Controversial Michael Moore Flick 'Sicko' Will Compare U.S. Health Care with Cuba's

[HM2VikingRN]

Health care advances in Cuba

According to the Associated Press as cited in the Post article, "Cuba has made recent advancements in biotechnology and exports its treatments to 40 countries around the world, raking in an estimated $100 million a year. ... In 2004, the U.S. government granted an exception to its economic embargo against Cuba and allowed a California drug company to test three cancer vaccines developed in Havana."

http://alternet.org/envirohealth/50911/?page=1

[pickledpepperRN]

:clown::yelclap:Tom and Tweety :rotfl::roll:clown::yelclap::yelclap:

By Donna Smith, Proud American appearing in Michael Moore's SiCKO

July 1, 2007

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/2007/july/page.jsp?itemID=30982547&print=t

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

:clown::yelclap:Tom and Tweety :rotfl::roll:clown::yelclap::yelclap:

Don't get used to it. It was a fluke. :lol2:

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Don't get used to it. It was a fluke. :lol2:

Now, if y'all would all just agree with me, we could call it a thread. . .

~faith,

Timothy.

[PrivateDuty]

I just think it's great he has so many people talking about a topic that certainly needs addressed

[pickledpepperRN]

Now, if y'all would all just agree with me, we could call it a thread. . .

~faith,

Timothy.

fluke

thread

[DarrenWright]

Actually Clinton had built up a large Surplus. Which Bushie blew and then some.

You are confusing a tax surplus (which is the unethical hoarding of taxpayer money), with the national debt (which also grew under Clinton).

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

Now, if y'all would all just agree with me, we could call it a thread. . .

~faith,

Timothy.

:lol2:

[kenny b]

You are confusing a tax surplus (which is the unethical hoarding of taxpayer money), with the national debt (which also grew under Clinton).

Amen to that! I don't know how that misconception is perpetuated (actually I do - unfortunately).

The "surplus" came from higher taxes (which ultimately, eventually lower revenue), and foolish cuts in defense spending.

[fronkey bean]

It's well docuemented that the underinsured and poor have poorer outcomes, but such a comparison would be interesting to read. I wonder if it would include only insured people, or both the uninsured/poor, etc. persons as well. There's obviously two systems here.

Tweety I truly do understand that those with less insurance have poorer outcomes, it doesn't follow from that that UHC is the best way to provide them with better out comes. For instance, many of the poor out comes are do to poor lifestyle choices. Would our dollar be better spent on education in combination w/ a program to provide the uninsured w/ easier access instead of a complete change to UHC. I would just like to see some alternatives discussed so an informed decision can be made. Some of those alternatives have been mentioned and I'm sure with the right people looking at the problem (i.e. Not a politician) more would surface. I just don't like that the only two choices that are discussed are our present system unchanged or UHC. I just think we should try to see what works and what doesn't work about eachand then try to find some way to use the things that work w/o adding to the problem the things that don't.

[fronkey bean]

P.S. sometimes it is better to do nothing then to do a very costly wrong thing.

[fronkey bean]

I completely agree with you here.

(Write this day down. I actually agree with and like something you said!!!! OMG The sky is falling. LOL)

I agree w/ both of you too, but UHC will not prevent that. Just ask the Canadian rich who fly to the US and other countries to get better/faster treatment. Ther is no syst. that is fair to everyone, not even the communists managed that.

[fronkey bean]

The point I was making was:

See also

~

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=506778

It doesn't change my position which is "will UHC reduce 'barriers' more than modifying our curent syst?" . I am not yet convinced that it will. Will UHC make the majority of Americans lives better? I'm not sure it will.