I mean, I'm a capitalist and I hate socialism an all, but

WTFM8 wrote:

Evidently none of you understand what happens when the coddling blanket of socialism removes the incentive to work from the lazy masses.

Wow, I know you're being brainwashed and all, but is anybody really that stupid?? A healthy population is good for everyone - not just for "the common good". It's good for the economy, education, public safety, you name it. The only thing it's not good for is the world view of pathetic misguided hateful sheep like you. Well, get over it.

In fact, of all people, conservatives should be in favor of it. Don't you want minority and poor juveniles to be in good health? I mean, you're gonna ship them off to war, they gotta be able to last at least a few months. Or are you worried that it removes an incentive for them to enlist? The GI Bill not enough anymore?

konami code wrote:

What about the fact that we spend MORE per person than countries with universal health coverage but get WORSE results?

Amazingly, there are people that buy this argument hook, line, and sinker, which is why the "France spends less on health care per GDP with the same or better results" argument is gaining traction. To put forth this argument, one would have to assume that the French and Americans eat the same exact way from childhood, incur the same levels of stress, and live under the exact same conditions to make a comparable case. Very frankly, this quite simply isn't the case. Americans are a whole lot sicker and heavier to begin with, which is WHY there is so much demand for health care to begin with in this country. Secondly, how do we know that French GDP is comparable to US GDP to make the denominator in this whole example equivalent? I for one have seen gross distortions in the way the French calculate productivity per hour. To compare French GDP to USA GDP is not comparing apples to oranges. But it sounds good and most people are ill-informed, so Moore gets away with this RUSE.

As for universal health care? Guess what folks? The French are actually moving away from their GREAT system of health care because of the inordinate taxation and fiscal policy to subsidize the program. In fact, as we gravitate more toward French socialism in this country, The French have a newly elected, capitalist-leaning prime minister, who has appointed a US-educated, free-market oriented trade minister. We are moving in opposite directions.

You want to give everyone access to some type of health insurance and use some form of government tax credits to do it? Fine, but universal health care is simply a poor idea that will have severe economic ramifications and removes all and any incentive to take accountability for one's own health, while inflating the TOTAL cost of health care, because there will inevitably be more demand overall. Michael Moore, as compassionate as he may actually be, is, once again, asking the wrong question. He should be exploring why it is that he and the majority of other obese Americans are SO fat and heart disease and diabetes ar so rampant. He should be finding solutions to that ROOT problem, not merely accepting it as status quo and lamenting that the pandemic in poor health in the US should be paid for at all costs.

That's ridiculous false. French people eat a very high-fat diet, albeit less processed. My god, have you ever even been to France? Everything is loaded with fat. They drink way more alcohol and smoke more than Americans. In fact, if it weren't for the outrageous quanities of red wine they drink, they would all get heart attacks by age 35.

Such a long post and absolutely no idea what you're talking about...

ridiculously

Uhhh, dipshit, first of all, yes they do drink quite a bit of red wine and consume a great deal of fish oil or other omega 3 oils, which negate the other harmful effects of their lifestyle. Secondly, as you have correctly pointed out yourself, they do not eat nearly the level of processed foods that we eat, which is extremely improtant. Thirdly, while they enjoy their desserts and cheese, they still do not consume near the level of sugars and carbohydrates that we do, which is a lot more important than consumption of "fat." Fourthly, eat a ton more fresh fruits and vegetables. Finally, they do not incur nearly the levels of stress in their daily lives.

Have you ever actually been to france and lived there as I have? You sound like you are simply regurgitating "well-known facts" abot France gleaned from the American media. Oh, and by the way, was I not simply pointing out that the whole health care spending per GDP comparison is a ruse? I never said that the French lead model lives that people should emulate if they wish to be healthy.

That was a nice try at an in-depth answer (and be very, very careful, you dared to say something nice["compassionate"] about Michael Moore. You will lose every conservative friend you ever had if you let that slip again), but you ignored several issues. Why is "universal health care" a worse system than the one we have where emergency rooms have to cover the poor and uninsured any way, at everyone's expense? What about the middle-aged couple featured early in the film where they BOTH had good jobs and BOTH had health insurance, but had to move into their daughter's storage room because they were bankrupt all because one had cancer and one had heart attacks? Should that happen? What kind of bull-shit health coverage were they given?

What about the kid that ALL runners should relate to who was refused coverage by BCBS because he was 6'0" 130lbs ? What nonsense is that?

Why should families be bankrupt paying for drugs they need while the gov't passes bills so that Pharma companies can make an extra 100 Billion ?

So you and others are telling me that free-market capitalism means mega-rich insurance companies and mega-rich pharma companies on one side with regular people not being able to afford that insurance and those drugs, and then if they try to, becoming bankrupt? Is that the grand dream of pure capitalism at its best? If so, no thanks, I'll take a dose of socialism mixed into my health care.

Sagarin wrote:

Finally, they do not incur nearly the levels of stress in their daily lives.

.

Hmmm....I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that they know that if they get sick THEY WON'T GO BANKRUPT TRYING TO PAY FOR THE DRUGS AND CO-PAYS. Maybe? Think about. Vicious circle of health care we have here, with the only guaranteed bottom line being: CEO's of Big Pharma and Insurance companies make another several Billion. And that's the most important thing, right?

real realist wrote:

That was a nice try at an in-depth answer (and be very, very careful, you dared to say something nice["compassionate"] about Michael Moore. You will lose every conservative friend you ever had if you let that slip again), but you ignored several issues.

Thanks for your qualified opinion at assessing my argument as a "nice try," you PhD economist, you. Oh, and by the way, I am not a conservative, though I am fiscally conservative. You know who I am voting for in this next election if he chooses to run? Michael Bloomberg. You know why? Because he is a pragmatist, not beholden to some corporate coffer like the other two sides of the aisle. He raised taxes, God forbid, in the early days after 9/11 to maintain vital infrastructure and emergency services in NYC. He outlawed trans-fats in NYC restaurants. Now there's an idea. He then provided certain kinds of tax incentives to stimulate investment in real estate and business. He rejuvenated the public education system by bring in an outsider not beholden to the teachers' union we staggering improvement in the system, most notably amongst disadvantaged students. But yes, he is a Wall Street guy, who I seriously doubt endorses universal health care at all levels because he understands economics 101.

As for big pharma, I am not holding them out as saints and bishops, but if you understood economics at all, you would know that the system of charging one portion of the population a certain price for a drug while allowing an alternative "Canadian" system of fixed pricing is not a sustainable dynamic over the long haul. You would also know that most of the actual NOVEL drug development takes place in the US, and that an EXORBITANT level of big pharma revenues are plowed back into R&D. Oh, I know, everyone LOVES to talk about how much money big pharma makes in absolute terms, but they always fail to mention the liabilities of heavy taxation and R&D. I would be willing to bet that when you take these into consideration, big pharma has some of the lowest margins amongst all sectors in the S&P 1500, except for maybe big oil.

real realist wrote:

Hmmm....I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that they know that if they get sick THEY WON'T GO BANKRUPT TRYING TO PAY FOR THE DRUGS AND CO-PAYS. Maybe? Think about.

Christ, what a compelling argument. End of dialogue.

I so admire the genuine, if completely ignorant and uninformed, commitment of our young kids.

Also, let's not forget that Moore is not arguing for complete socialism, rather the socialization of healthcare. It is completely possible to have a capitalist, free market economy without the public healthcare sector. Take the money back from the wealthy investors and insurance companies and give it to the people who can't even eat. I agree that everyone can work to some degree, and should do his or her part, but as a society we certainly should be willing to improve someone's living conditions and general welfare to the point where he or she can make a positive contribution without it draining them dry.

To be so belligerent and yet so ignorant. Oh well, all par for the letsrun course.

You're making a bunch of completely unfounded assertions, not only about the lives of French people (take one cross-city ride on the Paris Metro or the A6 around Lyon and tell me those people don't experience stress... how laughable) but also about the effects of various aspects of a diet. Show me that sugar, not fat, is the driver of Americans' bad health. Christ, you sound like that Dr. Fatkins quack. And you accuse others of relying on "conventional wisdom"?

In fact, show me the stats that French people are less susceptible to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, erectile dysfunction, or whatever the hell those diseases are that cost us so much money. Or, by your rationale, would cost us more money if people were actually insured. You can't, because it's all bullshit conservative rhetoric.

People all around the developed world live with just as many health risks as Americans. The difference is they get better preventive care, which means they have both lower fatality rates and lower treatment costs.

If you want to make this an economic argument, you absolutely don't have a leg to stand on. But I actually think it shouldn't be an economic argument at all. I think it's fuc\king pathetic that this self-proclaimed richest and greatest country in the world can't (i.e. refuses to) provide basic health care for all its people. Some great country that is.

"Let's spare no expense when it comes to protecting people from a completely bogus threat of Saddam's phantom WMD, but we won't do fu\ck-all to protect them from the high risk of serious illness." You make me puke.

Umm nope wrote:

If you want to make this an economic argument, you absolutely don't have a leg to stand on. But I actually think it shouldn't be an economic argument at all. I think it's f***ing pathetic that this self-proclaimed richest and greatest country in the world can't (i.e. refuses to) provide basic health care for all its people. Some great country that is.

"Let's spare no expense when it comes to protecting people from a completely bogus threat of Saddam's phantom WMD, but we won't do f***-all to protect them from the high risk of serious illness." You make me puke.

Wow, yet ANOTHER economist posting on this board evidently. That much is readily apparent. Oh, and clearly you didn't read my last post since you try to paint me as some ultra-conservative. Amazing that not only do you buy the health care-expenditure to GDP argument across nations, but that you also believe Iraq had to do with WMD. I guess it truly is whatever appeals to the lowest common denominator. Oh, and by the way, we do provide some basic level of health care for everyone in this country already. And I pay for it through my higher premiums and higher taxation overall.

I have no problem with the preventative medicine aspect of your argument, but it is not that cut-and-dry as you wish it were. No system of universal health care or coverage or insurance will work without personal accountability (personally, I AM advocating some form of universal insurance and a safety net so that people cannot be financially ruined by a medical event). What you fail to understand is that to emulate the French fiscal model itself is immoral. It is costing the French jobs and economic output, and it is the primary reason why that country is having to move towards a more capitalistic, less onerous fiscal model. Your gross negligence makes me puke as well.

Umm nope wrote:

That's ridiculous false. French people eat a very high-fat diet, albeit less processed. My god, have you ever even been to France? Everything is loaded with fat. They drink way more alcohol and smoke more than Americans. In fact, if it weren't for the outrageous quanities of red wine they drink, they would all get heart attacks by age 35.

Such a long post and absolutely no idea what you're talking about...

By the way, who was initally belligerent, hypocrite?

Sagarin wrote:

Michael Moore, as compassionate as he may actually be, is, once again, asking the wrong question. He should be exploring why it is that he and the majority of other obese Americans are SO fat and heart disease and diabetes ar so rampant. He should be finding solutions to that ROOT problem, not merely accepting it as status quo and lamenting that the pandemic in poor health in the US should be paid for at all costs.

Interesting, Sagarin.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Good article on Mr. Moore and his philosophy:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/freedom_and_benevolence_go_tog.html

The government really should provide us all with health insurance, just because they are extremely efficient with everything.

phillie phan wrote:

Also, let's not forget that Moore is not arguing for complete socialism, rather the socialization of healthcare. It is completely possible to have a capitalist, free market economy without the public healthcare sector. Take the money back from the wealthy investors and insurance companies and give it to the people who can't even eat./[quote]

Not yet he isn't.

[quote] I agree that everyone can work to some degree, and should do his or her part, but as a society we certainly should be willing to improve someone's living conditions and general welfare to the point where he or she can make a positive contribution without it draining them dry.

Does "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" ring a bell at all?

studmuffin wrote:

I don't see the right to life, liberty, and medical care anywhere in the constitution. How can people believe that people should have to pay for treatment that costs time, money, and other resources?.

1. right to life is considered a fundamental right. Access to medical care is a subset of the right to life.

2. Hint...once you pay your taxes, it ain't your money anymore. So shut up about what the government (ie, society) decides to do with THEIR money.

Umm nope wrote:

"Let's spare no expense when it comes to protecting people from a completely bogus threat of Saddam's phantom WMD, but we won't do f***-all to protect them from the high risk of serious illness." You make me puke.

Sagarin wrote:

Wow, yet ANOTHER economist posting on this board evidently. That much is readily apparent. Oh, and clearly you didn't read my last post since you try to paint me as some ultra-conservative. Amazing that not only do you buy the health care-expenditure to GDP argument across nations, but that you also believe Iraq had to do with WMD. I guess it truly is whatever appeals to the lowest common denominator.

Oh, and by the way, we do provide some basic level of health care for everyone in this country already. And I pay for it through my higher premiums and higher taxation overall.

Sagarin, it was stated that the WMDs were "phantom", thus negating your insult to this poster. You were "painted" as a conservative because YOU STATED IT EARLIER.

What is the basic level of health care we provide? Medicare? Medicaid? If you think they are adequate, you're gravely mistaken. I understand you're a fiscal conservative, but where is YOUR social responsibility? You, as a citizen, have the responsibility to help those in your society. It's not socialism, it's HUMAN NATURE. Unless you are a strict Darwinist...

How is it that we can have socialized fire protection, crime protection, mail, and various other things, yet we can't socialize medicine, the one thing we need more than all of those?