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

[teeituptom, BSN, RN]

Yeah, I think Tom gets that.

Then how come only the Oil and Military Industrial Complexes are allowed to make such a usurious profit at the soldiers and civilians expense.

[reesern63, RN]

When you figure that out, let me know, because I sure don't understand why that happens.

Then how come only the Oil and Military Industrial Complexes are allowed to make such a usurious profit at the soldiers and civilians expense.

[marvelous_truth]

It has been said that SONY was a clever acronymn and a front company for the Rockefellars (Standard Oil of New York). These banking families have been duping us citizens further into their submission and using a false capatalism and false free market and any other mask to profit at our expense to make class seperation and division while they destroy our nation.

As one of the bankinging elite members bodly stated, he cared not who made the laws as long as they made the currency.

When you figure that out, let me know, because I sure don't understand why that happens.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/the_morality_of_health_care_fi.php

"There is indeed a very compelling moral argument to be made in favor of some sort of government sponsored health care finance, which is simply this: no one should die, or suffer unduly, because they don't have the money to pay for treatment. Some of my libertarian readers will say that this still doesn't give the government the right to take the fruits of our labor by force, but in fact, I find this argument fairly convincing.

However, that doesn't mean that I should therefore be in favor of a single payer system. The fact that some people cannot afford some good, even a really important and valuable good like food or healthcare, is not a good reason to nationalise the production of that good. We do not collectivise the farms in order to ensure that everyone will have food; we give those who cannot afford food the money (or food stamps) with which to buy it. Section Eight vouchers are generally regarded as a much more successful system than housing projects (though arguably they could be better funded and structured.) If we are worried that some people cannot afford healthcare, there is a much simpler solution than constructing a giant government-run system; we could just give them the money to buy it."

The difference is the difference between actually wanting to take care of those in needs as opposed to wanting to use that need as a proxy to socialize/collectivize a significant portion of the encomy.

I have long argued that those that want to socialize healthcare are only interested in this issue as a proxy to advance an otherwise failed political agenda.

~faith,

Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html

John Stossel:

"The New York Times recently declared "the disturbing truth ... that ... the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care."

As usual, the Times editors get it wrong. . .

The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people -- 45 million -- without medical insurance. As I reported in previous columns, our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state.

Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.

For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine. "

~faith,

Timothy.

[BBFRN, BSN, PhD]

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/the_morality_of_health_care_fi.php

"There is indeed a very compelling moral argument to be made in favor of some sort of government sponsored health care finance, which is simply this: no one should die, or suffer unduly, because they don't have the money to pay for treatment. Some of my libertarian readers will say that this still doesn't give the government the right to take the fruits of our labor by force, but in fact, I find this argument fairly convincing.

However, that doesn't mean that I should therefore be in favor of a single payer system. The fact that some people cannot afford some good, even a really important and valuable good like food or healthcare, is not a good reason to nationalise the production of that good. We do not collectivise the farms in order to ensure that everyone will have food; we give those who cannot afford food the money (or food stamps) with which to buy it. Section Eight vouchers are generally regarded as a much more successful system than housing projects (though arguably they could be better funded and structured.) If we are worried that some people cannot afford healthcare, there is a much simpler solution than constructing a giant government-run system; we could just give them the money to buy it."

The difference is the difference between actually wanting to take care of those in needs as opposed to wanting to use that need as a proxy to socialize/collectivize a significant portion of the encomy.

I have long argued that those that want to socialize healthcare are only interested in this issue as a proxy to advance an otherwise failed political agenda.

~faith,

Timothy.

I can agree with most of this post. However, we do subsidize farms and non profit hospitals. I have always worked for disproportionate care hospitals that are meant to increase access to patients. And they do increase access- for the uninsured. I think because of this, the uninsured often have better access than the underinsured, or the insured with a chronic illness. I would be all for assisting these people as well in any way that I could. It doesn't have to be socialized health care necessarily, but I would like to see some other ideas that would actually work, would keep costs down, and would allow this population to keep their homes, their quality of life, and their dignity.

[marvelous_truth]

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/the_morality_of_health_care_fi.php

"There is indeed a very compelling moral argument to be made in favor of some sort of government sponsored health care finance, which is simply this: no one should die, or suffer unduly, because they don't have the money to pay for treatment. Some of my libertarian readers will say that this still doesn't give the government the right to take the fruits of our labor by force, but in fact, I find this argument fairly convincing.

However, that doesn't mean that I should therefore be in favor of a single payer system. The fact that some people cannot afford some good, even a really important and valuable good like food or healthcare, is not a good reason to nationalise the production of that good. We do not collectivise the farms in order to ensure that everyone will have food; we give those who cannot afford food the money (or food stamps) with which to buy it. Section Eight vouchers are generally regarded as a much more successful system than housing projects (though arguably they could be better funded and structured.) If we are worried that some people cannot afford healthcare, there is a much simpler solution than constructing a giant government-run system; we could just give them the money to buy it."

The difference is the difference between actually wanting to take care of those in needs as opposed to wanting to use that need as a proxy to socialize/collectivize a significant portion of the encomy.

I have long argued that those that want to socialize healthcare are only interested in this issue as a proxy to advance an otherwise failed political agenda.

~faith,

Timothy.

Thank you,

as many do not realize that it has been the wealthiest elite that have financed larely the promotion and the indoctirination of the false ideals of socialism. If they really had charity in there hearts they could share of their wealth, It is is these Banking CARTEL elite that own most wealth. Instead they know the true results of socialism adds to thier pocket of wealth and more importantly power. It is like a politician selling votes to [romise government aid for anything else. They will gladly share someone elses money with you if you vote for them. And in return they are financially supported by the cartel media and financers, while we are gullliable victims of our own canabilism for falling into such well intentional plans for our own destruction. Fiat money and socialism has always led to collapse. But better yet it may lead to our world government under these elite. We can all have a false sense of security that will never last and eventually have nothing but bondage.

[BBFRN, BSN, PhD]

Yes, Canada, France, Germany, etc. are allll collapsing, because they have universal health care.

[pickledpepperRN]

Did I read that food stamps are not socialism?

Is Medicare insurance socialized medicine?

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

[BBFRN, BSN, PhD]

Rofl!!!

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

The difference between socialized medicine and single payer is this:

Socialized medicine means that drs, nurses etc are all employees of government.

single payer means that there is a single payment source. Hospitals, clinics etc are independent and in competition with each other.