JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum The Most Important Film In American History? Maybe

I never said we were the best country in the world. In fact I am ashamed of the things we have done but that was before I was born. Since the end of the British empire we have not invaded anybody except for the recent illegal wars with Iraq and the Afgans. That was based on lies told to our PM by so called intelligence. He was stupid enough to believe them as was Bush. Anybody with any brains would have made sure first and then gone to the UN with the evidence. They have been branded war criminals as a result by a lot of folk and I kinda agree. Oh yea both say that oil had nothing to do with it and expect us all to agree. A bigger laugh is that Blair is now a peace envoy in the middle east. He is hated by the Arabs just about as much as Bush.
Come to think of it why am I not surprised that both our health systems etc are in such a mess. Laurel and Hardy look like experts compared to them.

Well,
There have been invasions and re-invasions as far back as recorded History goes. I suspect there will be a few more as time goes by.

Well, I didn't even know this board was here until a few minutes ago. Since I posted this response on a thread elsewhere, that got no traction whatsoever, I'll throw it up again, although most of it is simply from a lady's column I'm sure many of you aren't familiar with.

Aw, the wonders of celluloid as a tool for propaganda. Ol' Al Gore sure pulled off the trick of ignoring ANY & ALL evidence to the contrary, and convincing a rather large part of citizens that he was 100% right on, just as Moore does by using anecdotes, (some from TEN years ago), half-truths, innuendo, and even some out & out lies (while FAILING to mention facts he is fully cognizant of, that would have MAJOR import on his "conclusions!").
My son has been in every hospital in this county for various reasons. They WILL NOT turn you away if you have real injuries. They WILL charge, but if you ain't got a pot to pee in, then obviously, they can't force payment. I had let my insurance lapse a couple of months before having a heart attack. I told the ambulance personnel to take me to a mercy hospital, which would have charged based on means. They wouldn't. HAD to be the nearest one. So I am paying on a total bill of $139,000 (for 8 different things). At the rate I'm paying, I'll need to live to be 263 to pay it off.

My son's bills are upwards of a million bucks, but he has nothing, and invariably, they write it off.

The "Great Society" was the start of this catastrophe in high medical costs. I was born in the '50s. Have the bill from that birth. My Mama was in St. Vincent's for 4 nights, aw heck, here's the bill!

4 nights (Jan 8 through the 12th) @ $9 per day....$36
Delivery room......................................15
Anesthesia.........................................15
Care of baby.......................................12
Diaper service......................................2
Dressings...........................................1.75
Medicine............................................4.50
Total.............................................$86.25

Un-freakin-real, huh?


But, back to "Sicko," you could not PAY me to watch anything by MM. Here's a different take from someone who knows him AND saw his latest "movie."

June 28, 2007
"Sicko": An Adjective Best Meant for Deluded Silver Screen Propagandist
By Debbie Schlussel
Watching the new Michael Moore propagand-umentary "Sicko" , I was reminded of my 1997 encounter with the flabulous filmmaker.
In 1997, Moore insisted on sitting next to me at a Detroit-area screening of his second major documentary, "The Big One." Moore mentioned my early '90s one-vote loss in a race for the Michigan House of Representatives in his best-selling book, "Downsize This!" on which the movie was based. And a mutual friend of ours invited me to the small screening.
"I want to see the reaction of a Republican," Moore said as he sat down next to me. Like most of Moore's movies, the anti-corporate movie was clever and entertaining, while full of propaganda and completely misleading.
After the screening, I told Moore that I thought it he was a hypocrite to be so critical of corporate welfare in America (a point on which I happen to agree with him), while at the same time he was touting a Detroit Tigers hat and an L.A. Lakers T-shirt. Sports teams, as I pointed out, are among the biggest, most undeserving recipients of government-doled corporate welfare. And off the field, I told him, they produce the fewest, least stable market-wage jobs.
Moore's response:
You're right. What can I say? I'm a hypocrite. Who says I'm consistent?
Since the past several years have brought forth both press reports and personal anecdotes by former Michael Moore employees of unpaid overtime, low wages, and lack of appropriate benefits and health care given by their employer (Mr. Moore), I couldn't help but think throughout watching "Sicko" of Moore's convenient response:
You're right. What can I say? I'm a hypocrite. Who says I'm consistent?
Exactly. And that's a major problem with "Sicko" . . . and with everything else Moore does. Do as I say, not as I do. I refuse to live like that, but I know what's best for you.
Yes, the stories of Health Maintenance Organizations denying reasonable care to paying customers are outrageous and heartbreaking (though many of the cases and Congressional testimony he shows are over a decade old). But Moore touts socialized medicine, as if it is somehow different. What he fails to realize is that HMOs are, in fact, socialized medicine.
Moore denounces those of us who are against this failed Communist approach to health care, when he's also denouncing the closest manifestation of it we have here: "managed care." Middle-men at insurance companies--with complete federal government sanction--set doctors' prices (well below market and inflation rates) and impose unfair, normally illegal price-fixing schemes with suppliers (doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies), customers (employers and patients), and competitors (the National Insurance Clearinghouse, which shares info on patients and ensures lack of competition).
That's socialized medicine. We already have the unworkable system of bad medicine that Moore wants. The only difference is that the government has contracted it out to third party agents, rather than completely controlling it.
"Sicko" shows us an America that is allegedly "behind" many countries in the world in health care, and lavishes undue praise on countries like Communist Cuba and France. But he fails to realize that with HMOs, we are well on our way to their systems where everyone gets the same health care--universally bad.
Moore shows us the short waiting time and zero cost of health care for his friends and relatives in Canada, just a quick drive over the Ambassador Bridge from Detroit to Windsor, Canada. But those stories are anecdotal, not representative of the norm. He doesn't show us what's actually going on with our neighbors to the north: That plenty of Canadians are driving in the opposite direction--to Detroit from Canada--to avoid the long waits Moore forgets to mention and the universally-awful Universal health care. And they are paying out-of-pocket for Americans to treat them.
That's because Canada's health care is not exactly the fantasy Michael Moore would have us believe it is.
My cousin, Myrna, apparently lived in a different Canada than the rosy, glowing Canada where Moore's cousins live. She had diabetes and developed black spots on her eyes. But under Canada's magical health plan, she had to wait so long for a proper operation that she eventually went blind. And it was too late. That's the real story of Canadian health care.
In Canada, they have little more than one MRI machine per major city. The waits for a basic MRI for a serious injury are endless. In the U.S., most hospitals and even small private clinics have several MRIs. We have the most MRIs per capita. That's why the injured here don't have to go irreparably sick like my cousin Myrna, waiting for treatment. Canada is rife with incidences of ceaseless waits for limited numbers of hospital beds and stories of well-connected politicians and their relatives moving ahead in the line. You don't have to wait for a hospital bed in America.
And there is a reason why wealthy Saudi sheiks and other gazillionaires come to America for treatment. They could afford to go to the "medical paradises" Moore claims exist in Britain, France, and Cuba (which ranks 39th in world healthcare according to World Health Organization rankings, behind the U.S.). But they don't. Because they deal in reality and want the best medical care available. That's here in America. If you had a choice to be treated by a doctor in America or go to Cuba or France, would you really choose either of the latter two choices?
The best days of American medical care were prior to HMOs, when Americans paid out of pocket for all of their doctor visits and prescriptions. There was no Communist-like middle-man (ie., the HMOs) getting involved add unneeded, exorbitant extra costs for pushing paper. You visited your doctor only when needed, and you paid a lot less.
Market-based medical care--the true manifestation of the capitalism that Michael Moore detests (except when it comes to his performance at the box office)--worked just fine. And everyone could afford it. Insurance was strictly for catastrophic care, not every day paper cuts. Your doctor was not over-worked and spent enough time to give you the best diagnosis and prescription for treatment.
The best and brightest went into medicine because they could earn what they wanted, not what a government-sanctioned middle man at an HMO told them to charge. And they were the final arbiters of treatment--not a bureaucrat with no medical education and training. Since socialism has crept into America's health care industry, the best and brightest are no longer becoming doctors. It's the capitalist truism that socialism and Communism won't change: The best and brightest generally go where the money is. And with longer hours, lower pay, and haggling with HMOs and trial lawyers representing greedy patients, the money isn't in medicine.
American healthcare would be best if the government outlawed HMOs as the illegal trusts, restraints of trade, and unfair monopolies that they are. A return to market-based, out-of-pocket pay for care would end the $200 per pill medicines and exorbitant costs for care.
But that's not what Moore wants. He wants a larger manifestation of HMOs and a move to the health care that has sent the best doctors here, refugees of Britain and Canada.
When Moore shows us the American expatriates in France and other Frenchmen bragging about their great lives and the amount of time they take off from work, I thought back to the many complaints of former Moore employees--who didn't get much in vacations or overtime and spoke of a slave-driver boss. In France, the bloated, welfare-dominant government mandates a work-week of no longer than 35 hours, and many citizens are fighting to work even less. If Michael Moore were an employer in France, he'd be fighting these rules, since he can't even keep the more lax ones with regard to his own employees here.
More important, Moore does not mention trial lawyers once in the over two hours of this movie. But a big reason medical care in Canada and France is so cheap is that medical malpractice lawsuits are virtually non-existent in those countries where the loser must pay lawyer's fees.
Moore's fellow constituents of the left--plaintiff's attorneys like his lefty friend, John Edwards--have added billions of dollars to our health care costs and helped make health care unaffordable to many. Yet, Moore conveniently skips this important driver of expensive "defensive medicine" and settlement payouts by insurance companies.
How can you do a legitimate movie on the current state of American health care and not even mention trial lawyers? Instead of showing us parasites like Edwards gaming the system, sucking doctors dry through endless litigation, and making medical care in America far more expensive, the few scenes of attorneys show crusaders fighting for patients against HMOs.
And finally, Moore shows us that Al-Qaeda Islamic terrorists in Guantanamo Bay get the best health care--better than most Americans. But the reason they get such great health care has nothing to do with what goes on in mainland America. On the contrary, it's the fault of Moore and his buddies on the left in the ACLU and Human Rights Watch are like PETA. They want animals to be treated far better than Americans.
I'd rather we not give them such fine health care and better dining and workout equipment than most Americans. But Moore's comrades on the left insist that these are not really terrorists, but fine, nice people who'd never kill Americans. I'm glad to see that Moore--if only for the convenience of the propaganda of this film--is finally admitting they are terrorists.
If there's one thing Moore is right about, it's "Sicko's" drubbing of President Bush's confusing $400 billion-plus Medicare plan. It's funny that this huge boondoggle--which added much to our tax bill and gave no benefits to the few seniors that actually understand it--was pimped on America by so-called "anti-tax" activists like pan-Islamist Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform at the behest of his buddy, Karl Rove. The program is pure Ted Kennedy/HillaryCare.
This week, the American Medical Association held its annual convention in Chicago. But you hardly heard a peep about it. The AMA--which gets knocked in "Sicko"--is largely a spineless, impotent club of doctors who can't stand up for themselves.
That's because--like the HMO bureaucrats who are clueless about proper medical care and how to treat patients--a clueless silver screen bureaucrat is now deciding what's best for American medicine.
And he--Michael Moore--is as much of a Sicko as they are.
***
Ben

Bill, I am truly sorry about the experience your brother had. I would agree that one should exercise some responsibility in choosing wisely the manner of care one wishes to pursue. That should include MDs and surgeons as well as any "alternative" practitioners. Apparently the companies that provide malpractice insurance have done some research, as the rates a Chiropractor has to pay for coverage are much less than those paid by MDs. If those rates are any indication, one had better be even more careful when considering using the services of a typical AMA member. Which brings me to one of the points I was trying to make. Before our voters and representatives enact compulsory health insurance, let's see what methods get the best bang (cure) for the buck. The current AMA monopoly does not ensure this.

Brian, my sympathies regarding the struggles you've had to endure with your health care. If you follow my train of thought above, who knows. Perhaps it could be discovered that the most effective ways to prevent and treat disease are not so expensive after all. And then there'd be no need to raise large amounts of taxes for those who need treatment.

I haven't seen any MM films, but I have seen the effect that they have had. They make Reps get mad at what he's saying, but sadly they don't watch the film either. I haven't watched any yet just because I'm busy, but I intend to.

I agree that there are more and more people who are fed up with BOTH parties. I used to be a staunch republican- no questions asked. That was just because that was how I was raised. I think that there are a lot of people out there who are in the same predicament. They don't use their brains!!! Just a bunch of mindless fools....that's just my opinion though. I guess it has some value as I used to be a mindless fool myself! hehe

Once I started using my brain and having my own opinions, I realized that many of my beliefs were no longer Republican, but then I looked at the other side and knew that I wasn't a Democrat either. So I looked at the Green party and think that I agree with a majority of their stances.

What is REALLY sad is that many Christians go with the Rep side just because of the stance on abortion or because once again they have no thinking pattern of their own. What they aren't seeing or are refusing to see is that GW is wasting money and lives in Iraq so that his oil business can flourish after he gets done with his term in office.

Don't think that I am bashing Christians because I am not one and have an issue with Christianity. I actually am a Christian, but I AM saying that there are many people out there who just repeat what they hear from other people without thinking about whether or not they believe in it themselves. That is scary to me.

So anyway, the documentary sounds really interesting. When it comes out on video/dvd I'll be sure to watch it. If you want to see a good documentary on politics and religion, watch "Jesus Camp". Very insightful.

Hi Erisa,

I agree with most of what you said. But to be clear, there are just as many blind followers on the left as the right. (i.e. it's certainly not just religious folks... it's all types of folks). Maybe we should start a JPF party. I've seriously been thinking about it.

Brian

Independence Day has passed but Erisa, I think you are still whistling Dixie through the false humility of pride-tainted understanding.

SPEAKING OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION, see if you can accept this dose of reality.

Terry
________________________________________

I Told You So:
The Muslim Doctor Terrorists Are No Surprise; Revealing Muslim Doctors' Oath

By Debbie Schlussel

It's the doctors, stupid!

I'm not sure why everyone is so shocked that all eight suspects in the attempted British terrorist attacks of last week are Medical Doctors (and that ALL eight suspects are tied to the British national healthcare system, the NHS). Readers of this site aren't surprised by the doctor terrorists.

First, Do Harm
As you'll recall, in my mid-May column, "When Your Doctor is a Muslim: Medical Terrorism Comes to America," I wrote about many of the doctors who've been top-ranking terrorists and involved in terrorist plots. Also, of note, I've complained about the special visas available for foreign alien MDs and other medical personnel to practice in America in small towns and at universities. I've written about how this makes it easy for Islamic doctor terrorists to get in and stay in, without much of a background check. (Like America doesn't already have enough medical doctors.)

I did not mention something else I know about, which is a past FBI investigation into Syrian and other Arab Muslim Medical Doctors in the Detroit area who were holding fundraisers for HAMAS. The investigation was mostly conducted by counterterrorism agents in Chicago, as it was tied to a bigger scheme. But nothing ever happened to the doctors because, hey, post-9/11, we must be nice to the Muslims, no matter how extremist they are or how nefarious their activities are.

To refresh your memory, here is the list, though I've added one, who has since been convicted, Dr. Rafiq Sabir, and I'm also adding the British Terror Suspect Docs:

* Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri--Al-Qaeda mastermind and number two man, reportedly a surgeon and/or psychiatrist;

* Dr. Mohammad Rabi Al-Zawahiri--Ayman's father and a Muslim Brotherhood enthusiast, pharmacologist and professor at Ain Shams Medical School;

* Dr. "Abu Hafiza"--Al-Qaeda master planner who was the brains and commander of the Moroccan cell that provided logistics for the 9/11 attacks, and he recruited Qaeda insurgents for battles in Fallujah, Moroccan psychiatrist;

* Dr. Abdel Aziz Al-Rantisi--Late HAMAS leader, pediatrician;

* Dr. Mahmoud Al-Zahar--HAMAS co-founder and leader, surgeon and lecturer at the Islamic University in Gaza;

* Dr. Fathi Abd Al-Aziz Shiqaqi--Late founder of Islamic Jihad and active in Fatah, physician;

* Dr. George Habash--Founder and chief of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), pediatrician (which is interesting since he rocketed a school bus full of children in Avivim, Israel;

* Dr. Bashar Assad--President of Terror-sponsor state Syria, welcoming home to every Islamic terrorist group imaginable, ophthalmologist;

* Dr. Rafiq Sabir--Boca Raton emergency room physician convicted in Al-Qaeda terrorist plot, pledging to treat and train terrorists, along with a New York martial arts expert;

* Drs. Laila Al-Marayati and Riad Abdelkarim--Both work with and/or are top officials of KinderUSA (son of the Holy Land Foundation), which Al-Marayati voluntarily shutdown before the FBI did, as it was openly funding HAMAS "martyrs." Abdelkarim went to "Palestine" in May or so of 2002 with Dr. Dallel Mohammed (not an MD). They took monies collected at an April 2002 fundraiser and were caught by Israeli security handing over the funds to a HAMAS operative. They were detained in an Israeli jail, and a large orgy of publicity ensued. The two came back to the U.S. as Muslim "martyrs" used it to raise money for more.

* Dr. Mohammed Jamil Abdelqader Asha--a 26-year-old neurologist who was arrested and is in custody as a suspect in the attempted London bombings, foiled Friday. He was born in Saudi Arabia, is of Palestinian origin, and has a Jordanian passport. His 27-year-old wife, a medical assistant, was also arrested for the foiled bombings;

* Dr. Bilal Talal Abdul Samad Abdulla--an Iraqi from Baghdad who was also arrested and is in custody as a suspect in the attempted Glasgow International Airport bombing, foiled Saturday. He was reportedly in the Jeep that drove into the airport, and is suffering from third-degree burns;

* Dr. Mohammed Haneef--an Indian Muslim arrested in Australia on Monday night in custody as a suspect in the attempted British terrorist bombing plots of last week;and

* The rest of the EIGHT Muslim Doctor(s) arrested as suspects in the British bombing plots of last week.

In that column, I wrote about Muslim doctor, Osama Ahmed Ibrahim, MD, who deliberately let Jewish patient Joseph Applebaum die, by neglecting to ever see him in over 12 hours under his care in an emergency room at a Chicago hospital, Rush North Shore Medical Center.
See: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/05/when_your_docto.html

Also of note, I wrote about then-New Jersey Dr. Ahmed Rashed, a Muslim Arab resident, severed and stole the hand of a cadaver as a gift for a stripper. He got a slap on the hand and, oddly, is now employed at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York.

And don't forget Dr. Jouhaina Maleh, an obstetrician, whose Dearbornistan offices were raided by the FBI in 2002, for suspected involvement in Medicaid fraud, in the case of masses of Muslim foreign aliens getting fraudulent Medicaid coverage for delivery of their babies--and, of course, U.S. citizenship for them.

Why are their cases tied to those of Muslim terrorist doctors listed above them? Well, because Muslim doctors have such little respect for Infidel human life. That's not just my speculation. It's in the text of the oath Muslim doctors take. This analysis on the site, Who Killed J.A.? (about the murder of Joseph Applebaum by his Muslim doctor), is enlightening:

The Islamic Medical Association of North America ("IMANA") makes the Oath of a Muslim Physician available to the world. It can be accessed from the IMANA Website. According to IMANA, this oath "was officially adopted by I.M.A. in 1977." (IMA is presumably the Islamic Medical Association.) This Oath ends with the following words:
Hereby we take this oath in Thy name, the Creator of all the Heavens and the earth and follow Thy counsel as Thou has revealed to Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

"Whoever killeth a human being, not in liew [sic] of another human being nor because of mischief on earth, it is as if he hath killed all mankind. And if he saveth a human life, he hath saved the life of all mankind." (Qur'an V/35)

[DS: This is flat-out stolen from the Jewish Torah (specifically from the Sanhedrin portion of the Talmud), which preceded it, though Jews don't interpret it to allow Jihad as Muslims do, and it is not an "oath" for Jewish doctors.]

Compared to the other Oaths and Declarations, the Oath of a Muslim Physician appears to be unique in its possibly more conditional nature. The phrase, "not in liew of another human being nor because of mischief on earth," suggests, licenses, allows or can certainly be interpreted or misinterpreted as to give understanding to a physician taking this Oath and who "killeth a human being," that the killing is okay as long as it is "in liew of another human being" or "because of mischief on earth."

"Mischief on earth" has also been translated as "corruption" on earth.

So who are the corruptors and mischief-makers?

We have guidance from some apparent experts:

"Non-Muslims 'cannot be called human beings but are animals who roam the earth and engage in corruption.' said Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati last week at a ceremony in north-eastern Iran to commemorate the 'martyrs' of the Revolutionary Guards and the war against Iraq (1980-88)."

"The non-Muslims are [like] those animals that graze, chew their cud, and cause corruption."

[DS: And there are numerous other well-known Islamic precepts and statements against non-Muslims, particularly Jews and Christians. For brevity's sake, I've omitted them here.]

Also unlike the other Oaths and Declarations, the Oath of a Muslim Physician contains the added dimension of religious quotation. As with all religious writings, there is opening to interpretation. The quoted Sura, V/35, appears in the Arberry Koran as:

. . . whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether.
This interpretation of the Koran, hailed by Wilfred Cantwell Smith of Harvard University as " . . . the one that comes closest to conveying the impression made on Muslims by the original," provides some insight as to an understanding of this Sura.

The terrorist physicians (as some may interpret their actions) killing or harming others or causing others to be killed or harmed may believe that it is permitted by Oath for the purposes of "retaliation" or perceived "corruption in the land." As an example, the historically physician-led Hamas organization frequently justifies its attacks by proclaiming that its assaults are in "retaliation."

Some might argue that certain physicians provided this quality of care well before the adoption of the Oath in 1977. Or, even those who have not taken the Oath, may be in agreement with it.

As IMANA [DS: The Muslim medical society identified above] states, "This medical oath [which] is a composite from the historical and contemporary writings of physicians of (the) Islamic World." The Oath would appear to be merely a reduction to writing while the concepts comprised by it were in play well before 1977 and wider spread in the Muslim world thereby providing justification for a sick care outcome different from that a patient might desire.

Also important is that the first part of the oath--used to deny treatment of non-Muslim patients and even to kill them--has been prominently uttered by Osama Bin Laden to justify jihad.

And there's much more. Read the whole thing. (copy and paste into browser)
http://www.whokilledja.com/Who%20Ki...erently%20From%20What%20You%20Expect.htm

In any event, we should not be surprised one iota that Medical Doctors--successful, wealthy ones with a great deal of education--are terrorists. The phony paradigm that terrorism is a function of poverty and desperation is just that--phony. It's all about one thing that spans the various strata of wealth and poverty: Islam's goal of domination . . . and the use of jihad to get there.

A Medical Degree isn't a prophylactic to that. It's just another very valuable tool to help bring the jihad about.

**** UPDATE: Read about more Muslim Doctors with ties to terrorism, homegrown in America, and how Osama Bin Laden also recites the Muslim Doctors' Oath. ****

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/07/i_told_you_so_t.html

I have been in Eugene, Oregon for the last 10 days or so and have just picked up on this thread and I am not qualified to comment on the movie but will try to see it today or this weekend.

But my time in Eugene was encouraging for some of the reasons this thread is discouraging. Eugene does have a sense of community and concern for it's citizens. Even the government structure puts the citizen first. EWEB in the largest power co-op in the nation. The electric rates are 5.6 cents per kilowatt hour while I pay 15 cents in Texas. Because it is non profit. EWEB lowered the rates recently to reflect actual costs of power generation. The EWEB employees are happy and helpful-and well paid. Health benefits are top of the line.
When the city of Eugene builds streets and bridges, they build bike paths and walkways too. Walk into a Safeway store in Eugene and you will feel like to walked into a Saturday market. There is no landfill to speak of. Everything thrown away is processed, separated then recycled.

The problem with health care, the war in the mideast, social security, destruction of the environment- is all solvable. The problem isn't Rome- the problem is Nero. We have no vision and no leadership. I am a registered republican and I will say without any fear of being proved wrong, that George Bush is the worst US president this county has ever had. All the solutions to our problems are already here. Just climb on a carried jet and soar into the wild blue and you have to be impressed with human invention and ingenuity.

When Kennedy said "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal ... of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth", we did it. Bush needed to inspire and believe. But he doesn't inspire and he doesn't believe. His failure is lack of imagination.

All any president has to do is inspire and believe. I hope the next president's inaugural address borrows from Martin Luther King, John Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln and includes words like this:

I have a dream that before my term of office expires, this nation implement the best, most affordable, efficient, fair and universal health care system on the planet- not because it is easy but because it is hard; that every citizen of this nation be afforded equal health care regardless of income or social status- because all men are created equal and our nation will respect and honor that fact.

Hi again everyone,

I haven't had a chance to read everything---just a quick scan today. But, I wanted to share my experience today.

The last place I wanted to be heading to was the ER with my two kids---one sick and one in tow. But, around 9:30 am my 3 y.o. began complaining of a tummy ache. By 10:00 am it had escalated to severe pain and he was screaming. I tried the activated charcoal slurry a teaspoon at a time which he willingly took for me (he's familiar with how it can help). Nothing helped. He became so miserable he was screaming and screaming so I called the pediatrician to find they were booked till 5pm.

So, we headed to the ER around 11:30am. Enroute, he lost some of the contents of his tummy for the first time and fell asleep. So, I stopped to get my 6 y.o. a veggie buger and planned to return home. Then he woke up screaming again. So we again headed to the ER.

When I entered, something made the doorway device alarm so the security guard checked my purse. Then I looked at the various possible checkin windows and heard an anonymous voice call out asking if she could help me. There were about 5 employees sitting at various posts---but I couldn't tell which one called to me. So, I said, "I'm not sure who is talking to me". Someone chuckled and directed me to the right person behind the big half wall where the deck and computers are. She hands me a clipboard and shows me the two forms I need to fill out after I explain my child is sick.

Still holding him in my lap, I tried to fill out the forms and keep track of my six y.o. I do know to bring crayons and a color book so he did fairly well. Then the inevitable which had not happened yet----happened and I was covered from shirt to skirt and below with offensive wet material. I'm not sure how long it took for things to get better. But, I couldn't help but notice the unpreparedness. First someone handed me about 6 paper towels and a large bucket. I'd already managed to catch the second upheaval with an empty cup that I'd brought with me. Next I was asked if I wanted some towels. That was easy. By then I realized my fanny was also drenched with the material.

My eyes were getting big about that point. I wanted to be home so I could change both our clothes and bathe us. Finally, someone brought a wet towel and offered me two hospital gowns. I'd thought about trying to go back home to change and mentioned maybe I should. The business office girl told the other woman----I think she is going to go home. Someone else brought some lysol spray. I asked if there was a place I could change into the gowns where my six year old wouldn't have to watch. That's when the triage nurse appeared and suggested that I change in the restroom and let the business office girl watch my kids.

Maybe I'm goofy. But, it just seemed so strange to me. They were all nice enough I guess. But, the system just doesn't seem to be prepared for sick people to walk through the door. Especially, mothers who get covered with vomit while trying to fill out the paperwork in the waiting room.

Turns out his abdomen is 'benign' and I was given the choice of to have them test or not test. I chose no tests at this point. He's probably just got a stomach virus. I'll give him fluids and hope he gets better. We don't want to have to go back to a hospital or doctor's office. I'm praying he gets better soon.

It was interesting to me that the security guard laughed at my 'costume' as I was leaving. I laughed with her since I do have a sense of humor and my child felt better by that point. Was very surprised the security guard felt ok to laugh about my predicament. It was a little unsettling but I just made myself laugh at the possibility that someone might report me as a runaway from some hospital till I could get home and change clothes.

Vanessa

Samuel,
You sound like the empty liberal that has been rejected by most of the citizenry. We don't need a National Health Care Government system. We have had that for over 40 years and still the problems persist. As long as it is in the Federal system it will only grow worse.

Of course all you need to is throw money at it and it will get well. Good luck on that.

Last time I looked it is not the President's job to run the country. We have a Constitution and enough laws on the books and a Judial System in place to do the job.

People voted for the things they now criticize. People here in Georgia would argue on who is the worst president ever. They would probably nominiate Jimmy Carter.

If you think things are bad now, wait a while.

Ray- I don't expect the president to "run" the country. I expect the (next) president to "lead" the country- and why are you attacking me? Empty Liberal? I am a Republican. I didn't say anything about a big government health care system. I talked about leadership and vision. I didn't say we should throw money at the problem. It is the nature of "vision" that we look at where we want to go and then find a creative way to get there. I guess you are not interested in providing health care for everyone? You can't imagine a society that provides such an outrageous "liberal" service? Your cynicism and pessimism may be stifling your imagination. And no, the world is not going to hell so lighten up. Your dooms day prophesy doesn't impress me.

Samuel,
It isn't up to the president to lead the country. That is why we have a written Constution. If you got a traffic ticket would you expect the president to hear your case?

We have a congress, house and senate, governors, state legistators, county officials, township officials, mayors, etc, etc,etc.

It is the democrats that seem to think we need a new vision. If you listen to them they say (This time we are going to do things right) or words to that effect.

I have heard the same speech from FDR, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and now Barrack, and Hillary. Trouble is nothing ever gets better according to them. You would think the problem would be fixed by now.

The Federal Government needs to get out of the Medical Business and return it to the states. The reason health costs are so high is because it is in the federal system.

At least President Bush has taken on the tough issues. I call that Vision. But guess what. There has been a lot of resistance so it is delayed. Take my word for it, the whole system is going to bust and we are going to re-visit the 1930's. Hope you have a small patch of ground to live on.

If you read my earlier posts about the 9 trillion dollar national debt, the social security problem, medicare, medicad, and the federally funded retirement system, all in serious trouble look again.

I have read a lot of Pie in the Sky solutions to fix Social Security. With less and less people paying into the system there is no fix except pay out a lot less or raise taxes of which will go over like a lead balloon. People think they are taxed to death now. Vision? You better look out for yourself because no one else is going to. I could go on but you can read all about it in the Newspaper.

I haven't read through this thread very closely, but I just returned from watching 'Sicko' and I have to say it was a fantastic film. The media confirms that most of Michael Moore's facts are correct. If this is indeed true, I can't see how anyone would not be angered by the current system of health care that we have in America. The last part of the movie, shot in Cuba, is just incredible and so very touching. I would agree that is one of the most important films that I have seen in my lifetime.

Living in New Hampshire, I've already had the opportunity to personally meet many of the individuals running for President. They can't hide from the health care issue and they will continue to get grilled by the public. Both parties have dirt on their hands. The time has come for a fundamental change. Western Europe and even Cuba have shown us that there is a better, fairer, and more humane way to care for the ill.

First,I think every country should have at least three political parties to choose from.We have three and a half parties,the half party is only available in Quebec,actually we have the green party too now,so we have 4.5 parties.When we had just three parties,one never ever got elected to office,but that party was the one that pushed and got our health system,old age pensions and unemployment insurance.If the other two parties did not steal and adopt the good ideas of that third party,the third party would have been elected and brought in the reforms anyway.

Second,to bring in a health care system like Canada's,would mean that insurance companies,private hospitals,drug companies, lawyers,doctors,etc would have to forgo their huge profits from their high markups,they ain't gonna like that and will fight and lobby against it.It might take a third party to bring this in,like it did in Canada.

Much of the lies spread about how bad our system is,is done by those that have the most to lose if you switch to our type of system.

The inflated cost for hospital stays and surgery(to give profits to shareholders)means insurance companies have to charge high prices for their coverage.Surgery in Canada,cost about one third that of the US,as do our drugs,most of these drugs are made by US companies,our federal government buy these drugs to supply our system at a fraction of what they charge your individual hospitals.Your government demands that public companies return the highest profit possible to its shareholders,who pays for those profits, you do.Some things should be outside the realm of profit,like health care,fire and police protection,armforces,etc.

Well said Everett. Now if only those right wing nincompoops would only listen.

While I won't dispute the effectiveness of Canada's system or any other for that matter I would ask a few questions about a few things.

Where do these other countries get their drugs and cutting edge equipment?
It seems like the USA is the main supplier of this stuff.
I wonder why that is? Could it have anything to do with that Nasty word "profit" or capitalism.
The other countries won't pay enough for the stuff so companies in those countries won't invest Billions of dollars to develop new drugs or equipment, there is no profit in it. They sit back and wait for the good old USA to do it for them.
Then of course their Governments strike deals with the USA companies to buy in bulk at a reduced rate. That's how business works. Sad but true. And effective. It allows them to offer care at a reduced rate since profit is removed from the system. I can't argue with that. It works.
Remove profit from the system here and the companies will quit risking Billions of dollars to develop new drugs. Then where will the other countries be. Where will we be?
Actually I think it stinks that we allow other countries to buy from us for less than we have to pay for the same drugs. But, that's politics. I assume their must be a lot of middlemen between the drug companies and the consumer because someone is making a lot of money if the drug companies can afford to do that. Or, is that why we pay so much, to make up for what the other countries don't pay?

It is indeed sad to think the quality of our health care is dependent on Profits.

Bill,
So true, so true. Sombody has to do the dirty work and then are given no thanks. They say Hell is for Heros. Liberals want to do great things but they want to do it with someone elses money. If we could all board that Gravy Train.

Bill (you too, Ray)

I'm sitting here feeling sickly, but after reading only the posts below mine, I was feeling even worse (maybe just fighting anger), reading stuff like Kaika's. The PRESS agrees with M Moore. Well, LORD ALMIGHTY, strike up the band! And these poor folks, like sheep, TRULY think Couric, Lauder, Sawyer, Brian Williams, ET AL, are pure, facts only reporters. AND they hear enough disparaging remarks about Fox News, Rush, Hannity and the rest, that they feel absolutely NO NEED to check any of it out (for more than 5 minutes!), because all those network, cnn, yada guys TOLD them they're all right wing, bigoted, hypocritical jerks.

Wonder why we NEVER hear the numbers regarding Dems since they took over congress? It's all about Bush's 29%, not a frickin' word about the lowest ever recorded NINETEEN % for the House & Senate.

You know, it really doesn't take a genius to ask one simple question. Why is it 98% of ALL network moderators, "reporters", etc. are liberal? Those who have surrendered their brain cells to that bunch don't bother asking. Doesn't that reek just a TINY bit? It is SOOOO easy to listen to the other side...that being conservative...but I suppose it's even easier to go with the flow of BIG news (including the completely ridiculously biased...yes, that would be liberally biased!...New York Times), and accept as gospel any drivel they lay at your feet. Even people like John McCain get caught up in it. He knows if he says something they want to hear, they'll cover him like stink on crap. Of course, he loses conservatives left & right by doing so. I believed all that garbage myself for years, simply because that's all I was ever exposed to in print or on the boob tube. But now, ANYONE who so desires can take a FREE look at the side you rarely see (except when it's being pilloried by the left)and make up your own mind. Speaking of "mind," it BLOWS mine that so many are just so durn certain they must be right, they won't even entertain thoughts of checking things out.
Tall Terry often posts links to factual sites (as do I occasionally) and I'll bet any amount less than half a percentile of those with a liberal mindset ever bother checking them out. It makes no sense. I mean, this isn't Sun Myung Moon or Jim Jones tactics.
It is almost impossible to get through to Rush's radio show, but I daresay I hear at least 1 caller per week (and I don't get to listen all that much) confess that they believed all the stuff they heard and read about him and all things conservative, and how they feel like abject fools for swallowing it hook, line and sinker without EVER simply checking out the truth for themselves.
Invariably, it is a relative who "turned them on" to Rush. One guy did it on a bet with a friend. As in, "Listen for 3 weeks, if you don't change any views, you win the $500. But if you do, you owe nothing."
Rush consistently replays comments he has made, which most regular listeners have already heard, and then LETS you HEAR (when possible) someone quoting him, with blatant lies. Not mere innuendo...LIES!

MY God people, all you have to do is check it out.

One final thought. Can anyone tell me why Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas are standards of ridicule, more so than pillars of achievement. If they were Democrats, don't you think they would be heard from FAR more often and in a much better light.

It is SO much easier to be a liberal and just FEEL everything should be a panacea, and by believing it hard enough (even after FORTY years of failure in the black community...continuing to treat them as victims...why the hell do Kenyans come over here and do just fine, thank you?)and collecting enough taxes to throw at any problem, it will resolve itself.

Wake up, people.

NOW, as I originally set out to say, Bill, great response. You and Ray hold the fort, now, cause I'm outta here.

Note to everyone:

Many folks have asked why I allow political discussion on here. The reason is that I think our community is capable of rising above the BS of a two party system that currently seems to exist only to get people angry at the "other" 50% of our country in the US. Add to that obvious animosity against folks from other countries and vice versa. The sad thing is it appears that perhaps I was too optimistic. It seems our members really aren't completely able to rise above the hate and venom and intolerance that is out there in the rest of the world.

A few have shown tolerance.. many haven't. A few have shown an ability to disagree using points and facts rather than emotion and opinion, many haven't. A few have been capable of actually learning from opposing viewpoints or at least learning ABOUT them before making gross generalizations... others haven't.

I have a vision for JPF that goes beyond just hacking around in the music industry. Sure, there's plenty of work to be done there and I keep doing it. But there's more that can be done with rational people who can disagree and still get along.. who can see things differently but not be indifferent to the others viewpoints and who I hope can actually take 2 views and find the common ground and offer real world ideas for solutions rather than he said/she said types of auto-contradictory diatribes.

So tell me folks.. are we capable of that? Or are we wasting out time thinking we're rational and open minded enough to be a positive force beyond our little niche?

Brian

I think that I've learned to play well with others here. {LOL}

We live in an instant society,we want what we want and we want it now.We want instant food,if we have to wait more than a few minutes for it,we want it free.Business tries to accommodate us but they will charge us for that accommodation.

It's true,we don't have near the MRIs in Canada as the US,even some doctors there have their own MRIs.I am sure that MRIs must cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each and a lot of dollars to run.So if I was a doctor in the US and I paid that kind of money to accommodate my impatient patients,I would make sure I perscribed an MIR at every opportunity and charged a good stiff fee for it,after all,that machine has to be paid for and return a good profit.

I live in a small town,less than 20,000 people,our hospital has a Catscan but no MRI.When I ended up in hospital on Christmas day with severe dizziness,they had to determine what caused it.It wasn't an ear infection,they suspected a slight stroke,a Catscan showed no sign of a stroke,they shipped me by ambulance to the nearest hospital that had an MRI machine,two and a half hours away,where I had a scan on the MRI,it showed up nothing wrong.They had a ENT specialist check me out for other ear problems.I was in the hospital that time for eight days,the cost to me,zero dollars.Now all this happened in Canada,with a system that is deeply flawed,at least according to the propagandist from a profit driven system in the US.With a system that is free, you will get a certain amount of abuse,so to protect the tax payer that pays for this free care,the use of these dollars are used to the greatest efficiency possible.Sure,if you go to a doctor with a headache,demanding a MRI,you will be put on a waiting list if the doctor suspects a tumor or something,but not for a hangover.

As for Canada and other countries taking advantage of the poor drug companies,that makes me laugh.Canada could easily develope our own drugs and employ a lot of people to do so,but then we would be competition for the US drug companies on the world market.It is better to give us a fair price than have us compete with them,too much competition only drives the price down world wide.

Someone mentioned the best doctors going to the US.The doctors that are doctors to become rich go to the US.We do have a problem with big money drawing doctors and nurses away to dollar rich hospitals in the US,but some of them return when they don't like the system of profit over compassion.We have many good doctors and nurses that stay for good pay and not have to worry about carrying heavy insurance incase they get sued,doctors do carry insurance because they can be sued for malpractice but it does not happen as often here as the US.Maybe that means doctors here are more careful,not rushing to perform another highly profitable operation.

When you demand instant service of any kind,there is a price to be paid,if you are rich,you can afford that price,but the poor can not,so they are forgotten,no profit in treating them.The rich and powerful from foreign countries that don't want to wait their turn,will go to the profit driven US hospitals where they can have their problem taken care of,instantly.The gears of injustice are greased by the almighty dollar,while the gears of justice slow to a crawl from the grit of grinding the poor into the dirt.

Everett

I'm trying to figure this out. It would be a bad thing to drive the price down?
Canada doesn't develop its own drugs because it would be in competition with the USA companies that is supplying the drugs to Canada? You would be able to develop the drugs cheaper and then sell them to the USA cheaper? Canada would then also be able to sell the drugs to its own citizens cheaper still?
So why doesn't Canada do that?

I think that would be great. Put our greedy drug companies right out of business. That'll learn 'em dern 'em

I would like to ask you how is it that in Canada you can purchase a drug for 1/3 the cost of the same drug in the US?

Is it that we are stupid and willing to pay 300 percent more for it than you without questioning it?
If our Greedy profit driven drug companies are so ruthless why do they allow your government to buy the drugs for so much less than we pay for it? I would think they would charge Canada more.
I find it hard to believe Canada pays what we pay then discounts it to its citizens. They would be bankrupt in no time.

But if that is the case then I applaud Canada.
Of course this is all speculation. I have absolutely no idea how much Canada pays for the stuff. It was all just a guess.
France and all the other countries that have free medical care are doing the right thing. I agree one hundred percent with that.
That we do not have such a system is a tragedy.
You are saying that all Doctors in The USA are only in it for the Money? And All Canadian Doctors are pure and altruistc?

What I do get sick of hearing is how disgusting the USA is and how we are all greedy capitalist and how the rest of the world hates us. This after we send them Trillions of dollars in aid. Supply them with Medicines and equipment for free. Defend them for free. Take their unwanted in and feed them and house them for free. Give them free medical care while our own citizens can't get squat. Send our young men to their countries to die.

Personally if it was up to me I'd cut off aid to anyone in the world who even hinted that we were like that. Let them fend for themselves and see how well they do.
But in the end I probably wouldn't.
Because that's just how us greedy Americans are.

BTW Both the Hospitals my wife has worked at were NON-Profit.

Brian
Sometimes it takes a little disagreement among folks to bring things to light. I have changed my mind on a few things as a result of this thread. Even without seeing "Sicko".
It has certainly raised my awareness of the problem with the uninsured and with the problems we have in our country's health care system.
I don't know how to fix it but at least I know about it now.
If Canada and france can do it why can't we?

You can stop allowing this kind of discussion if you want, it is your show. But, what would that accomplish?
If I were to meet in person anyone who disagrees with my point of view I would certainly shake their hand and be pleased to meet them.
My cousin died two years ago. You know, I miss him a lot because he was my hunting and fishing buddy. We also worked construction together.
But you know what I miss the most. He was as Liberal as I am conservative. We had some awful arguments about it.
He would get so mad I would think he was gonna bust a gasket. But I miss it. I think he kept me grounded a bit.

[quote=Brian Austin Whitney]Note to everyone:

Many folks have asked why I allow political discussion on here. The reason is that I think our community is capable of rising above the BS of a two party system that currently seems to exist only to get people angry at the "other" 50% of our country in the US.

*********

This is the very thing that is most distressing to me when I participate in political discussions. Why do we have to stratify whole segments of society into liberals and conservatives? Why do we have to blame Mexicans for seeking a better life in the land of opportunity? Why do so many people think our problems are not solvable unless we punish someone? Why do so many folks think that government is the problem and then just as many think it is the solution? If I had to identify the new tyranny in America, I think it would be a toss up between Corporate Greed and Intolerance.

Amen, Bill.

Here's a little tidbit (HUGE, actually) that many of you might not know. When I learned I was going to be on 2 different heart medications (monopril & amiodarone), after open heart surgery, I price shopped, knowing I would possibly be taking these drugs for life. There was/is a wide variance in the cost between pharmacies.

CVS, which seems to have a store every few blocks, charges $144 for the 60 tablets of each.
COSTO, which allows you to buy from their pharmacy without being a member, charges $51. Extend those figures over one year, and that $306 at Costco vs. $864 at CVS. NO WONDER CVS and others (Harco, et al) are so plentiful. You can bet your boots Costco is still turning a profit, while these other guys, who pay no more (probably less, since there's so many of them, they can buy in larger quantities) are taking us to the cleaners.

Here's the problem. MOST people are insured, so they have the same small co-pay no matter where they do business. If they were paying out of pocket, as I am, they'd go the extra mile to save a small fortune (BTW, this price disparity exists across the boards...for all drugs). I'm being totally honest when I say that even if I had coverage on my drugs, I would STILL go to Costco, on general principle alone...though obviously not if it was a major inconvenience.

Ben,

Actually you're wrong on your theory and comparison. The profit margin on most drugs at pharmacies are small. A lot of their profit comes out of front store sales (i.e. food items, miscellaneous other stuff). Costco DOES use those items as loss leaders. The $4 dollar deal that Wal-Mart was offering is misleading because they chose generic drugs that usually cost about the same already at other pharmacies plus a slight markup. They are simply using them as loss leaders to get you into the store. That's fine for them to do that and people are free to shop anywhere. I would certainly pay the lower amount if available. You give an example of "60 tablets" but 60 tablets of what? You don't even say. Supply some verifiable facts if you're going to rant.

There are zillions of chances to find vastly different pricing on a given item in a given store. Best Buy has always used music as a loss leader and always therefore been cheaper than other retailers. But they aren't always the cheapest on the video equipment. I compared a TV this week there which has 300 dollars higher than it was at Amazon. (Not including tax). Companies pick and choose where to make profits and where to drive business. Costco isn't in the pharmacy business.. pharmacy business is there to drive their wine sales and their tire sales and their furniture sales and their gadget sales. And they offer far less service (i.e. labor) than other competitors in those businesses. Some people like that better (I shop at SAMS and am going there in a few minutes actually) but I don't buy my meds there because I get them cheaper at CVS. I take 12 different drugs. Perhaps I could find one or two cheaper at Sams or elsewhere, but overall, CVS is a better deal for me.

Your argument is exactly the problem I have with heated discussions where fact and details are less important than grand sweeping statements.

Brian

The truth----is IMPOSSIBLE to know. People spew grand sweeping statements that they THINK are the truth. That's why this site is so great Brian, you get to weed through all the BS and form you own opinion. I have learned alot reading this thread. There are NO EASY ANSWERS to any of our problems... people will moan and howl and yell and defend their core beliefs based on the info they get. It's so easy to leave out a little detail here or there mixed in with some truth and manipulate things. What is one to do? Lying is part of the fabric of society unfortunately

Herbie

"You give an example of "60 tablets" but 60 tablets of what? You don't even say. Supply some verifiable facts if you're going to rant." (Quote from Brian A Whitney)

Rant? RANT??!
You haven't heard me rant, pal. You wanna hear a rant I'll give you a call.

I think maybe you need to go back for remedial reading, Brian. Knowing you, you'll likely come up with some ridiculous explanation for what I'm about to call you on.....

(monopril & amiodarone)

There now. Is that a little clearer for you, cochise? What do you think...I mentioned those specific drugs and then simply pulled various prescriptions out of a hat for comparisons. My gosh, that is truly unbelievable.

Now, it is true I didn't mention the milligrams of each, but I figured ANYBODY would assume I was comparing apples to apples.

And you are DEAD wrong in your assessment of of where stores like Harco make their profit. We have one sitting right next to a Walmart, a Fred's Dollar Store, and a Winn Dixie. They sell almost nothing as far as sundries, or anything else, save for drugs. They don't even try to compete, with prices well above the 3 aforementioned places. If someone is simply looking for the convenience of an easy in and out, they'll shop Fred's all day over Harco, and save tons.

As for your "lost leader"....heh-heh, fixing to blow up another one. Sorry.

As a non-member of Costco, I.....................

am not allowed to shop in Costco!!! So, yeah, you got it right there, Mr. Whitney. I guess I (and all those like me who go to Costco for drugs) are not only lost leaders, but lost followers also, huh?

Put that in your pipe and smoke it...or better still, come back with a brilliant response that is SURE to somehow trump everything I just said.

Your failure to pay a bit of attention to a post is the problem I have with heated discussions where grand sweeping statements are more important than fact and details. Know what I mean?
Ben Burton

PS To anyone coming in on this without reading the rest of the thread (which I myself haven't done), Brian has decided to call me out. He did it earlier in a post just after mine, but since he didn't use my name, I let it slide. This time, however, he did, and i responded in kind.

And therein is the rub. You expect us to take what you post and postulate as truth, that you're all-knowing and correct. And you are, from your point of view.

Remember, it's never safe to assume.

There are certain points you make that are what I would consider to be valid. There are also certain points that Michael Moore makes, that I consider to be valid. However, to me neither of you are 100% spot on and neither am I.

To borrow a phrase from Bill, simmer down before you blow a gasket.

p.s. - I have read the thread.

Hi ya doing, cool dude?

You expect us to take what you post and postulate as truth, that you're all-knowing and correct.

Not being altogether certain as to what part of my posts you are referring, I'll address two.

Regarding my postulations in an earlier thread, I said (quite clearly AND emphatically, I might add) to....CHECK IT OUT! How does that throw me into the company of a know-it-all? Some people are actually provoked at the very NOTION of taking a cursory look at the OTHER aside of the news.

As regards "taking my word for" anything to do with what Brian railed on about, let me explain.

Lemme see, you pick up the phone.
Call CVS and ask the price for 60 amiodarone (which will prompt the question, "How many miligrams?").
At that point, you say, "what does it come in?". They will then tell you the options (in MY case it's 200 milligrams).

Take your pick, but whatever milligram you choose, be sure to write it down so that you may give the same dosage of said product to the Costco pharmacy (which you'll call next), and then you can compare the prices, without divine intervention from me.

Now exactly which part of that required an advanced degree in quantum physics to understand?

See how assumptions are made? I made so little reference to anything in particular, one had to assume what I was getting at. I was pointing out that it's never safe to assume.

As I've mentioned on this JPF board before, there are three sides to every situation - your side, my side, and the truth. In this case "your" would indicate someone else's view of something. "My" would indicate one's own personal view of something. "The Truth" is the intangible that only becomes reality when everyone involved can agree on the intangible in question.

It's painfully obvious that Health Care in America is messed up - very likely in more ways than just one. I'm pretty sure most people on this thread would agree with that. The great thing is that conversation got started. People are thinking about something other than Paris Hilton, finally. Now comes the trouble in figuring out a way to create a health care system that would benefit everyone involved. That's going to be the hard part.

My mindset is that most medical conditions are a result of attempting to patch a symptom and not rooting out the cause. I prefer to stop the cause, not patch the symptom.

I can't assume what anyone else's mindset is.

Out of curiosity, who here prefers to root out the cause of a medical problem? And who here prefers to patch the symptom of a medical problem?

The reason I ask is because it's two totally different ways to approach providing health care.

Jody,
You seem like a nice enough fellow. However, you did sort of "bait" me into that response by your personal remarks about my supposed omniscience. Let's let that go.

The part that truly bumfuzzles me is that my post regarding price differences was meant as a totally innocuous, informative post that I hoped might benefit others. I said I price checked, and so I did.
BUT, I didn't even know Costco had a pharmacy until my sister sent me a list of drugs with price comparisons taken from a list of...maybe 12 companies. Costco beat them across the board. I HAD been getting my meds at Sam's Club (where I AM a member - their price was lowest at $74), until I was made aware of Costco, and the fact you didn't have to join.
Therefore, if anyone knows someone who has to pay for their own, tell them to check Costco. I mean, this isn't an ad for them. I don't own stock! (wish I did)

No worries Ben,

I was making a point out that everyone has a view and each view is valid for that person.

There's been a bit of name calling and terms thrown about that are really a result of people not being able to see each other's views. Somewhere between all the different sides in these posts here is a common notion that leads to the truth.

Part of it comes from each person, including those who don't agree, and even those who aren't aware this is here (like Michael Moore). As I mentioned before it's good that this topic comes up now. It's a hot topic for the country, and if it isn't, it should be.

Who's going to be the first to answer the question: who here prefers to root out the cause of a medical problem? And who here prefers to patch the symptom of a medical problem?

Once we get a consensus who prefers which method, it might give all of us something to think about. A way to get the ball rolling towards offering solutions.

(now if you'll excuse me I have a song itching to get out of my head and no it's not about health care).

Jody
I'll agree with you on that.
Western medicine has evolved into a treat the symptom system.
Prescribe a drug for the symptom, the drug has some side effects, prescribe another drug to treat the symptom, and so on.
It is true that prevention is much more effective. Sometimes you can even reverse the process of the disease by natural means.
Peripheral Artery disease can often be helped by diet changes and excercise. I am facing that myself now. If I don't change what I am doing it will only get worse.
Obesity causes all kinds of problems. Adult onset diabetes is often caused by obesity and can sometimes, not always, be controlled by losing weight and excercise.

However, Sometimes crap just happens and Modern medicine is the only way to go.
If a baby is born diabetic nothing in the world will save it except insulin. It gets insulin or it dies. And a parent will pay whatever they have to keep their child alive.
This is another situation where our Health care system fails us. Michael Moore is right about that for sure.

Hey Bill, (Robinson)

My husband's family also hails from the Gunn clan. My son's bagpipes (ordered straight from Scotland) cover has the Gunn tartan plaid. Guess your familiar with their motto "Aut Pax Aut Bellum" or in English "Either Peace Or War".

Best,
Lynn

I'm too busy living my wonderful American free-lance musician life. On my terms. Haven't seen that movie. I've had enough diseases for awhile, thank you. Some real, some imaginary. My youngest child went away to camp for camp for 3 weeks today because he's smart. I'm so happy that I can afford to pay for 1/2 of it. Thanks, Dad. I'm taking the other one on some road trips soon, because there is a lull in my work scene. I don't much care. I'm a Dad, first. Everything else comes after that...........................Thanks, Dad.....................

Ben,

It wasn't clear to me when I read your post that you were specifically talking about those two drugs listed earlier in the post. You talked about the names in a different paragraph so I thought you were talking about something new until reading it again after reading your latest rant. What I said is accurate and correct however. Just because you aren't a member doesn't mean they don't want you in their store in hopes you'll join and buy a lot of other stuff. Loss leaders are one way to entice people into their store. So are letting people come use the pharmacy. But make no mistake, their hope is you'll drop a bunch of money on other stuff eventually. Most people do. Those Costco pharmacies are not where Costco is making their money. In the case of CVS, though they do certainly mark up stuff over cost (and thus they cost more than loss leader stores) they also hope you will spend a lot of money on front of store stuff. In addition, most people have insurance and the insurance companies pay an entirely different rate to CVS etc. than someone walking in the door and paying full list price as you are comparing. As I said in my previous post, I certainly don't blame people for shopping around. But every store has different pricing strategies to make their profits on some things at a loss on others. Best Buy does it on CD's. Some groceries do it on Milk... Costco and more importantly Wal-Mart DEFINITELY have loss leader prescription items. I don't care how much you rant or don't want it to be true, it IS true. And I made no comments about Harco as I have never even heard of them before. They aren't here in the Midwest that I have ever seen. I can tell you that the actual action of just FILLING a prescription, even at Wal-Mart, is more than 4 dollars meaning all those 4 dollar drugs are automatically loss leaders.

Now here's a USEFUL tip for you... since you seem so adamant that you know all. Go to your CVS store with the info on the price difference that you're unhappy about.. and they will MATCH it. Yup. You can get the convenience AND the price. In fact, you can call around to every other pharmacy in town, collect all the lowest prices on prescription items and then go to CVS with that list and get those prices. Perhaps if you take a deep breath, control your obvious hatred for me and have a dialog instead of a rant, you'll learn something. But then you like to make gross generalities right? Yup.. thought so.

As for your other rant about me directing a previous comment to you, that's not remotely correct because I haven't read your other posts prior to the CVS one. I wrote that after reading what appeared to be to be borderline racist comments that someone else posted. But since you're ranting now like a rabid dog, I'll go back and read what you wrote earlier. Hopefully it doesn't contain the same level of animosity your recent ones do.

Brian

Sounds like somebody could use some Prozac!

I saw Siko yesterday with my wife. It took some hunting to find a theater that is showing it. I had to drive about 40 miles to Arlington, Texas to find a showing.

It is the first movie I've seen in many years where people applauded during and after the movie. I am beginning to understand that the people who hate Michael Moore the most don't watch his movies. I was on the phone with a fellow songwriter yesterday and when I told him him my wife and I were about to see the movie, he said "Michael Moore is nothing but a lying pig". Then he told me he has never seen his movies and would never see them. And this is my friend!

So now that I have seen it, I will quote my wife's comment about it because I feel the same way. She said, "It made me laugh; It made me cry; It made me angry and it made me ask why our health care system is so messed up that hospitals dump patients who can't pay on the streets of Skidrow in their nightgowns.

As for me, I don't care if Michael Moore uses film craft and editorial gimmicks to make his point because I saw real people, real stories and real tears. When a man is ask which severed finger tip he can afford to have reattached (the $12,000 one or the $60,000 one) and then they toss the $60,000 finger tip into the dumpster because he can't afford the bill, you don't have to do much more explaining to me to convince me that our system is screwed up. When you hear the testimony of HMO medical reviewers who admit that their job was to find reasons to deny medical treatment based upon tiny loophole infractions, it sends chills up your spine because all of us, even the ones with so called "good" insurance, could be stuck with crushing bills that could put us on the street.

One of the biggest applause came during an interview with a historian and doctor in England who explained how and why England decided shortly after the war to provide Universal medial care. He said simply, "If you can find the money to fight a war, you can find the money to provide Universal health care". He had been explaining that before the war, England, like the US, was in an economic depression and yet during the war, there was full employment. And I think he was stating an economic truth. It doesn't "cost" for health care. Providing it "creates" economy. Just like a war provides jobs for bomb makers and tank makers and aircraft manufacturers. Companies get rich, middle class folks have jobs and buy more bread and houses which stimulate the economy. If the US decided to launch Universal health care as ambitiously as it went to war, we might train more doctors, build more MRI machines, reward doctors for getting folks to lose weight or stop smoking. Bring back fitness in the schools etc. It would be an economic boom. The economy is just a measure of human activity. It doesn't matter if it is based on war or gambling or health care- human activity IS the economy. So why not make that activity accomplish good things and not bad. We could launch an economy based on saving the planet if we wanted to. Companies providing solar and wind power would spring up like spring flowers. Inventors would insure cars got 80 mpg. It is just like landing on the moon in July 69. 1. Have a vision about it. 2. resolve to do it 3. do it.

And since this is a music forum, here is a little known song that I believe was released in 1970 shortly after Neil Armstrong first stepped on the surface of the moon. It is just as fitting today.

Armstrong

Black boy in Chicago
Playing in the street
Not near enough to wear
Not near enough to eat
Don't you know he saw it
On that July afternoon
He saw a man named Armstrong
Walk upon the moon

Young girl in Calcutta
Barely eight years old
The flies that swarm the market place
Will see she don't get old
Don't you know she heard it
On that July afternoon
She heard a man named Armstrong
Had walked upon the moon

The rivers are getting dirty
The wind is getting bad
Wars and hate are killing off
The only earth we have
But the world all stopped to watch it
On that July afternoon
To watch a man named Armstrong
Walk upon the moon

And I wonder if a long time ago
Somewhere in the universe
They watched a man named Adam
Walk upon the earth

Here's a little video clip...VERY fair review of sicko, followed by an article.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/video/18602/the_hippie_conservative_reviews_michael.html

By David Asman

Michael Moore's aiming for America's heart in his new film "Sicko."

He's taken our pulse and decided that our blood pressure is ready to burst over health care, and that the time is right to mainstream socialized medicine. Already "Sicko," which premiered in New York and Washington, D.C. this week, is receiving applause from trendy Republicans as well as Democrats. The film is a paean to Hillary Clinton's initial attempt to socialize medicine when Bill Clinton was president. But it also represents Moore's attempt to appeal to America's center.

After pulling on our heart strings by showing the consequences of horrendous injustices by U.S. hospitals, insurance companies and HMOs, Moore travels to Canada, England and France and is "overwhelmed" by how much better everything is over there. His European travels culminate in a dinner with American expatriates in Paris, during which he gets an earful not only about the wonders of nationalized health care, but also about the French 35-hour work week, their 5-week vacation schedule, unlimited sick time, and just about every cradle-to-grave subsidy known to man. "And it's all Free??!!" Michael keeps exclaiming, as though he's hearing this for the first time.

It's a skillful performance by Moore, but my bet is that most viewers won't be fooled. First, In Moore's grand allusions to French welfare programs, he conveniently fails to mention their last elections, in which the socialist candidate was trounced by a conservative, who wants to reduce if not eliminate many of the "free lunches." One is left to wonder why the French would vote overwhelmingly to change what Moore describes as the perfect system.

The French discovered the hard way what Americans understand in their gut: there's no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody pays somehow, and government services are usually twice as expensive and half as efficient as private services. And that's not even to mention the corruption that can be hidden in layers of inefficient bureaucracies.

Fraud within our $275 billion Medicare program was last estimated (when it was a smaller program) at over $50 billion a year. Throw in the entire health care industry, estimated in 2003 to cost $1.67 trillion dollars (National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association) and one can only begin to imagine the variations and amounts of fraud that could be hidden within a bureaucracy with no bottom line.
But Moore is a skillful propagandist and cannot be dismissed lightly. He succeeds in preaching without sounding preachy. And he reaches out beyond the socialist base for support of his socialist message.

He gets a member of the Canadian Conservative Party to speak out for socialized health care. He emphasizes that British doctors make a fair amount of money and that they even get paid according to how successful they are (incentives work!). He's reaching out to the center, and one can almost see him marching arm-in-arm with the CEO of Wal-Mart, which recently came close to a full endorsement of universal health care.
And if Michael Moore had left it right there, he might have pulled even more converts from the center. But he got greedy. Rather than settle for a polite handshake with socialism, he went for a full bear hug.
At the end of the film Moore takes a group of "gringos," all of whom have been terribly mistreated by the U.S. health care system, to be treated in communist Cuba. The hospital Moore and his companions are taken to in Cuba appears cleaner and more orderly than many U.S. hospitals, with semi-private rooms, crisp, clean sheets, state-of-the-art equipment and upright, English-speaking doctors. The not so subtle message: Even communist health care is better than what we've got.
Now I've been to hospitals in Cuba, and they don't look at all like the one in Moore's film. I can only guess that the facilities we are shown in "Sicko" are reserved for the communist hierarchy and foreign VIPs. The contrast between what we see in the film and Cuban reality is dramatic.
In the two Cuban hospitals I visited, the lack of the most basic materials in Cuba was readily apparent. Hospital personnel were literally begging me for anything I had that could be used to help the sick. One hospital I visited asked me for dental floss because they'd run out of suture material.

But in "Sicko," a $150 inhaler is easily found in a local pharmacy and several are given to one of Moore's sick U.S. companions for about 5 cents each. I have never seen or heard of readily available medicines like this for anyone in Cuba, and it seemed strangely coincidental that this particular brand just happened to be within easy reach of the first Cuban pharmacist that Moore and his crew walked in on. This scene was either set up by one of Moore's Cuban "minders," or Moore was a party to a fabricated scene. The only other possibility is that there has been a monumental effort in Cuba to clean up its hospitals that has gone largely unreported.
It probably won't take much to refute the "Potemkin village" view that the Cubans created for Moore's film. It was so over-the-top that any Cuban or Nicaraguan familiar with the bitter reality of Cuban health care will be able to easily refute these images. As it happened, I happened to be sitting next to one such individual during the screening: my wife, who came here from socialist Nicaragua in 1988. During one round of applause from the audience (comprised mostly of rich celebrities), she leaned over to me and whispered: "Why doesn't someone ask: 'If it is so bad here, why are people still dying to get in?'"
My wife went on to make a point that went to the heart of the nation's move to the left that, no matter how awkwardly, Michael Moore is trying to exploit. Many Americans have forgotten how well off they are. They complain at the slightest pain, because they're told that virtually ALL their problems can and should be taken care of by a nanny state. Most immigrants, on the other hand, know that the nanny state is a lie. They know that the more powerful a state becomes, the more liberties and choices they all lose. And that's why they flock to the U.S.

And that's why immigrants may be the last bulwark against the growth of big government. Not the kind of immigrants who come here illegally looking for a handout. But legal, driven, brave immigrants, who are willing to work hard and eventually eschew the kind of patronizing hand holding that seems to be coming back in vogue among politicians and pundits.

As my wife says: "Legal immigrants have backbone and don't feel sorry for themselves because they have to work hard. That's because we know the difference between working hard and having no job at all. We are not suckers when it comes to the false promises of politicians and hucksters like Michael Moore, and we appreciate freedom."

Michael may be reaching for the heart of America. But I prefer to believe that my immigrant wife has a better idea of where it is.

"Supply some verifiable facts if you're going to rant."

Alright, Brian. I'm not letting you slide and having your buddies give me all kinds of "advice" (prozac, simmer down before you blow a gasket.) as if I'm way out of control. Please tell me what exactly in the following post (which, INDEED, is the one that you directed the above quote to, no sliding around or trying to obfuscate on that one. You said it SPECIFICALLY), point out for me, sir, the parts where I "rant", or do you consider the entire post one extended rant?

You know, you ran off one of the sweetest, most able posters (Lisa Gundling)not long ago with your, "Lord of the Manor", "my way or the highway", "I'm never wrong" attitude. That's how I KNEW you'd come back with some lame excuse ("Oh, well those drugs you mentioned weren't in the same paragraph, so I couldn't be reasonably expected to infer you were using them as your guideline")...gimme a break!

All you needed to do regarding that faux pas was a simple, "Oops, don't know how I missed that. Sorry, man." But you would no more do that than eat nails.

Ben
PS DON'T get sidetracked. I'm dying to have all the rantings of the post just below these lines pointed out to me. Zieg Heil! (Those were what I call rants.)

Here's a little tidbit (HUGE, actually) that many of you might not know. When I learned I was going to be on 2 different heart medications (monopril & amiodarone), after open heart surgery, I price shopped, knowing I would possibly be taking these drugs for life. There was/is a wide variance in the cost between pharmacies.

CVS, which seems to have a store every few blocks, charges $144 for the 60 tablets of each.
COSTO, which allows you to buy from their pharmacy without being a member, charges $51. Extend those figures over one year, and that $306 at Costco vs. $864 at CVS. NO WONDER CVS and others (Harco, et al) are so plentiful. You can bet your boots Costco is still turning a profit, while these other guys, who pay no more (probably less, since there's so many of them, they can buy in larger quantities) are taking us to the cleaners.

Here's the problem. MOST people are insured, so they have the same small co-pay no matter where they do business. If they were paying out of pocket, as I am, they'd go the extra mile to save a small fortune (BTW, this price disparity exists across the boards...for all drugs). I'm being totally honest when I say that even if I had coverage on my drugs, I would STILL go to Costco, on general principle alone...though obviously not if it was a major inconvenience.

EDIT: What makes makes your taking exception to this post even more puzzling is the fact that this particular comment seems to align nicely with some of what you & M Moore are contending. Medical hijinx!

If a baby is born diabetic you should wonder what changed to cause it, because it never used to happen. Since diabetes is a diet-related disorder, you should look into the diet, in this case, of the 9-month environment of the fetus, the mother's body, which caused the effects of diabetes in the baby growing there. It was diabetic before it was born. Why? Diabetic symptoms are common in pregnant women, generally disappearing after delivery. What changed in the mother's diet to make her fetus diabetic?

Teenagers didn't used to develop diabetes either. It was called Adult On-Set Diabetes, because it was diagnosed most often in mid-adult years, and in a small number of people, compared to 2007 numbers. Teens get it now in numbers that would be an epidemic if it were the flu. What changed in their diet?

Fiberless white sugar floods into your bloodstream and your pancreas reacts with a flood of insulin. Cause and effect. Fiber that would slow absorption of the sugar carbohydrate has been refined away, and a more pure concentration, easily absorbed into your bloodstream, remains.

Fiberless white flour causes the same effect, turning to sugar. Flour is a starch, like potatoes, which turns to sugar. One doctor explained that a baked potato can be considered the same as scooping out the potato skin and refilling it with an equal quantity of fiberless sugar.

Those two fiberless sugars caused health problems for years for many people. But High-Fructose Corn Syrup replaced fiberless sugar in 1000's of products in the 1980's. It was a new fiberless sugar in the American diet. Consumers didn't know they were getting it in so many of the things they consumed. It was cheaper for the seller. Less of it makes a food just as sweet as a larger quantity of more expensive fiberless sugar from sugar cane or sugar beets.

But soda pop consumption increased 300%, with High Fructose Corn Syrup, in what has the appearance of being addictive consumption behavior. Then, from 1990 to year 2000 diabetes increased 60%, suddenly affecting teens. What changed? If measles increased 60% you'd look for a cause for that effect.

So the afflicted turn to their doctors. The doctors only know what they learned in medical school. They trust the school to be the expert, just as patients trust the doctor to be the expert. But the pharmaceutical companies are not interested in curing you. That's cheap. They want to 'treat' you so you come back again and again, paying your doctor for 'care,' getting your prescription and renewing it for...well, as long as you've got money. Not until you're cured. Doctors may not even try to counsel you about cause and effect. The pharmaceutical companies pay millions to get medical schools to teach doctors how to 'diagnose' disease and prescribe their drugs. Not to 'cure.' Just to 'treat.'

Only you can control the 'cause' end of the equation. But unless you educate yourself how will you know what the cause is? Where will you get that data? I had to study very hard, gleaning from a dozen books, dozens of news articles, documentaries, newscasts, personal testimonies of people afflicted or whose families were afflicted, to tell you what I've just told you.

Diabetes may be reversible if you know the cause and can identify the sources and stop putting the volatile substances into your mouth before the damage goes too far. But your government feels no allegiance to you to educate you. The medical profession feels no allegiance to Hippocrates' oath, "First, do no harm." The food companies want your money and are willing to kill you to get it. So do the pharmaceutical companies, and the doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies. Indeed, doctors, nurses, and people in all these professions, including politics, suffer these same diseases, most of them uneducated about the cause and effect.

Insulin is a powerful hormone, stimulated into production by foods you eat. It tries to get your body's cells to accept the food you eat to burn as energy. If you're not active and demanding energy in those cells, they 'resist' it (I think that's type 1 diabetes).

Insulin has a 2nd chemical option to cause the resisted nutrient to be stored as fat. Insulin commands your liver to produce 90% of the cholesterol your doctor detects in your bloodstream, to enable fat storage processes. It's not genetic predisposition for you to overproduce it. And the amount of animal cholesterol you get in a rational diet is comparatively negligible.

Cells in the walls of your arteries swell up due to the 'push' of insulin. Swollen, they are tightly packed, less porous for nutrients to pass through to tissues underneath, resistant. The interior of the cells 'clogs' up. Tissues underneath starve for oxygen and nutrients and clearing of wastes.

The swelling closes the opening through which the heart has to pump blood, increasing blood pressure. Cholesterol and other substances stick on those swollen walls in that narrowed opening. Sedentary behavior doesn't 'flush' vigorously through these arteries, carrying substances to the kidneys for disposal.

Tissue damage results from the plaque and lack of nutrition. White blood cells come to help, get trapped there and create infection. The infection can erupt into the blood as a clot, causing a heart attack, #1 cause of death and debility among Americans.

This repeated assault throughout the body stimulates your immune system to fight back against the main source of all these diseases, the production of insulin. It can't stop companies from selling volatile substances as foods. It can't stop you from buying them and putting them in your mouth. But it can attack and destroy insulin-producing pancreatic cells, and does. I think that's type 2 diabetes.

Soon, you can't make insulin adequately to do what it is supposed to do, help you burn nutrients for energy, and your cells resit what you can produce, but it retain its ability to store fat.

This whole complex of diseases, obesity, atherosclerosis, heart disease, diabetes, high cholesterol, are caused by these volatile substances which got into your food supply in increasing amounts and became more and more of what you were fed as a fetus, a child, and continued to feed yourself as an adult. They 'run' in families because families eat what their parents feed them and continue to eat that way and feed the next generation the same way. Because they don't know, until they are afflicted, that something about the foods is deadly, and sometimes even then they don't know or can't save themselves.

Nothing protected you from it then, and nothing protects you now. Only you can enact tactics in a strategy to save yourself from the debilitations of these preventable diseases. Only Michael Moore has made a documentary to try to help you know something is wrong with the system. And, not having seen his movie yet, I don't know if he knows the ounce of prevention which is worth a pound of the false 'cure' the medical profession sells. Cheaper bad medical care is no better than expensive bad medical care.

No one is criticizing America. This is the nation born of standing up against an irrational, predatory social system which displayed indifference to the health, education and welfare of its people. It is an ongoing battle to keep that irrational, predatory force at bay, to preserve what we have fought and died for, given up our taxes for, paid for health 'care' and gotten mockery and indifference. Why victims would defend the predators eludes me. Don't confuse victim and predator with political liberalness or conservatism. These terms are irrelevant to the facts.

I watched it. First impression: Highly disorganized group of guys attempting to talk about a film they watched illegally. Great credibility there. Interestingly they make some good points and then bash Michael Moore. Obviously these guys don't like him. What I couldn't figure out is why they'd say something derogatory, but say it turning away from the camera or like they were gonna cough. My instant reaction to any person that does that: childish.

The Hippie Conservative claims Moore is lying. Mr. Hippy himself says that Moore doesn't use any facts to back up his 'lies' - doh, that's a lie. There were two statistics in the movie that I directly remember: 50,000 people a year die from lack of medical coverage, and that America ranks 37th in the world for health care. Those are facts and they didn't come from Moore, but he repeated them. Plus showing by examples is about as close to being a single fact as you can come. Interestingly Mr. Hippy later in the review uses those very same people as being great representations. The Hippy can't figure out what side of the fence he's on with the movie.

Mr. Hippy doesn't like single facts/factoids, he likes generalities. He poorly explains this then tells the viewer to visit his website for a complete reasoning. Fortunately I understand this without that visit, so here's the meaning: a single fact/case can be an exception to the general rule. Generally speaking this is true. Unfortunately Mr. Hippy isn't capable of saying this idea so succinctly. Too bad he's into free speech behind a mask, I can't find his name anywhere. Again, I feel that lacks credibility when one can't use their name to make statements.

"It's sad he [Moore] came up with it." - John. John [a reviewer] is stating it's sad that Moore came up with this movie that finally got people talking about health care. If John is so brilliant then why didn't he do a movie?

Despite the obvious hate, all three of these reviewers agreed flat out that health care is in shambles and that people should watch the movie. Whoa, wait a minute, isn't that the primary reason of why this discussion got started?


Free? No, David, Mr. Moore gets a direct explanation that it's covered by their income taxes. Free meaning there is no co-pay, at least in the examples we're shown.


Propaganda is a pretty heavy word. One that I believe is inappropriately being used. It is a skillful performance, that I agree with. The movie does what a good/great movie should do, it makes you think, it makes you laugh, it makes you cry, it get's you angry. I can't deny that it does all those things, which a lot of movies these days, can't do.


The thing this article just missed and that is vitally important to the British doctor who gets paid well, is why he gets paid well - and he's on screen explaining it. His incentive to get paid more is by making sure his patients are fully healthy, well, no illness, no side effects. That's a rather important thing for an 'article' to leave out. Lots of Americans would probably take it to mean that he gets paid on pushing people through his system, patching them with drugs. Which isn't how the doctor explained it.

This reviewer is also casually leaving out other things like the actual people from Canada who have been in America, or come to America. (the Hippy guys felt it was America bashing, but actually it was getting another point of view - remember my three sides to every thing?)


What a nice way to describe some American volunteers doing something heroic, "gringos". That's downright rude - but hey it's a free country, this reviewer is free to write it. Though doing so destroys his credibility in my eyes. Oh and wait a minute, this guy has been to hospitals in Cuba too? Was he investigated by the government to? That would be interesting to find out.


It's no state secret that drugs are considerably cheaper outside of the U.S. I've known people who have gone to mexico, to get theirs. Why? Because even with the high gas prices and the time to get there, it's cheaper. It's the same drugs, same brands. Also, I read the news and I remember articles about the internet system of buying drugs from Canada. Again cheaper. But the drug companies say, don't do that, it's dangerous. They could be inferior drugs. What?!? It's their drugs people are buying at a more reasonable rate.


For the same reason we're talking about health care right now - propaganda. Sounds silly don't it?


It's not just legal immigrants that want the government to get out of their lives, I could find this David Asman a whole lot of Americans that want the government to get out of their lives as well.


Don't leave me hanging David, where is the heart?

Actually there have been lots of documentaries done about health, food, drugs, etc... The problem is none of them are as easy to watch or as well publicized. Most documentaries are like watching paint dry. Michael Moore has brought a value to documentaries that makes them watchable. Some people appreciate that, some people don't.

p.s. all documentaries have a bias from the filmmaker.

Ben,

Ha! Bob Cushing, of all people, is my crony/errand boy now? Once again, you make grand sweeping claims that are false and off topic and laughable. But that seems to be all you can do. You asked me for an explanation on why I didn't make the connection of what drug type, brand and amount you were taking. You later gave an amount, you never even to this point specifically said if generics were involved versus brand names (there's a huge price difference involved there) and your claims that CVS was going to cost you a lot more money were false because you apparently didn't know everything about what you were claiming. CVS matches prices. It's the same thing most large retailers do. But it seems you weren't aware of that. Now you are. So your rant seems even more pointless.

Then you made a claim that I addressed a previous post to you but because I didn't use your name, you said nothing. I didn't use your name because the post had ZERO to do with you Ben. So apparently, beyond being angry, you're paranoid. That does imply a serious imbalance you have.

Then the REAL truth of the matter finally comes out in your latest rant. This is all about you being mad because Lisa decided to leave the site. She wasn't forced out. She wasn't deleted from the site. She's still able to be active as a poster and even after she said she was leaving, she posted again. It was 100% voluntary on her part. She was the source of the negativity on that post just as you are the source of it here. If you're so angry and you dislike me and what I do here, then I will make the same suggestion I make to anyone in your place, find somewhere you like better and go there and stop being angry and unhappy all the time. We can't appeal to everyone here. But make no mistake, this site belongs to me, I pay the bills, I do the work and you're a guest here. If you're going to keep pissing on the carpet because you're mad your friend has thin skin and left of her own accord, I suggest you join her whevever she went and move on with your life in a more positive way. We'll be happy to do the same without you.

There's plenty of people on this post disagreeing vehemently with me and others. In the case of Bob Cushing, we've had some epic battles in the past and I am sure we'll have more. In the case of Jody and Bill and Ray and just about all the others on this topic, we also sometimes adamantly agree and disagree. Ironically, I imagine we actually agree on the majority of topics. I happen to watch Fox News all day when I am off the road. But I am not compelled to agree with them without thinking and learning and getting to the truth of the matter. The first info I heard about this movie (getting back on the actual topic) was from people on FoxNews saying it was actually an important film that could positively change things. That's when I started to look into it. Ironically it's blind zealots that simply parrot anything that the less enlightened people on FoxNews say rather than have their own opinion that get's that network its bad press. Those folks cause me to have to defend the fact I watch the network. After reading your rants, both on and off topic, it's clear to see why that happens.

Good luck wherever you land Ben. But if nothing else, you need to get rid of some of your anger. Perhaps this post at least gave you a chance to do that.

Brian

Believe you got caught in your own trap here, Jody....

"Because most Americans would assume it to mean that he gets paid on pushing people through his system, patching them with drugs. Which isn't how the doctor explained it."

So you are now thoroughly capable of speaking for "most Americans?" Wouldn't that be an assumption on your part, hmmm? Come on now. Don't try to filibuster...you got caught.

Your take on what most Americans would think didn't even cross my mind. I would think of success as an all encompassing term, including performance, likability among patients, true measures of success, not how many you can shoo through like a herd of cattle. I daresay very few would deem that a measure of success, certainly not "most Americans."

Ben
PS Don't forget the famous quote, "Remember, it's never safe to assume."

Yup, it would be. So be it. I should have written "lots of Americans".

It still doesn't forgive the lack of credibility on either review or the fact that each person can be an exception to a general rule.

Ben,

Should we go through all your 5000+ posts and point out every single tiny flaw in them? I am not sure we have the space on the sites hard drive. There's hardly any perfectly composed posts on this site without mistakes, omissions, incorrect word usages, slight mistakes with syntax or typos. What we look for is if your actual POINT is valid. Is your position on the issue correct, informed and useful or is it the opposite. In your case, your entire premise was wrong. CVS and Walgreens, the two largest Pharmacies in the US, will match anyone else's prices on drugs. There's no need to EVER pay more than the cheapest prices in town if you bother to check them. So the entire point of your post has been shot down, but rather than acknowledge how wrong you were yourself, you're now going to split hairs with everyone else's posts? How many times do you have to be proven fundamentally wrong before you move on?

You just keep digging a deeper and deeper hole Ben.

Brian

The main issue or one of them it the difficulty to get health insurance by certain types of people. One should examine some of the reasons why.

One reason is the laws that insurance copmanies have to live with. There have been some that say the cost of a lawsuit may well bankrupt a insurance company if the laws are heavly written to the side of the individual.

Insurance companies examine the laws carefully and if they are bad for writing insurance for certain types of conditions of an individual they will not write the policy.

There have been those that want to change Tort Reform to Cap extreme court decisions but it has been difficult so the person needing insurance is rejected. We have all heard of cases that have been awarded extremely high amounts of money, most way over any fair award. Insurance companies keep up with legislation so they can at least be protected from unfair laws.

These things have been reported for many years so it is nothing new.

You could do the same type of movie about potholes or bridges, etc,etc,etc.

Brian, it was a fair thing to poke at me. As I got him on an assumption too and I did write that it's not safe to assume.