We may have the best medicine in the world but it means absolutely nothing when most people cannot take advantage of it or lose everything when they can't pay their medical bills.
Our country is sick!
2007-09-23 12:56:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
It was a very scary but everyone should see it. I was especially interested in the $$ signs over the politicians heads when they were at the signing of the seniors drug program. There it is in full color and people still don't believe it. Michael Moore may not present all sides, but he sure gives you plenty to ask questions about.
We all have heard about people who were denied coverage by an insurance co. and yes some have died. How that can be allowed in this country amazes me, but many people are all about themselves and cannot appreciate what it is to be without insurance for whatever reason. What is so hard to understand about pooling resources to get more for less?!
Those saying that they don't want Government deciding about their treatment, have obviously never run up against an insurance company who doesn't want to give them certain treatments. What's the difference? The government doesn't need to make big profits, but the insurance co. sure does!
As for Canada, France and England, we have all been suckered into believing that their systems are flawed and worse than ours. I for one would like to test that assumption and decide for myself. No, I'm not moving, we should be able to provide the same here.
2007-09-23 13:09:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by Havasoo 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
Michael Moore has been known to sugar coat things. SO what ever he mentions its probably twice as bad but him reporting it to the next level would be unamerican, so we get the watered down version.
Until we learn that our government needs to stay out of meddling with our lives things will get more expensive and lower quality.
Thats a given.
Time for a revolution.
2007-09-23 13:17:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by stephenmwells 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is actually worse than Micheal Moore portrayed it....
Study finds 89.6 million lacked health insurance
One-third of people in the U.S. under 65 went without coverage for some or all of the last two years, reports an advocacy group.
By Jordy Yager, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 21, 2007
WASHINGTON -- -- More than one-third of the people in the United States under the age of 65 had no health insurance for some or all of 2006 and 2007, according to a study released Thursday by Families USA, an advocacy group for the uninsured.
The 89.6 million individuals identifying themselves as lacking insurance for at least a month, according to the advocacy group, was almost double the number of uninsured reported by the Census Bureau for 2006.
"It's simply unacceptable that for lack of basic health coverage, nearly 90 million Americans had to live in fear of illness and injury in the last two years," said Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees national healthcare programs.
California had the largest number of individuals uninsured during some or all of that two-year period -- 13 million, or nearly 41% of state residents younger than 65. Texas was second, with 9.3 million. Americans older than 65 are eligible for Medicare and were not considered in the Families USA study.
More than 70% of those without insurance in part or all of 2006 and 2007 were employed full time, the report said.
Half lacked insurance for nine months or more.
"This is a story of working people, working families. This is not a story of people looking for a handout," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA. "These are people who simply can't afford to pay for health coverage with their modest paychecks."
Since Families USA's first study, covering the years 1999 and 2000, the number of periodically uninsured individuals has risen by 17 million. The most significant factor in the that increase is the rising cost of insurance, Pollack said.
According to the most recent census data, about 47 million people said they were uninsured in 2006. That figure comes from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, which is conducted yearly. Among other things, it asks people if they have been uninsured in the previous calendar year.
But that survey does not give an accurate assessment of the uninsured, Pollack said, because it can exclude people who may have been uninsured for less than the whole year.
The Families USA report considered data from both the Current Population Survey and the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation, which included people who said they were uninsured for just part of a year. The report projected through 2007.
"This is not a contradiction, but a fuller picture of Census Bureau data," Pollack said at a news conference.
2007-09-23 13:12:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by Twilight 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
The only Sicko in Sicko is Michael Moore, he is pretty good at distorting facts and twisting truths.
2007-09-23 13:07:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by justgetitright 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
Micheal Moore is a Sicko Scumbag and his movies reflect that
2007-09-23 12:59:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by tap158 4
·
1⤊
3⤋
Micheal Moore is a moron and his films are garbage. America has the best Health care system in the world. World leaders come to our doctors when sick. In fact the Canadian PM just flew down to have a US doctor save his life.
2007-09-23 12:55:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋
No The USA is nothing like M.M. says
only the foolish, reasonless and factless believe the garbage that anti_anything America craphead spews
2007-09-23 13:11:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by F yahoo in Ash 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
I really do, and about Sicko, when I saw it I was shocked but the honest truth is that America is that way and even worse.
2007-09-23 12:51:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Yes, and it makes me angry.
It's not just about people who don't have health coverage or who have it but are denied coverage by their insurer.
It's also about people who pay for expensive coverage but arent' given the care they really need because an insurance bureaucrat says they shouldn't need it.
ANd I'm not saying that a government bureaucrat should replace the corporate one. I'm saying that your doctor should make that decision.
2007-09-23 12:50:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋