairly unfulfilling lives,
albeit fairly stress free ones. And, a lot of these folks,
it seems to me, have convinced themselves that they are
disabled in some way, whether or not medical science would
agree or not. Question: would you want to trade places
with these people, because you seem to have a disdain for
them that has to have envy in there somewhere. I agree
that those with able bodies and minds should find something
for their hands to do that financially suports them; however,
I've never talked to anyone who says and believes, "****,
I can work just fine, but I'm too lazy to do it." Instead,
they learn to believe in their own disability, whether or
not it exists.

I think you're way off on this one. I'm not sure where you live, but where I live people draw checks so they can go out to hunt, fish, or ride fourwheelers. If you can do these things, you know you can work as well.

[Beef]

Me Too! I totally agree!
I don't think you can find many that don't agree with this. If only the government would enforce it better!

[thecavemaster]

I think you're way off on this one. I'm not sure where you live, but where I live people draw checks so they can go out to hunt, fish, or ride fourwheelers. If you can do these things, you know you can work as well.

So, Fenix, you are saying that you know people PERSONALLY
who will tell you, "****, I ain't disabled, but I fooled
the government, so now I fish and hunt and four wheel the
livelong day." Again, I believe deeply that those
with able minds and bodies should work in order to support
themselves. In my experience, a man might draw disability
for himself and his children, his wife might draw too, then
add in food stamps. All in all, that household might bring
in close to $3,000 tax free, plus have good medical care.
If that man and woman are clearly not disabled by any stretch
of the imagination, it is very frustrating, aggravating,
and anger producing. However, I also know people who are
disabled, meaning they have some problem (mental or
physical that prevents them from keeping "substantial
employment"). These people are often still able to hunt
and fish some, maybe even ride a four wheeler. BUT, I
know them to be disabled. We need to slice this bread
a little thinner so as to not lump all the coal in one
bucket.

[More Cowbell]

I agree with Fenix on this one. It is wrong of that person drawing disability to be out riding a four-wheeler, when that little toy was bought and paid for with our tax money. If they've got enough money coming in to afford to buy new four-wheelers, fancy cars, and expensive jewelry, then they're getting too much government assistance. We need to take some of it back, and give it to the people who really need it, i.e., the working poor.

[Fenix]

So, Fenix, you are saying that you know people PERSONALLY
who will tell you, "****, I ain't disabled, but I fooled
the government, so now I fish and hunt and four wheel the
livelong day." Again, I believe deeply that those
with able minds and bodies should work in order to support
themselves. In my experience, a man might draw disability
for himself and his children, his wife might draw too, then
add in food stamps. All in all, that household might bring
in close to $3,000 tax free, plus have good medical care.
If that man and woman are clearly not disabled by any stretch
of the imagination, it is very frustrating, aggravating,
and anger producing. However, I also know people who are
disabled, meaning they have some problem (mental or
physical that prevents them from keeping "substantial
employment"). These people are often still able to hunt
and fish some, maybe even ride a four wheeler. BUT, I
know them to be disabled. We need to slice this bread
a little thinner so as to not lump all the coal in one
bucket.

Yes, I can honestly say I do. I know people that dropped out of highschool, because their parents told them they could just draw a check knowing nothing was wrong with them. I live in Perry County, this is a common thing here.

[Beef]

Yes, I can honestly say I do. I know people that dropped out of highschool, because their parents told them they could just draw a check knowing nothing was wrong with them. I live in Perry County, this is a common thing here.
And this is the bull **** that should not be going on in America today. We have plenty of ways to track people to make sure that things like this don't happen. All I want to know is how the government can't notice that people have been on the draw for years when I do believe there is a limit to how long you can be on it -- or with unemployment there is -- but are we just talking about disability payments? Then how do these people fool the government into paying them when they can easily work? It should require a doctor to place someone in this care, and if it is found out that doctors are placing people in there for no reason, then harsh punishment should be placed. I dunno, maybe 50,000-100,000 fine or even losing the ability to practice.

This is one of the things that really makes me mad (along with Illegal Immigration). If you can work, get off your but and get out there to do it. There is no chance that this can be divided between parties because everyone that works pays taxes to fund these lazy losers. And to know that I am from an area that has probably one of the highest amount of people per capita abusing the system like this makes me embarrassed. Hard working people should not have to pay for those to sit around watch TV, hunt, fish, 4-wheel, drink, and enjoy their Drug use. I would like to see what percent of disability checks on eastern KY go towards recreational drug use.

Yeah, I just went on a rant but this stuff ****es me off! :mad:

[thecavemaster]

Here's an idea based on Michael Moore's use of
satire and irony to poke fun at the system, at
the way things are: if you take of your time
and energy and effort and money and feed the
poor, you are called a "saint." If you begin
to question the reasons as to why there are
poor, you are called a communist. I've heard
the old rube about giving a man a fish as opposed
to teaching him to fish...but isn't it time we
all began to think about who exactly it is that
owns the pond and why exactly he gets to make
about 112 times more than the guy on the assembly
line?

[More Cowbell]

Here's an idea based on Michael Moore's use of
satire and irony to poke fun at the system, at
the way things are: if you take of your time
and energy and effort and money and feed the
poor, you are called a "saint." If you begin
to question the reasons as to why there are
poor, you are called a communist. I've heard
the old rube about giving a man a fish as opposed
to teaching him to fish...but isn't it time we
all began to think about who exactly it is that
owns the pond and why exactly he gets to make
about 112 times more than the guy on the assembly
line?

You'll get no argument from me in saying that the CEO's of big corporations make way too much money. The salaries and bonuses some of these guys get is ridiculous.

But to relate your pond analogy to the most recent discussion: Why does the guy who is too lazy to fish at all get just as much money to live on as the guys who are out at the pond every day, working hard for their earnings?

[thecavemaster]

You'll get no argument from me in saying that the CEO's of big corporations make way too much money. The salaries and bonuses some of these guys get is ridiculous.

But to relate your pond analogy to the most recent discussion: Why does the guy who is too lazy to fish at all get just as much money to live on as the guys who are out at the pond every day, working hard for their earnings?

I think that somewhere in the New Testament, Paul makes
the statement that those won't work thought they are
capable of working should not be fed...I guess the thought
is that hunger is a pretty strong motivation to work. My
only point is this: if all my anger and frustration and
the energy created by those is directed at the "lazy
cheaters," the people who own the pond and exploit all
who fish never have to answer for their greed.

[More Cowbell]

I think that somewhere in the New Testament, Paul makes
the statement that those won't work thought they are
capable of working should not be fed...I guess the thought
is that hunger is a pretty strong motivation to work. My
only point is this: if all my anger and frustration and
the energy created by those is directed at the "lazy
cheaters," the people who own the pond and exploit all
who fish never have to answer for their greed.

Read my last post, I was actually agreeing with you. The CEO's of these corporations are getting sickeningly wealthy on the hard-working backs of their everyday employees, and there is absolutely no reason for those guys to make as much as they do. But what can you do about it? Ask them to take a pay cut? Somehow, I'm pretty sure you and I both know what the answer to that request would be.

In the end, I'm not sure how you change a system in which these CEO's get big salaries and perks, since if the salary is voted for them by stockholders it is perfectly legal. On the other hand, people drawing disability who are fully able to work are committing a crime, it's called fraud. They can and should be held accountable.