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

Nurses Activism

Published

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

Specializes in ER, ICU, L&D, OR.
The supreme's are the final umpire for the constitution. (And yes they do make mistakes.)

Diana Ross would argue against that.

Of course the supreme court doesnt make mistakes, they elected GW Bush

0 Votes
The supreme's are the final umpire for the constitution. (And yes they do make mistakes.)

Diana Ross would argue against that.

Of course the supreme court doesnt make mistakes, they elected GW Bush

Old Wives' Tale . . . . . . ;)

steph

0 Votes
Specializes in ER, ICU, L&D, OR.

Old Wives' Tale . . . . . . ;)

steph

what is an old wives tale.

Diana Ross was Supreme

Cant be that the Supreme court didnt elect GW Bush we know that to be true.

0 Votes

what is an old wives tale.

diana ross was supreme true!

cant be that the supreme court didnt elect gw bush we know that to be true. not true!

steph:balloons:

0 Votes

Bush was selected not elected. The balloting should have been recounted state wide in Fla in 2000. But that is old news that has been debated ad nauseum in other threads and throughout the blogosphere.

Now back to healthcare and fixing the dysfunctional system.

Ray,

I agree with you that the supreme's are bound by the constitution. At the core of the debate over these issues is the idea that when the constitution was written it was meant to apply only to white male property owners. The great fight ever since has been about trying to extend the protections of the constitution to persons regardless of color, creed or gender. The courts are the final arbiter through custom and practice to protect the rights of individuals against the excesses of large organizations.

Regards...

0 Votes
Specializes in Critical Care.
Bush was selected not elected. The balloting should have been recounted state wide in Fla in 2000. But that is old news that has been debated ad nauseum in other threads and throughout the blogosphere.

Now back to healthcare and fixing the dysfunctional system.

Roy,

I agree with you that the supreme's are bound by the constitution. At the core of the debate over these issues is the idea that when the constitution was written it was meant to apply only to white male property owners. The great fight ever since has been about trying to extend the protections of the constitution to persons regardless of color, creed or gender. The courts are the final arbiter through custom and practice to protect the rights of individuals against the excesses of large organizations.

Regards...

Customs and Usages do not define, nor create law:

In law, "what ought to be done is fixed by a standard . . . whether it is usually complied with, or not."

"Law is designed to disrupt non-conforming practices."

"A practice not based upon any rule of law must be reversed."

U. S. Supreme Cabal, U.S. v City of Los Angeles (1979), Biafore v. Baker (1982), Texas & Pac Ry v. Behymer (1903)

The Supreme Cabal disagrees with you that its job is to define custom and practice. Here are a few examples, but the Cabal has stated consistently that it believes that law is a fixed standard and not a moveable goalpost.

It just doesn't practice what it preaches.

~faith,

Timothy.

0 Votes
Specializes in burn, geriatric, rehab, wound care, ER.

Another example of people enjoying the benefits of the "freedom of choice" health care system:

"More than 350 poor people infected with H.I.V. are on a waiting list for free life-saving drugs in South Carolina, by far the longest such list in the country.

AIDS drugs in a South Carolina program can cost the state about $885 monthly for each patient.

Four people waiting for drugs supplied by the state have died, said Lynda Kettinger, the director of the state health department's H.I.V. division, and the wait is six months to a year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/29/us/29drugs.html?ex=1187496000&en=43a9bfb61eefbc18&ei=5070

0 Votes
Specializes in Critical Care.
Another example of people enjoying the benefits of the "freedom of choice" health care system:

"More than 350 poor people infected with H.I.V. are on a waiting list for free life-saving drugs in South Carolina, by far the longest such list in the country.

AIDS drugs in a South Carolina program can cost the state about $885 monthly for each patient.

Four people waiting for drugs supplied by the state have died, said Lynda Kettinger, the director of the state health department’s H.I.V. division, and the wait is six months to a year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/29/us/29drugs.html?ex=1187496000&en=43a9bfb61eefbc18&ei=5070

1. You post an article that is, essentially, complaining about gov't provision of healthcare to make your case in support of - gov't provision of healthcare. You have made my POINT that once the gov't takes over, wait lists are bound to happen.

2. Let's examine this claim more carefully. From your quoted article:

"The only other state with such a list right now, Alaska, has 13 people waiting."

"State health officials said that all but 10 of the people on the waiting list were now on so-called patient assistance programs, a stop-gap measure in which drug companies provide free medications for a limited time."

So, thanks to the private, free market bailing out the gov't: only 23 people in the entire nation are on waiting lists for HIV meds. That's like a 99.999997% coverage. In fact, I challenge you to find and cite ANY other healthcare system in the WORLD with better HIV med coverage than can be found in the U.S. What a great system of coverage!!! You would never find that comprehensive of coverage in a gov't restricted only system.

If fact, this article bears this point OUT. Gov't wait lists, bailed out by private industry.

Why didn't the NYT run an article about the truly outstanding coverage for anti-retrovirals, ARVs, nationwide? THAT is a better article. But, the truth is not nearly so reactionary, and besides, printing the truth wouldn't allow the NYT to take an obligatory potshot at Republicans.

~faith,

Timothy.

0 Votes
Specializes in burn, geriatric, rehab, wound care, ER.

if we had national healthcare the money pot would be larger, these types of healthcare programs wouldn't be so underfunded, and the drugs wouldn't cost the consumer so much because we would have the power of collective price negotiation.

Considering the drug companies that make these drugs make such exorbitant profits eg Glaxosmithkline $8 billion plus for 2005, a few free meds for the poorest amongst us is the least they can do.

I just wonder why Bush is promising money to treat Aids in Africa when we have people on waiting lists for meds and others are on a stop-gap measure for a limited time

0 Votes
Specializes in Hospice Volunteer.

printing the truth wouldn't allow the NYT to take an obligatory potshot at Republicans.

~faith,

Timothy.

You just had to throw that last line in there, didn't you?

0 Votes
Although MM is not credible to speak of this subject, he is however, a celebrity/journalist and has the resources/right to make such documentaries and report it. The point of this documentary is to inform the public of this health desparitie (corrupt in the insurance business, congress and etc). On top of that, politicians are governed by three important principles; votes, funding, and publicity. Therefore, if this topic becomes important to the people, they're more likely to vote for the candidates in their best interest. So, we have raised this issue in nursing school, and guess what, none of us made a documentary about it because were not journalist. Therefore, I cheer for MM for his effort to make this documentary because you are not likely to hear such issues on the news (publicity) or from who ever pays congress (funding). And for those that believe MM is bashing this great nation, remember that this great nation is shaped by revolutionist who find the current policies/trends peccable.

Maxs

Thanks Maxs, I agree with you 100%

0 Votes
Specializes in Critical Care.
You just had to throw that last line in there, didn't you?

If the shoe fits. . .

I have LONG said that gov't restricted healthcare (GRH) is just a proxy fight for a political agenda of eventual gov't ownership and interference into every aspect of your life.

Those that advocate on the hard edges of GRH are in it for the advantages it has in subjugating the economy to the gov't. Healthcare is just an aside. See how compassionate my worldview is!

So, YES. I think a large part of the argument has more to do with a political calculation that the issue can be used to make the opposing party seem 'insensitive'. Healthcare is just the proxy, the real issue is political advantage.

I, on the other hand, think it no less compassionate to advocate for the little guy to have an equal opportunity than it is "compassionate" for the gov't to enforce outcomes, thereby limiting everybody to some extent, and the little guy the most.

It IS politics more at play here than healthcare. So, what's the crime in pointing out the obvious. THAT is why MM isn't a fair arbiter; he has a political ax to grind. GRH helps to make his case that the gov't should own you.

I. I disagree.

~faith,

Timothy.

0 Votes
+ Add a Comment