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

defender of liberty wrote:

I am not saying that you should immediately change your ideas,

You aren't ? Ah, how nice of you, what a guy!

Libertarians live in never never land. They are the most deluded lot of people I've ever met.

anyone who uses the argument "govt has to provide healthcare because it states in the constitution pursuit of happiness"

well I like those people to explain it's not really the goverment providing healthcare, its the people paying half of their income thats providing the healthcare, hence, the govt is not really the ones suffering, its the people suffering. A person who is healthy and is working a primary job at burger king doesn't want his/her taxes given away because of the fact they DO NEED to spend it on something else (rent, transportation, food, basic neccessities ect.) That's one thing the left fails to point out, people have other needs besides healthcare.

Mr.Price wrote:

Eat a di*k!

Tell me this you a*sholes?!

You've already proven you're just as selfish as the di*ks who abuse welfare and foodstamps.

blah, blah, blah, blah

However, at the end of the rant he wrote: "but then again the market helps those who help themself..."

Never a truer statemnt has ever been penned on letsrun.

Me saying that "the market helps those who help themselves was ment to be sarcastic." How can the market help those who aren't able to help themselves because they've got brain damage... because the hospital diden't revive them until they knew they could pay for their services?

How can anyone help themselves when they are at an absolute physical distadvantage to those who WERE able to pay for the health care they needed to continue living a productive life?

The answer is they can't. If health care isin't provided to people relatively cheap then the market is actually KEEPING people from being able "helping themselves." All it's doing is driving a wedge between the "haves" and "have nots."

Here's the thing. If Michael Moore, and other obese, gluttinous Americans, would put as much energy into losing weight and getting absolutely healthy, thereby obviating the need for his eventual $100,000 quadruple bypass, his knee and hip replacements, and his lifetime type II diabetes shots, as he does into making his propaganda productions, then there would be plenty of money in the government's coffers to pay for the MINORITY of all of these other cases you are referring to. personal accountability would relegate this entire conversation to irrelevance.

Mr.Price wrote:

Me saying that "the market helps those who help themselves was ment to be sarcastic."

By the way, was it not obvious to you that I gathered this by the way I replied?

But I digress wrote:

Here's the thing. If Michael Moore, and other obese, gluttinous Americans, would put as much energy into losing weight and getting absolutely healthy, thereby obviating the need for his eventual $100,000 quadruple bypass, his knee and hip replacements, and his lifetime type II diabetes shots, as he does into making his propaganda productions, then there would be plenty of money in the government's coffers to pay for the MINORITY of all of these other cases you are referring to. personal accountability would relegate this entire conversation to irrelevance.

And therein lies the problem. Some people think we should be forced to pay for the stupidity of the masses. You remember when you were in elementary schoo, middle school, and high school going to class and doing your work, meanwhile you were surrounded by f***ups who didn't even try...yeah, those are the people we're paying for now. Fantastic.

Mr.Price wrote:

If health care isin't provided to people relatively cheap then the market is actually KEEPING people from being able "helping themselves."

Oh, and one more thing, though I'm really not trying to be a dick and I respect your good nature. The fact that you believe this statement that somehow universal health care is going to be relatively cheap is amazing to me. Hence the old adage, "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until its free." Will it be cheaper for certain segments of society? Perhaps, though I doubt it. It will simply cost more, but the inflation won't be obvious because it will be coming from somebody else's pocket. In fact, the cost of medicine as a whole will probably rise given the government's bureaucratic constipation.

--------------------------------------------

First things first, the fact that you were as equally sarcastic in responding (and a smartass) as I was just made you the coolest person on Let's Run. Honestly, I laughed. Good work. I wish everyone was like that.

Second, I don't really think it's realistic to pin the blaim for all health related issues on people like Michael Moore and the un-healthy. Certainly, some people are largely responsible for their health problems but a large number of Americans aren't. Accidents do happen. Health problems pop up. The human body is something we, despite all our progress in learning about it, are forced to explain by trends and generalizations. There are reasons risk factors are what the insurance agencies use to calculate premiums.

Take Alberto Salizar for example: the man was a former world class runner and if he can have a heart attack then anyone can. This is the type of thing I'm really concerned about. There is no way he showed up on his insurance as being pre-disposed to having a heart attack but you know he is now. These type of things, at a minimum, are what we need to take care of. Not everyone who can't afford health care did something to warrent them getting sick or injured.

The deal is if we rely on calculated risk factors to decide if people deserve health care to be paid for or not we are ignoring their actual needs for the insurance itself and basing a moral issue on something other than "lies," or "damn lies;" just pure and plain statistics.

Do you really want to go the route of saying people are just statistics in regards to their health? Health is something that is very hard to quantify, extremely morally charged, and yet to make health care fit with the market it has to be treated this way. There just aren't many other models out there get away from universal health care v.s. privitized care... although it would be interesting to see if a hybrid system could be created.

Finally, I'm not so unrealistic to believe that universal health care won't be costly. It will be. But if Americans, despite whatever bone-headed stuff they do can't be given at least a basic oppurtunity to live, then every medical dollar spent on someone who has the money as oppopsed to someone else is a blood dollar.

It's a heavy cross to bear, I know, and socalized health care isin't something that fixes everything. But I don't see any reason why statistical cost considerations ought to be the first and foremost consern in dictating if or not someone gets morphine while having surgery. Maybe a secondary issue. But, based on the fact that the health care industry is so care oriented it's awfully unrealistic to expect them to work with strings attached.

And governmental waste? I see your concerns there, but seeing this as a moral issue first, and a financial one second, it seems infinately more practical to make this what it should be: an underpinning to a system that is care oriented. Not the other way around.

The unfortionate thing is this area is where it starts getting difficult to work out the nitty gritty, and admittedly most liberals aren't good at this part. I'd like to see what would happen if a universal health care system (not privitized) was created by conservatives. I'm sure it would be much better than any one sided system would.

Mr.Price wrote:

And governmental waste? I see your concerns there, but seeing this as a moral issue first , and a financial one second, it seems infinately more practical to make this what it should be: an underpinning to a system that is care oriented. Not the other way around.

I agree that it is a moral issue. It is immoral to demand that some people against their will (physicians, successful people paying outrageous taxes, etc.) must support others. If they choose to help others, outstanding. But it should remain their choice. As soon as you admit that "wanting" or "needing" something is sufficient cause for someone else to provide it, you are making the providers into slaves for the needy. Universal health care is not moral but impractical; it is immoral and impractical.

Ironically of all these socialist runners here forget two things: Universal healthcare like the kind Hillary proposed in the 90's means no choice in doctors and longer waiting periods for non-lifethreatening injury treatments.

You tear your ACL band and need surgery. Bye bye instant surgery and short recovery times to get back to running, hello limping for the next year or two.

Your doctor reccomends you stop running so much and has little experience in treating injuries for runners. Looks like you can't change doctors.

So how can someone that actually enjoys running support such a catastrophic thing?

Johanthan wrote:

Ironically of all these socialist runners here forget two things: Universal healthcare like the kind Hillary proposed in the 90's means no choice in doctors and longer waiting periods for non-lifethreatening injury treatments.

You tear your ACL band and need surgery. Bye bye instant surgery and short recovery times to get back to running, hello limping for the next year or two.

Your doctor reccomends you stop running so much and has little experience in treating injuries for runners. Looks like you can't change doctors.

So how can someone that actually enjoys running support such a catastrophic thing?

In the film, they said they can go wherever they want.

Who's they? Cuba's healthcare system that all of us just flock to? Or Canada's that we'd have to wait years for any kind of running-related injury coverage?The closest thing we have been to universal health care was Hillary's plan in the 90's that made it ILLEGAL to switch doctors. Who cares what it says in a propaganda film if the actual laws that might have been put into place say otherwise.

letsrun observer wrote:

In the film, they said they can go wherever they want.

studmuffin wrote:

I agree that it is a moral issue. It is immoral to demand that some people against their will (physicians, successful people paying outrageous taxes, etc.) must support others. If they choose to help others, outstanding. But it should remain their choice. As soon as you admit that "wanting" or "needing" something is sufficient cause for someone else to provide it, you are making the providers into slaves for the needy. Universal health care is not moral but impractical; it is immoral and impractical.

Or, to turn it around, it is asking people who have benefited from advantages (most of which are not self-made) in this nation and society then they should pay back to help those who are marginalized by the policies of that same nation and society. Plying a trade in the US is a choice one makes and prosperity is a privilege, not a right.

beautifol wrote:

And therein lies the problem. Some people think we should be forced to pay for the stupidity of the masses. You remember when you were in elementary schoo, middle school, and high school going to class and doing your work, meanwhile you were surrounded by f***ups who didn't even try...yeah, those are the people we're paying for now. Fantastic.

What about people who get cancer because mills dump chemicals in rivers? What about the auto industry that refuses to create cars with lower emissions? What should us asthmatics do about having to run in smog-riddled cities? What about the thousands of examples where the all mighty dollar is held above the general health of the populace? Or are those exempt from your cry of 'personal accountability'?

I <3 South Carolina wrote:

Plying a trade in the US is a choice one makes and prosperity is a privilege, not a right.

Prosperity is neither a privilege nor a right, dipshit.

I love peeps wrote:

http://www.tv-links.co.uk/show.do/9/4667

yeah. That really...

M. Moore is Obese too BTW, and this doesn't make him a better person.

Well, maybe a little bit. But not much, he's largesse still supports terrorism and environmental destruction.

what happened to the link??? Peeps? I was 1/2 thru the film! Can i get this link anywhere else?

I watched this movie. i have always known that america is the best country in the world. But i think that americans are too self centered and are not thinking about learning from other countries. they assume that they are always right.. but sometimes they can be wrong.

I am still skeptical that the situation in america is this bad and the situation in europe is that much better.

If you ask anyone in the world where they would like to go.. they will say america.

I went to school there and i know the country is great.

However, people in america have stopped questioning authority.. i thought that was an interesting point. They just think there govt is always right.

They don't protest about a war that is bankrupting the country.

They also let in alot of immigrants and rely on foreigners for fuel, medical help etc.,

Can you imagine if all the indian dr. leave american and go to india.. they will be out of man power.

Anyway, pretty eye opening documentary...not all of it true.. but america needs new thinkers.

It's difficult to not have that "USA is the best country" mentaility when that is what you are taught all your life, especially in school. This might also have something to do with the reluctance to question authority. I never realized how brain-washed some people are. Do schools in other countries tell their students how "lucky" they are to live in their country and how "bad" it is everywhere else? Many do protest the war, but then they are seen as unpatriotic. Since when did strict adherence to the government define pride in your country? I thought this was a democracy.