English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

You did nothing about your gun culture after Columbine
You re-elected Bush after Fahrenheit 9-11

So I guess you'll still vote for an anti-health care candidate the next time.....

2007-06-25 05:44:36 · 27 answers · asked by Tawani 3 in Politics & Government Politics

27 answers

Jeez, all this anger over one documentary maker.

Personally I hope it doesn't change the US health care system. Then us Brits can carry on making fun of you guys because we pay less of our income paying for a public health care system free to all, than you guys pay to buy health insurance that suddenly refuses to fund you the moment you actually get sick.

Don't believe me - in 2002 the average American spent $5,267 on health care. That covers buying health insurance and taxation to cover stuff like Medicare and VA hospitals. Compare this to here in the UK - we spent an average of $2,160 per person (Canadians spent $2,931; Germans spent $2,817). The US spends approx. 40% more per person on health care than any other industrialised country with a universal health care system. Studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save $100-200 Billion dollars per year DESPITE covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits. Studies in Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that a universal health care would save theose states $1-2 Billion dollars per year. The cost of universal health care in Canada, as a percentage of GDP had increase at a much lower rate than the cost of health care in the US, despite the US having a stronger economy. Private for-profit corporations spend between 20 and 30% of insurance premiums on administration and profits compared to just 3% spent by Medicare on administration. Comparative studies show that an identical procedure being performed in the same hospital in the same year with the same staff costs between 20 to 35% more when it is covered by a private for-profit insurance company rather that a public not-for-profit commissioning agent.

I can also continue to make fun of you because our "socialist" systems are better than privately funded ones.

At present, the US ranks poorly relative to other industrialised nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialised nation, because it is only those who can afford it who get the good care. The US ranks 23rd in infant mortality, (down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990; 20th in life expectancy for women (down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960); 21st in life expectancy for men (down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960). and 67th in immunisation coverage, right behind Botswana. Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease and renal failure consistently show the US ranks Canada and most other indistrialised nations.

A universal health care system would provide equality of access to care than is currently available. At present, approx 30% of Americans have problem accessing adequate health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of Americans are without any form of health insurance - approx. 75% of them have trouble accessing and paying for health care. Access to health care is directly related to income and race. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites. Black people are less likely to recieve clot busting drugs, or undergo life-saving cardiac procedures than white people, this despite the approx. 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons in the US.

You don't need a smug fat guy making a documentary to tell you all of this. You need to just take them ideological blinders off for just a moment and realise that sometimes, doing it the privately funded, non-state way is actually the worst thing to do.

2007-06-25 06:27:32 · answer #1 · answered by Cardinal Fang 5 · 1 2

WHAT WONDERFUL COUNTRY DO YOU COME FROM?
WHETHER IT'S COLUMBINE OR VA TECH PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS OWN GUNS. NOTHING WAS DONE AFTER WACO BY JANET RENO. NO MICHAEL MOORE MOVIE THERE. AFTER FAHRENHEIT 9-11 WE RE-ELECTED GEORGE W. BUSH BECAUSE HE IS THE RIGHT MAN FOR THE JOB. TO GET THE REAL SKINNY ON MICHAEL MOORE'S FILM TRY WATCHING FARENHYPE 9-11 WHICH DEBUNKS MOST OF MOORE'S BULL SPIT. AS
FOR SICKO IF HE THINKS CUBA HAS SUCH A WONDERFUL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM HE SHOULD MOVE THERE.

2007-06-25 07:04:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Sicko was a fantastic film. It showed how flawed the US healthcare system was. Here in the UK, not even our right wing would touch our National Health Service as there would be a coup. To be against healthcare you have to be greedy or backwards.

2016-05-19 23:38:41 · answer #3 · answered by kourtney 3 · 0 0

Michael Moore is a gelatinous piece of feces who distorts information to serve his own needs. Fahrenheit 9/11 was incredibly distorted. Sure lots of republicans profited from the Carlye corporation, and so did alot of democrats, that part was left out. Moore also forgot to mention that internet inventor and god of liberals Al Gore was at the same reception that showed Bush saying the elites were his base.

Why don't you rent the film Farenhype 9/11 before you go making irrational judgements about America. Better yet, why don't you shut your yap and worry about fixing your country's problems.

2007-06-25 05:55:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Columbine, we didn't need to change anything, they broke the law (22,000 of them last count) to get their guns.

Bush had nothing to do with 9/11 and if you base your political view on a movie you sadly are unfit to vote.

Sicko will not change anything, if it was really that bad here, why do people from countries that have socialized health care come here when they have money. Do you really want a group that could not run the VA system control all your health care needs. No thanks.

2007-06-25 06:10:49 · answer #5 · answered by hugahugababy 2 · 1 1

Probably, but how can you really sit there and say his movies were only made with one intention? You should remember that thanks to Moore, a large number of people in this country started paying attention to things going on in our country that were ignored by the public news networks for one reason or another.

It's sad, but people will usuallly only pay attention to things such as guns and gun culture when something like Columbine or VA Tech happens.....pathetic but true. We never want to try and stop tragedies from happening before they occur. It is only afterwards that we change our ways (and in a sense doesn't that encourage radical groups????)

It's silly, but people who ignore the news and see documentaries only get caught up in the issues presented to them temporarily. When it comes time to face the music, most back down and just want to keep on doing what they are used to or what is easiest.

Funny how we sit here and call ourselves so brave and gutsy huh?

2007-06-25 06:30:17 · answer #6 · answered by jebul 3 · 2 2

We re-elected Bush because Americans didn't want gay marriage legalized. It had nothing to do with Fahrenheit 9-11.

John Kerry was going to make gay marriage legal, Bush would keep it illegal. So the church going Americans came out and elected the *** hole again, just so gays wouldn't be allowed to marry.



However, SiCKO gets right down to the point. We're paying for terrorist health care. That's not going to settle with most Americans; especially Conservatives.



So you call the shot.

2007-06-25 06:02:28 · answer #7 · answered by Jeremiah 5 · 2 3

Michael Moore is a Sicko, and can't even change
his dirty underwear, how is he going to change anyone's
mind.

I would vote for an anti-health care candidate anyway!!
Especially the hildabeast

2007-06-25 10:28:26 · answer #8 · answered by justgetitright 7 · 0 2

Well, a lot of people do not like Michael Moore because of the movies he has made and/or the techniques he uses in his movies, like his "ambush interviews." So, no, I do not think "Sicko" will change anything for the majority of Americans.

2007-06-25 05:48:18 · answer #9 · answered by greencoke 5 · 3 1

Why would you want the same crappy healthcare as everyone else in the nation? Do you want to get the same medical treatment as some poor homeless guy on the street, higher taxes and all the other crap that comes along with government health care? How about you get a job and health insurance like the rest of us?

and btw...no one listens to michale moore, why should a movie decide how ppl vote for the president?

2007-06-25 05:52:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 4

No, judging by the answers above, it probably won't, but it should.

The whole subject is sickening, and people would rather hide their heads in the sand, call Michael Moore a fat man, watch American Idol and buy their lottery tickets.

As far as doing anything different, it's opened my eyes but there are none so blind as those who won't see.

2007-06-25 06:08:04 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers