stavros74 (anonymous) says...

Moore is a committed leftist and he is not a true documentarian. Documentaries are meant to explore a subject and let the viewer decide what their opinion is, not to indoctrinate the viewer according to the director's particular politics. If Michael Moore's movies are documentaries, then Pravda was just a newspaper.

Do your own thinking on what follows.

We all know that the healthcare system has problems. In my work, the estimate of 45-47 million uninsured is thrown around a lot. Can anyone quantify WHY those folks don't have health insurance? Children aside, could it have something to do with personal spending priorities? Do we just want to spend the money on wants rather than needs? Do we have any information on this? Its all pretty hard to quantify and I imagine the reasons have infinite variations. 47 million isn't a staggering number at all unless you have some context.

If you forgo health insurance for the sake of paying for something you want versus something you need, then you really take a gamble. Without insurance, access becomes limited, the financial burden you take on is much more substantial and your health can suffer without treatment or preventive measures. We all insure our cars, why not insure ourselves?

I hate paying for insurance, until I need it. I am pretty happy with my current insurance coverage. Its not that expensive, I see the doctor I want and my copays are low. Even when I was a student and didn't have much money, I had health insurance. The quality of care I experience is very high because I make insurance a priority in my life and I research my physicians.

Now, if an insurance company takes your money to cover you and then refuses to pay for your claim then they should be sued for damages and prosecuted for fraud. Insurance companies shouldn't be able to change the rules when it is profitable for them to do so. Nor should they be able to make their policies so hellishly complex so that nobody can understand it.

What is the alternative? With regard to national healthcare I have some food for thought. Do you want to pay for someone's care who smokes 2 packs a day? Do you want to pay for a drug addict's rehab or therapy? Do you want the government to start telling you what you can eat, prohibit you from potentially harmful behaviors like drinking cold beer or eating what you want because they don't want to pay for it anymore? Again, do your own thinking.

Agree with me or not, the point is I'll bet Moore doesn't present anything like this post that goes against his previously established thesis in his propaganda film...I mean "documentary".

Kansans are smart folks. See Moore's movie if you want but please do your own thinking.

June 28, 2007 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MelissaE (anonymous) says...

Interesting commentary, Stavros74. Have you seen this movie?

What I also find interesting is that Republicans & Democrats are both agreeing with this movie.

And regarding making health insurance a priority: I agree with you except for the fact that, how can a family of 4 make health insurance a priority when, in reality, a cost of, say $400/month for said coverage may very well be half or close to half of their monthly take-home pay to begin with?

You can't make something a priority if you don't have the means to pay for it.

M

June 28, 2007 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

stavros74 (anonymous) says...

The movie opens tomorrow and I intend to see it soon. I am basing my conclusions about Sicko's propaganda value on his past offerings and articles like in the Gazette.

Democrats and Republicans are agreeing with what elements of the movie? That politicians are bought and paid for with regard to this issue? Wouldn't that be awesome if we could get them to admit that?

You bring up a solid point regarding the impact to a family's insurance coverage. I left children and folks 65+ out of my comments because there is Medicaid and Medicare coverage available to them. Taking your example of $400 a month for folks that take home $800 or $900, I wonder if the qualifiers for Medicad for the children are in line with that income level. If insurance costs are that high for them, should Medicaid be available to them? Just asking.

Great thinking Melissa.

S

June 28, 2007 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MelissaE (anonymous) says...

So, you're okay with paying for YOUR healthcare (through your insurance) and your're okay with paying healthcare for others through Medicare/Medicaid? Is that what I understand?

Why not just go socialist all the way, then? Which I am completely for.

M

June 28, 2007 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

stavros74 (anonymous) says...

Oh I never said that. We don't live in a socialist society. I don't trust the government with my drivers license let alone my healthcare. I'm sure socialism sounds great to certain people, but before those folks go running for their hammers and sickles they must consider how powerful the state became in soviet russia when the people became completely dependent on their government. Relying on the government for an able person's well being is not a strong position.

I got to go. I start vacation tonight.

June 28, 2007 at 6:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

vankamp (anonymous) says...

I agree with stavros74 when he states that many people can have insurance they just need to prioritize. I work for a company in town that has medical insurance that costs approx $118.00 per month for an entire family. Probably 50% of the workers do not carry insurance because they know they can go to the Health Department and get taken care of. Most of them are Hispanic and they have told me that in their country the government takes care of their medical needs. I realize this is the way they are raised and try to explain how important it is to have medical insurance. Like stavros74 said it has to do with priorities because we have a parking lot full of expensive SUV's.

June 28, 2007 at 9:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Wasp (anonymous) says...

I don't have health insurance because no one will even give me a quote and I do not have the income to even pay the premium on the State Health insurance pool (and that coverage sucks!)

June 28, 2007 at 10:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

stavros74 (anonymous) says...

Vankamp,

Good thing this is our country and not theirs. I read a lot of estimates and in every study I read illegal immigrants cost well in excess of what they contribute. Regardless of country of origin, the figure is around 7 billion to the US economy (give or take a billion) which costs anywhere from 20 to 35 billion PER YEAR in services (healthcare, legal, etc.). Regardless of where you are politically, any enterprise that operates at a loss of that magnitude needs to go ASAP.

$118 per month is very achieveable. I am starting to feel cheated that I was paying $100 a month for just myself. Oh well, anything that can add value and revenue to AMERICAN efforts has to be well worth it.

God bless America!

Wasp,

Who won't give you a quote?

June 29, 2007 at 12:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kleenex (anonymous) says...

I don’t think I’ve seen this brought up yet: I have health insurance for me and my son and I pay out the butt. I’ve had lots of medical problems this past year and I’ve had to pay out the butt for those. My insurance is HORRIBLE. My deductible is so high and it is not something in which I have a choice. I have already paid over $1500 out of pocket and I still have doctor bills coming in and a hospital bill to pay. The way I understand it, once I get to $2000 then they’re supposed to pay 100%. However, after my first deductible of $1000, they were supposed to start paying 50%. They are not paying 50%....I’m still paying way more. My family, I’m sure like MANY families out there, makes too much money to qualify for state help and not enough money to pay for insurance. We’re barely paying the bills as it is, and now to top it off have even more bills to pay. I’m not saying that all of this should just be excused. But there is something wrong when I’ve paid well over $3000 (counting insurance premiums and out of pocket expenses) and I’m still suffering. How can that be called INSURANCE?? Prescriptions are another deal. I have to take 3 prescriptions and they are paid for 50% (AFTER I get all the paperwork correctly filled out and sent in). Does that help? Yes. But is it still very expensive for me? Yes. There have been times I’ve had to turn down a prescription for myself or my son because I couldn’t afford to pay even 50%. Insurance companies are making way more than they lead us to believe. Otherwise, why would they still be around? How did we get here?

June 29, 2007 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MelissaE (anonymous) says...

We got here because healthcare has become political.

Stavros--kleenex's example is why I am for socialist healthcare.

While I still agree that insurance should be a priority, how many of us (Americans) could actually afford to pay for a catastrophic incident (say, life-threatening disease or mental illness or something requiring constant care)? How many could do it without going into debt even AFTER insurance kicks in and pays, for example, the 50%?

Is anyone (participating in this discussion) actually putting money into a separate account right now, waiting for the catastrophic incident to happen?

M

June 29, 2007 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smr_reader (anonymous) says...

The complexity of the healthcare and third-party payer system in United States has more impact on our lives than we can imagine. Not only does it affect individual our own health and finances, but health care is also a huge driver in sustainability of a community, both economically and socially.

I think stavros74's comments lean towards this idea of "social responsibility" which has been big thing recently with national reform plans. It's this idea that it responsibility for individual's health resides both on the responsibility of the community and individual. How is that implemented, I'm not sure?

To previous discussion about what does this 45-47 million mean. Might I suggest a few sources of information that people may be interested in - Kansas Health Institute and the Henry Kaiser Foundation.
From my own experience in working in the health service research arena, I found these sites very useful.

As someone stated before without context, it is difficult to grasp what this 47 million means.
Most uninsured individuals are adults between 18 and 64 years of age. More importantly, these individuals are working, but often don't have the benefit of receiving employer-based insurance (i.e. the employer helps with the cost) or are ineligibility to do so. So other words, employers may not be offering insurance (and often it's the small businesses who unable to afford to offer). I think (and hoping) that people are starting to realize this is huge problem and simply saying it's b/c people chose to not have insurance won't cut it.

Happy Reading.

June 29, 2007 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

Starvos74, from reading your posts I do not think you really know much about medical insurance. You may be one of a few that can afford health insurance on your own. Many people cannot! Most working class of people are usually able to go on a group health insurance plan if the rates are reasonable, for many the rates may be as high as their wages leaving them no extra money. It is not a matter of priority when you have to live and have rent and food. Also, you must realize that insurance companys have contracts where they will only pay a certain amount on something, such as a surgical procedure. The surgery may cost the hospital a total of $10,000.00 but the insurance contract is only for $3,000.00. In other words the facility performing such is only going to get the $3,000. Also, you must take into effect what the out of pocket fees are and the deductables. You may think you have a good policy that is a $20 co pay (what you pay for an office visit) but you may have a $2 or $3,000 deductable that has to be met before the insurance even begins to pay. In other words insurance is a big rip off for most people and I do not blame them if they do not cary any because they still pay threw the nose for some procedures! If I did not have a job with group coverage and a very low premium, I too may join the ranks of no insurance. Also, take into effect the fact of taxes and other things that have to be paid! Insurance companys and politicians are the only people today to make money. I do respect Michael Moore because he tells it like it is (the truth). His ideas of socialistic medicine that we just take the best of what other countries are using and try it out. I personally do not think I like socialistic medicine but I would need more facts. I would hate to see it work the way our medicare system works now.

July 9, 2007 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

Our government is funded by pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies. Look at all the lobbyists.

Are there flaws in other countries health systems? Yes, of course! But look at them, study them. Find out what is right with them. Use this film as a forum for discussion and find out the truth. See what the possibilities are. Maybe, we really can do something better.

Starvos74, how much is your car insurance? I can pay car insurance at a fraction of what health insurance would cost me if I wasn't employed by a company that pays most of my health insurance premium. Car insurance goes down with the age of the car but health insurance sure doesn't.
If I had to pay health insurance premium at age 60, by myself, it would cost me $400 to $600 a month for a decent policy with a reasonable deductable of $1,000 or less and a co-insurance of 20 to 30 percent. That's with a co-pay of $25 to $50 for doctor visits(limited number). Test and xrays are, of course, extra. If I want to go to an out of network provider, I would probably have to pay double or more. I have to work just to have health insurance!

How much do you make an hour? I can hardly make ends meet. I do not have cable TV or internet at home. I don't drink but an occassional glass with friends and I don't smoke. I make about average wage. No family to support, but I do have a house payment, car payment, utilities, the normal monthy payments most people have to pay. My priorities are OK. The are set on survival. I just thank God that I do work for a company that can afford to pay most of my health insurance premium.

July 9, 2007 at 5:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

To the Gazette: Why did you not ask for a response from the Emporia Surgical Hospital also?

July 10, 2007 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

glarson (anonymous) says...

Dear Daveedailey:

This article was a report of a monthly meeting of the Newman Regional Health board of trustees. It was not an article asking local health professionals what they thought of the movie.

Gwen Larson

July 11, 2007 at 7:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

emporialifer (anonymous) says...

I agree healthcare costs and insurance are out of control. Luckily the company I work for has good insurance and I live a very healthy lifestyle, so I only have the yearly checkups that I have to pay for at the moment. However, I really don't like the idea of socialism of any sort. It already irritates me that my insurance cost goes up every year because I'm having to pay for part of my coworkers' babies or surgeries, etc. We all know part of the rise in cost is due to the people who aren't paying that we are all in a sense paying for (so I guess socialism already does exist to some extent). I think socialism is a joke. I'm a hard worker - why would I want to have to pay for some bum that doesn't want to have to work hard to get to live the same lifestyle I do, but wants it given to him? I know that sounds harsh, but I've already witnessed way too many people in this world who abuse the systems that were set up for good (workers' comp, unemployment, etc.) just so they can be lazy.

July 11, 2007 at 1:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dayjob55 (anonymous) says...

Thank you Mr. Lambert for pointing out that hospitals give high quality care to anyone who needs it. My question to you then is what is you interest rate on outstanding bills, to whom do you send these accounts to to be collected and how long do your patients have to pay off these accounts before they are turned over for collection. I know that medical care in a hospital can easily run into huge amounts and then with finance charges tacked on it becomes overwhelming. How much grace time do you give your patients before turning them over for collection. County hospital? I do believe that the almighty dollar is your bottom line - sometimes even before quality care. It's places like Newman Regional Health that make medical bills the number 1 reason for bankruptcy filings these days. Check your options locally folks.

July 11, 2007 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

The rising costs of medical is political, pharmaceutical, and insurance, and hospitals and the systems of hospitals that only give people a short time to pay off their bills. Yes, more people will file bankruptcy because they can not afford health insurance or the deductables or drugs. Suppliers of hospital equipment and such keep raising their prices because of gas prices on the rise, shipping charges on the rise, etc, this in turn is passed on to hospital and physician charges, which in turn the insurance company's do not want to pay thus have certain contracts. This is why insurance premiums are always on the rise. Also, somewhere along the line we as the consumer must pick up the tab for those medical bills which do not get paid. This is done through more tax increases. Remember, we also pay for the alien that has a child here in the US because they become a legal citizen but are capable of going where ever without paying the bill. Sorry for rambling but this is an issue that needs to be solved in the very near future without the Medicare system changing the benefits for the people who have earned to having less and less coverage.

July 11, 2007 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Genesius (anonymous) says...

Although these are all great issues to discuss I thought I would give you an FYI-

"Sicko" is actually focused on the fact that medical bills are the #1 cause of Middle Class Bankruptcy because Middle Class Families ARE Paying for insurance policies only to find out they don't cover a vast majority of accident/ emergency procedures.

Although Mr. Moore most definitely not unbiased in his pursuits, that does not mean he is not bringing up valid points that should be thought about, questioned, or discussed regardless of which side you stand on.

I encourage everyone to see the movie at some point, even if they do not agree with Mr. Moore's perspective.

July 11, 2007 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

I plan on seeing the movie this weekend. I understand that it is up front and honest.

July 11, 2007 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Years ago we had a family physician who practiced medicine in Canada, then came to the U.S. to practice because Canada's "ideal" socialized medicine became so bad that he couldn't practice medicine the way he knew he should.

Here are some things to consider when we discuss universal health coverage:
1. While it's touted as a "free" system, it is far from that. Premiums are simply replaced by taxes. In Canada, the increased tax burden for a family of four for "free" universal coverage is $5000 per year.
2. It's a system where demand far outstrips supply. Medical care has to be rationed. Any improvements in technology and medical skill to increase the scope of coverage would have to be funded by tax increases, which are already extremely high. The solution, then, is to ration care. For example, cataract surgery, which is routine here and done in a couple of weeks or less, takes at least six months in Canada. It's even worse for heart surgery and other things covered by health insurance here.
3. Medical practitioners are leaving Canada and other countries because there isn't an economic incentive to stay. Physicians' incomes are capped by the government. Once they reach a certain level of income, the government then only pays 25% of what they had for services prior to reaching the cap. One of the results has been that doctors' time with patients has been reduced by 11%.
4. Emergency services are even worse. I was in England some time ago on a work related project. I got sick and the workgroup took me to an emergency room in Coventry. They said that it was all going to be free. Once I got there I decided to stay sick. I've been in emergency rooms in this country and the experience is never pleasant, but I've never seen anything like the one in Coventry. There were people laying in the hallways. The place was filthy. Some time after that my wife had a similar experience in France.

I don't believe any of us want to see anyone deprived of medical care, but we really need to be careful when we go off half cocked, demanding "free" health care for everyone. It just won't work.

If we're going to fix healthcare in this country we need to find solutions that will work within the framework of free enterprise and market economics.

July 12, 2007 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MelissaE (anonymous) says...

netloafer, please cite your sources.

And, if you don't like universal health care, provide your own solution.

M

July 12, 2007 at 10:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

Remember, nothing in life is free. I agree that are health care needs a make over. I would agree to socialistic medicine in the fact that everyone would be the same. Yes, doctors would be salaried so they would not make the kind of money they make now. They would probably work an eight hour shift just like nurses and such. Take also into effect that the care would also depend on age. What treatments are needed and long term care. A younger person would get the better because they would be more productive than an older person and no such thilng as life support. Our society has made it so if you can pay, then yes you will get the best of treatment. Medicare is for those 65 and older, disabled and dependent children. If you are not careful when signing up for medicare there are benefits you may miss out on. If younger than 65, you must sign for a supplement within the first six months or you wait until the age of 65. Also, you do pay for medicare part "B" which is automaticallly taken from your ss check. You also have to be careful about your supplement because there are many thilngs not covered. Even though you have medicare you still pay taxes and such. Now, medicaid is a different story, and from what I can see there are a lot of young people out there who have figured out how to screw the system and are doing a very good job of it. Granted there are people who really need the help because of illness, job loss, etc. So, as far as socialistic medicine it would only be fair that everyone pay the same.

July 12, 2007 at 11:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

M

http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/...

http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8...

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?...

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/...

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=...

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/health/pd01260...

"The Vision of the Anointed" by Thomas Sowell

The incidents cited in England and France were from first hand experience.

As to what might work. The current system is still better than anything socialized. Those living under socialist systems or systems with socialized medicine know this to be true.

There are ways to fix things. First, concentrate on wellness. Medical savings accounts are one way. People could purchase insurance, and if they remained healthy the plan would also double as a savings instrument. The insured could, at ten year intervals, have a choice of rolling over the premium dollars or withdraw them. That's worked in places like Singapore. In New Jersey hospitals and health providers add a surcharge to bills to cover those uninsured who are treated. I haven't seen much about the Massachusets plan, but some say that it's workable in a free market system.

One of our current problems with uninsured people is that some, particularly younger people, could have health insurance through their workplace, but want the disposable income rather than the healthcare. I suppose a "mandatory," "free" system might seem to fix that, but it never does. It actually increases costs through taxes and reduces the benefits.

July 12, 2007 at 11:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

In other words you are saying that a savings is going to keep me well?: We all, mostly, do try to concentrate on wellness. No one WANTS to be sick unless they are crazy in the head. The way you talk, everbody just has money laying around. Must be nice! Where do you get the money to start the savings account to begin with? (trees in the back yard)

July 12, 2007 at 12:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

I've got lots and lots of money trees growing in my back yard. Maybe hundreds of them.

No, I don't think that people have money laying around, no more than I have money trees in my back yard. But I can tell you that the experiments in socialism are based on that foolish notion. Socialists say that socialized medicine is "free" for everyone. I've already shown that the Canadian plan, which is bad and getting worse, already costs a family of four $5000 in additional taxes each year. That's far from free. I've already said that the Singapore plan seems to work, and possibly the Massachusetts plan. They're driven by free market solutions, concentrating on wellness/prevention, etc.

When you're ready to discuss the issue without demagoging, I'd be glad to discuss it further. I'm sure there is a solution to the healthcare issue if people talk reasonably about it. But it doesn't help when you make silly statements because you don't seem to have a rational response in you.

I would like to see healthcare for everyone, based on free market ideas. No socialized plan has ever worked. I cited some sources a while ago. I'll add a few more:

"The Fatal Conceit" by F.A. Hayek
"The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek
"Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith
"The Mystery of Capital" by Hernando DeSoto
"Property and Freedom" by Daniel Pipes"
"A Conflict of Visions" by Thomas Sowell"

Read one or two of them. I can't say they'll change your mind, but I can tell you that they make sense.

July 12, 2007 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

Netloafer you need to live in the real world!!!!!!!!! I do not believe any one can discuss anything rationally with you, you already know it all! WAKE UP!!!! You apparently do not know what the term "to ek out a living" means. Like Michael Moore, whom I agree with, said we take the best of all and combine that to work for us. I do not know the best and do not have the facts to agree or disagree with socialistic medicine. Our medical system is the down fall of a lot of people who lose everything because of outragious bills. What is their other options?

July 12, 2007 at 12:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dayjob55 (anonymous) says...

I agree that we need to focus on wellness in the U.S. but again most insurance companies to want to pay for it and the pharmaceutical companies make a killing off of the drugs they sell by people getting sick instead of staying healthy. Do they really want people to be healthy? I often wonder. Do you know that when you become eligible for Medicare that you are allowed 1 complete physical within the first 6 months of being on Medicare? After that Medicare doesn't pay for it. So if you want a routine physical to make sure there is nothing wrong and to catch problems early you have to pay for it yourself. Most people in that age bracket are having a hard time making ends meet (unless they have a fantastic retirement plan) as it is so they only go when there is a problem that they are aware of. By that time the problem can be so advanced it really costs the Medicare system. That's not even thinking about things like high blood pressure, high cholesteral, etc that are silent killers. Medicare isn't the only "insurance" that is that way. A lot of companies will have a $20, $25, etc. co-pay for a routine office call but when it comes to having a complete physical you have to pay the lab charges, a consultation fee and other charges tacked on. The co-pay frequently only covers a limited office visit for a small problem. It almost seems like you can't afford a wellness visit. Another pet peeve of mine is the advertising done by drug companies. How much are they spending to tell the consumer to go ask their doctor for a specific drug. They tell the consumer that most of the profit from these drugs goes to research for new drugs but what percentage actually goes to research and what percentage to advertising? What percentage of research money comes from grants as compared to money re-invested that came from the advertising dollar? I want to see those ads stopped so that the cost of my drugs goes down.

July 12, 2007 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

Why is Emporia not going to be allowed to have the movie? I guess I will spend my money in Lawrence.

July 12, 2007 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dayjob55 (anonymous) says...

What do you mean "Sicko" isn't coming to Emporia? The most talked about movie in a long time so we get to go out of town to shop, eat and see a movie because we can't do it here. Some things never change I guess.

July 12, 2007 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

My guess is that my income is less than yours. I live in the real world and make real world decisions. I go to the doctor occasionally and I've been in hospitals as well.

No,I don't know it al, but I don't make decisions on how to think based on sound bytes or political grandstanding or what folks in forums say.

Don't get upset when I cite sources and you don't have answers. Don't get upset because I've read something about these things. As I said, I'm all for a solution that will work. I'm telling you that socialism won't.

You look to me like you're ripe for a dictator. All the person would need to do is make some empty promises and you'd elevate him to power and set off goosestepping.

Let me tell you what I do know about socialism. It has never worked. In the early Church era (see Acts, Romans, etc), the leadership tried a form of socialism. The idea was noble, to share everything in common. It didn't work. Many decided they didn't have to work because someone else was going to take care of their needs from the common pool. In the end the leaders finally had to say, "if you don't work, you don't eat."

That should sound familiar. Marx and other socialists studied society and came up with the "novel" idea that each should receive according to their need. By the time of the Russian revolution it happened - Utopia. First, under Lenin, then under Stalin, the purges began. Millions died, especially the poor, like the Kulaks, who the revolution's leaders had promised they'd have everything according to their need. Stalin created massive bureaucracies. There was the ministry of the winter wheat, the ministry of the beet, the ministry of summer wheat, ministries of health, etc. There were ten year plans whose goals were never met. They were headed by men like Nikitia Kurschev, who was given the post of minister of agriculture. What did Nikita know about agriculture? Nothing. Nikita was a pipefitter by trade. What Nikita did know well was how to kill people or send them to the labor camps in Siberia. When Uncle Joe died, Nikita succeeded him as the great leader, based on the premise that no evil should go unrewarded.

That's the way things worked in Utopia. That's the way they always work in man-made Utopias.

By the time the whole apparatus fell apart there was little for the people to eat, medicine was in short supply. The little that was available was rationed. Guess who got the "little." It went to the "best," the bureaucrats.

Cuba is the current darling. It's produced the model that damn near killed Fidel through incomptence. I can only imagine how good it is for the average Cuban.

I have not said that we should accept an every man for himself system. What I've said is that I want a solution that works. And history has demonstrated that the free market is the best place to find a solution.

I hope you would want that type of solution, but I may be wrong.

July 12, 2007 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

I called the theater to find out when and what time. They said we do not get it here. Question, is this another political move? Like you, I guess I will shop, eat pay sales tax to the benefit of another town. Sorry Emporia. When are you going to WAKE UP to the facts of what is going on here??????????

July 12, 2007 at 2:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MelissaE (anonymous) says...

netloafer, I don't see how Communist Russia (for one) could and/or should be compared to socialist medicine (or some form of it) today.

I think that's a dangerous comparison.

Here's an interesting link, from the Connecticut Coalition for Universal Healthcare:

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_cas...

All that being said, I see no reason why anyone should forego healthcare (preventive or treatment) because of money (or lack of).

M

July 12, 2007 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

M

That's exactly what happens in socialist systems. Health care is rationed.

The comparison to the Soviet Union is accurate. If accurately naming something is dangerous, I gladly accept the insult. It was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for a reason.

This is what F.A. Hayek had to say about socialism/collectivism/communism/nazism:

"in recent years, however, the old apprehensions of the unforseen consequences of socialism have once more been strongly voiced from the most unexpected quarters. Observer after observer, in spite of the contrary expectation with which he approached the subject, has been impressed with the the extraordinary similarity in many respects under "facism" and "communism." While "progressives" in England and elsewherewere still deluding themselves that comunism and facism represented opposite poles, more and more people began to ask themselves whether these new tyrannies were not the outcome of the same tendencies. Even communists must have been shaken by such testimonies as that of Max Eastman, Lenin's old friend, who found himself compelled to admit that "instead of being better, Stalinism is worse than facism, more ruthless, barbarous, unjust, immoral, anti-democratic, unredeemed by any hope or scruple." (The Road to Serfdom," pages 31-32)

Eastman went on to say that "Stalinism is socialism."

As I said, I'm all for a solution, but socialism or socialized medicine is not th answer.

I read the website you posted. I saw nothing new. The proponents of the system can say that it's not socialism, but it is. Saying that those employed in such a system are not going to be government employees was a clever way of masking the truth. The government would be running the system, rationing care, setting goals, operating budgets, raising taxes to provide what Americans believe the level of care should be. Each year, when the funding for healthcare ran out, there would be a mad rush to either curtail benefits or raise taxes.

I've mentioned some alternatives (The NJ plan, Singapore, Massachusetts). You apparently did not like them. But I understand. As you've said before, you want a socialist system (your June 28th and 29th comments on the subject).

July 12, 2007 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LocalGuy (anonymous) says...

Dave,
It is pretty sad when you think that our local Dickinson Theater would not show Sicko because of a political move. Get real.

July 12, 2007 at 5:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MelissaE (anonymous) says...

netloafer, it's not that I don't prefer those plans....it's that I haven't read enough about them to form my opinion.

And comparing Stalin's yesterday to today's healthcare issues is apples & oranges, imo.

M

July 12, 2007 at 6:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

It's not comparing apples to oranges. The system that Michael Moore touts in his film is a Soviet style system.

When I was young I used to hear Nikita K tout the values of the communist system over ours. One of the crown jewels was universal health care using a socialist model. He told us back then that the communists would bury us.

On June 28th you said . "Why not go socialist all the way, then? Which I am completely for."

On June 29th you said "kleenex's example is why I am for socialist healthcare."

Are you or are you not advocating socialism?

The fact that you don't like the comparison is what bothers you. You'd rather have us think that socialism is noble, pure, and gives thought to every person. I'm saying and demonstrating with facts that it isn't so. If you need other examples let's try China. I have a relative who went to China and saw the "People's" model in action. It wasn't good. Canada? I've already mentioned that. Britain? France? Same thing there.

Here's what inevitably happens with socialist models. One thing becomes a human right (a guaranteed job, for example). Once the incentive to work is destroyed and collectivization sets in, another guaranteed human right is created (healthcare). Then another is created (a guaranteed home). And another (wages without work). There's a transaction involved. With the government giving of each human right a freedom is taken - freedom of press, assembly, religion, speech, etc.

That's the path socialism, in whatever wrapping paper, takes.

Perhaps you'd be willing to dismantle these rights so that we could have these "benefits." I'm not. I've said that we need to find a way to fix our healthcare within the free market system. I've been around long enough to be convinced that with compassion, good sense, the principles free men have labored so hard to protect, and dilligence, we can solve the problem.

July 12, 2007 at 8:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

Knowing what I know about the medicare system in the United States we do need a total revision of the health care system. If a person becomes disabled, you first have to apply for social security disability which is from 6 to 10 months, once that is established you apply for medicare disability. That takes two years before you can qualify. Now, my question: What does a person do for money and insurance during that time? Please do not tell me it should have been planned for. Anything can happen at any time, and even at that not many people will have the money to cover two years of on going medical expenses. Even the best of plans get way-layed. I am for the socialistic system in the fact that everyone (rich and poor) will be the same. If you can afford to, there should be other options or plans available if you choose to put the money out for them. I also believe that all house and senate should also be put on the very same system as the rest of the country. That way there is no division in who would get special treatment because you think you are better than some one else. How sad, that our country would have to come to this. I do not think that people should compare the old ways of the 40's, 50's etc to what is available to choose from in todays modern society. Talking the old socialistic way is a very political way of scaring people into thinking otherwise.

July 13, 2007 at 7:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

zoahjoe (anonymous) says...

Melissa - I am surprised by your comments for a socialist model of healthcare. I have read in past posts how you have lived in other parts of the world. I would think that you might have viewed the different medical communitites.

Davedailey - Why would it be fairer "for everyone to pay the same." Why not apply that analogy to all forms of insurance;auto,home and life? Why, because I for one do not want the goverment having any more control over my life. Socialism is exactly that. Owned and controled by the goverment.

Those of you for the socialist model, have you ever stopped to think that when leaders in other countries become ill or need major surgery.The do not travel to Canada,Cuba or France, they travel to the UNITED STATES.

July 13, 2007 at 7:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

Your car insurance, home insurance and life insurance is already set that direction. The difference is how you choose to use that. If you continue to abuse the insurance by wreck after wreck, yes your's and everbody elses insurance premium will raise. If it continues to be abused by say, DUI, again your's and mine will raise. Homeowners is the same. Life insurance goes on life style and age. Socialistic medicine will go basicallly on age basis. The younger person will get the first and better because they will lead a longer productive life than the 65 year old with copd. Those that come here from other countries for simple procedures have the cash to pay, the more complicated the case the more apt the hospitals etc will write it off as charity (usually for publicity) such as conjoined twins. I am not saying socialistic medicine is the way to go, but we sure need to improve what we have now!

July 13, 2007 at 8:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

zoahjoe (anonymous) says...

"Socialist medicine will basically be on an age basis", how frightening !

July 13, 2007 at 9:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

I'm going to give this one more try.

In a socialist system everyone is not the same. That's the principle, but it does not work that way. I've heard socialists tout the idea that things should be from "each according to his ability and to each according to his need."

The sentiment is noble, but it is simply not workable. History has shown that to be true.

Michael Moore can make all the movies he wants about how good things are in Cuba's working man's paradise, but it is simply not true. If they were please tell me why so many risk their lives floating on inner tubes for ninety miles to get here.

During the Russian revolution journalist John Reed fell in love with the communist/socialist model for what seemed to be all the right reasons - fairness, justice, equality. Seventy years of communist rule and aggression, with millions and millions dead, revealed the system for what it was - an evil, corrupt police state,

Even in places where socialism seems to be benign it is destructive. France has learned that lesson the hard way. The result of years of failed socialist policy left France with rampant unemployment, the work ethic destroyed, and France in a miserable state of economic affairs. There is some hope that with the election of Nicholas Sarkozy things will be reversed. Only time will tell. It may be too late.

No one is disputing that we need to improve our healthcare system. What is at issue is whether or not we want to build a socialist system in America where "the younger person will get the first and better because they will lead a longer productive life that a 65 year old with copd." So much for "each according to his need." So much for compassion and mercy.

You can put as much lipstick as you want on this pig, but socialism is still socialism. It's a miserable system that leads to despotism and totalitarian government. As for me, my vote for a socialist system is NO!

July 13, 2007 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

Zoahjoe, I am not positive on that but from what I have read it is as close as I can explain. They also take into effect the fact of birth defects, long term illnesses such as some types of cancer, HIV and others. The physicians will follow stricter guide lines as set forth by the government, which is sad considering the shape of things now. It would no longer be a pick and choose on the insurance as to co pays, out of pocket expenses, deductables, company's making contracts with hospitals, pharmacutical company's making big profits, etc. There are good points and bad points to consider. Please, do not think that it any any way would be a communistic form of medicine as in the past. There are too many new and specialities to consider. The nice thing is more of that would be available to more people because you would no longer have outragious costs to you.

July 13, 2007 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

Netloafer, get in the modern times. What are you 100 years old? What kind of government do you think we already have? I would rather see my taxes (which keep going up) go for health care than stupid clocks, enviromental tactics, zoning issues, worthless spending altogether.

July 13, 2007 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

I know what kind of government we have and I want to keep it. I'm not sure about you, though. As I said before if some despot came along and promised you free healthcare, zoning that suited you, a free house, free meals, etc. you'd be in the front ranks of the brown shirts, goosestepping down Commercial Street, screaming "workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains."

As to my age, I was around when Stalin was studying for the priesthood and Hitler was selling postcards in Vienna.

As to the times, if getting with the modern ones means thinking like you, I'll remain backward. The thought of denying help to someone over 65 for the sake of "fairness" doesn't really appeal to me. If it means being directed by anger at every turn, like you, then count me out.

July 13, 2007 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

You have to realize that social medicine would take several years just to begin with the smallest of details. According to you, you should be dead by that time anyway, so why would you care about the rest of the country? I do not understand people that close theirs eyes to what is going on, especially in the so called town of Emporia. What better place to start a socialistic event than right in our own back yard. We could set an example for the rest of the world because it is such a utopian in this fine town. Now go ahead and say get out and whatever. Believe me, as soon as I can I will.

July 13, 2007 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Like some Americans I have children, grand-children, great grand-children. I have friends and neighbors. I care about what happens to them.

You've been asking lots of questions. I have a few for you.

1. Do you care about anything or anyone besides yourself?
2. Will Emporia be invited to the garage sale when you leave?
3. How long did it take you to develop your finely tuned senses of hate and anger?

July 13, 2007 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

Netloafer, why are you so interested in me? I am not the only one to have totally different views than yours. I just choose to live in a society of truth than lies, government coverups, corrupt politicians etc which is what people like you have let happen in our society today. People like you who are afraid to admit what is wrong and are afraid of standing up with open and honest dealings. Apparently you are one of the few to have a great life with few money problem society problems and are in love with yourself instead of trying to help the little man. Like I have said before you have to look in order to see.

July 13, 2007 at 11:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

I'm not really interested in you. The questions were only rhetorical.

I have had a great life and it has nothing to do with politics, corrput politicians, and cover ups. I'm going to enjoy what little time I have left, then rest in Abraham's bosom.

I wish you well. Who knows, when Utopia comes about you can get some anger management therapy for free.

July 13, 2007 at 11:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

Netloafer, I wish the best for you in whatever time you have left. Just remember when you are looking down at us, please view all of the picture and not just see what looks good to you.

July 13, 2007 at 11:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

The view will be panoramic. I'll be able to tell the beginning from the end. Life there will make the troubles and tribulations of four score and ten years of my life here well worth it all. Even the good things here will seem like mere shadows there. As to what I can see from up there, I can't say for sure. If I catch a glimpse of you I'll put in a good word for you.

July 13, 2007 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

zoahjoe (anonymous) says...

"Please view all of the picture and not just what looks good to you" good advice, perhaps even for yourself Daveedailey.

View the picture of US healthcare, we actually do have a good system, of course it needs to be tweaked here and there.But do you actually believe, a new system of socialized medicine is the best course? Name three reasons why, socialized medicine is superior to the current system, and please cite your sources.

The fact is money buys better healthcare, just as it can buy a better education, and lifestyle. Not fair, maybe not but, does that mean the goverment should be responsible for your care.

July 13, 2007 at 1:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MelissaE (anonymous) says...

zoahjoe, I disagree slightly.

Money doesn't buy better healthcare--it buys better insurance coverage.....which should never be confused with healthcare.

I view it this way: With socialized medicine, sure, I may have to wait longer to see the doctor, but at least I'll get seen. And, my money (or lack of) will have nothing to do with my healthcare. If I need to be treated for cancer, I'll get on the cancer program, regardless of my ability to pay. If my child is sick and dying, he will get seen & treated regardless of my ability to pay.

We take the middle man (insurance & pharmaceutical cos.) out of the picture. They're gone because they're no longer necessary.

No one should be without healthcare. That's why I like socialist healthcare.

Oh. I guess there are 3 reasons for you right there.

One more thing--most places with different healthcare systems are far-superior to our current system....whether or not I agree with the system itself. But you are kidding yourself if you think this system in this country is working.

M

July 13, 2007 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

That simply is not true. In a socialist system there are many more limitations. Healthcare is rationed. Not everyone is seen. People are turned away, even those who would die without treatment.

In this country there are many facilities that treat people regardless of ability to pay - St. Jude for children who have been burned or need cancer treatments and they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, Shriner's Hospital on the west coast does the same sorts of things, and so forth.

Have you ever heard an American physician say to his patient, "You have cancer and I think it's best to send you to Havana for treatment."?

I am not opposed to making or system better. What I am against is dismantling it and replacing it with socialism.

I've said there are options. There's the NJ plan that adds a surcharge to hospital bills to cover uninsured patients. The surcharge is payed by the insurance companies of those insured. There's the Singapore plan that focuses on wellness and offers options to either roll over or withdraw premiums paid. There's the Massachusetts plan
(http:www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401937_2.html) that requires its citizens to purchase health insurance. Insurance companies are offering it at premiums ranging from zero dollars to $250 a month. The state then offers a subsidy to those on low incomes. Those people, like those of us who currently have health insurance, get to choose the types of deductibles, coverages, and so forth they need. It's much like car insurance.

I haven't fully read up on it, but it seems to have some merit. One of the problems I see is that no matter what, there will be some people in such a plan who will under-purchase, trading off low premiums for higher deductibles, etc. They'll be the first ones to compain when they go to a hospital or get treatment and find out that the money they spent on a HDTV should have been spent on getting a better policy. It's the same complaint I've heard from friends who've been in automobile accidents. They buy a $1000 deductible policy and then complain when the insurance company "only" pays all but the deductible.

M

I've concluded that you really have no interest in any free market solution and that socialism is what you really want. The way you pass by potential free market options tells me this is so.

July 13, 2007 at 2:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

zoahjoe (anonymous) says...

M - There is no guarantee, that your cancer will be treated, or child will receive treatment, with socialized medicine.
You will be placed on a list, perhaps you will die before your name is called, or perhaps you will have an illness that has been deemed not worthy of treatment.

Where are these "places" with superior healthcare systems?

July 13, 2007 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

This is the correct link to the website on the Massachusetts plan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

July 13, 2007 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MelissaE (anonymous) says...

I don't like the free market options you keep talking about.

And as for the info you provided regarding the "free market alternatives" it's no different than RIGHT NOW. Examples:

NJ Plan: Hospital bills come with a surcharge to cover uninsured patients. The surcharge is paid by the insurance companies of those insured.

Who do you think that cost is going to fall down on in the long-run? THOSE WHO ARE INSURED by raised premiums/deductibles/etc.

Singapore plan: Again, it has options to roll over or withdraw premiums paid.....I would guess 50% of those who pay in will, at some point, have to withdraw and not because they want a new TV but because they have to afford, say, daycare in order to work. Or vehicle repairs or education or a house payment when they fall on hard times.

Mass Plan: Absolutely no different than right now. It's a forced policy meaning it's based on income and those who can't pay, the state picks up the tab--and who will that fall on in the long run? The taxpayers. No different than now.

Conclude whatever you want about me, netloafer. I don't mind at all. Of course, I'm pretty liberal and I know that drives a lot of people on this website crazy. :)

M

July 13, 2007 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MelissaE (anonymous) says...

Here you go, zoahjoe. This is a piece of an article. France is great....Oman is great; Japan. Read this:

''the U.S. is woefully lacking,'' Brown said. Proof, he said, is in the 40 million uninsured Americans amid a patchwork of different quality private insurance and government programs.

While good at expensive, heroic care, Americans are very poor at the low-cost preventive care that keeps Europeans healthy, said Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt. Take prenatal care, vital to a healthy start in life. Reinhardt called France the world's role model, while many poor Americans never get prenatal care.

Regardless of debate over rankings and what criteria to use, the World Health Organization won wide praise for establishing a way countries' improvement, or worsening, can be measured.

The United States spends a stunning $3,724 per person on health each year. But measuring how long people live in good health not just how long they live the Japanese beat Americans by 4½ years, and the French lived three more healthy years. Yet Japan spends just $1,759 per person on health and France $2,125.

''That's a pretty big gap,'' noted Murray. ''For the money we're spending, we should be able to do a lot better.''

How did Oman, which spends just $334 per person on health care, rate No. 8?

Previous analyses have looked just at how healthy people are, ''and you're left with the image that the rich (countries) do well because they're rich,'' said study co-author Dr. Julio Frenk. This new analysis praises health systems ''that utilize few resources very well.''

Twenty years ago, one in four children in Oman died before their fifth birthday. Today that has plummeted to 15 deaths per 1,000 children, Frenk said. He also cited 24-hour clinics and a new tax-funded universal care system.

Indeed, who pays the cost of health care, and how fair payments are, are important to WHO's rankings. In most of the world the poor pay a disproportionate share, particularly in ''out-of-pocket'' expenses that drive families into bankruptcy just when someone's sick, the report said.

Here's a link to the World Health Organization's report (published in 2000--they choose a different "theme" for their report each year):

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/index....

And where I found the entire article:

http://cthealth.server101.com/Old%20U...

M

July 13, 2007 at 2:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daveedailey (anonymous) says...

You all must also remember that the majority of Americans are already on medicare and social security. Most of them will refuse to listen (they remember the olden time) because they are very afraid of their benfits changing. What they do not realize is the fact that by the time most of us are ready for medicare and social security there will not be any left. They now, keep raising the age to receive your benefits. My question, do you believe it is fair, if a spouse dies, that you can not receive their benefits until the age of 60, or if you are disabled, or have dependent children, where is their (the deceased) benefits going? By the time our children grow up, there will be nothing left except taxes to pay and no benefit to the elderly because of needless and wasted spending by our governments. Therefore I do believe it would be to the best interest of all to educate yourself on socialistic medicine and what would work best for you. Also, because of increased costs the American person needs to decide how he wants his tax dollars to benefit not just himself but the communities that one might be involved with.

July 16, 2007 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

KristieR (anonymous) says...

I'm pretty much against a government run health care system. I do think the uninsured need better access to health care. I'm all for helping the needy, but don't mess with what I've got. I work hard, made good choices, and try to eat healthy.

As for studies comparing the US to other countries. Did they factor in the lifestyles? The obese children who eat ding dongs and ho hos, adults who smoke 2 packs per day, and never get off the couch? It's not an apples to apples comparsion until it's more than just who pays how much per person. Did one person drink water and the other drink soda all day?

Maybe if we had better eating habits and lifestyle, we could reduce some costs.

K

July 17, 2007 at 9:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wildcat2010 (anonymous) says...

They keep raising the age to receive benefits because people are living longer.

July 18, 2007 at 7:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

emporialifer (anonymous) says...

Netloafer -
Great information - thank you for sharing your opinions and backing them up. Too often on here we have people post their strong opinions and spout off things as if they are fact, but refuse or can't back it up. Intelligent discussions are so nice to have. Thank you for your contributions - they did not fall on completely deaf ears - many will agree with you.

July 24, 2007 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wookdog13 (anonymous) says...

Did anybody watch Michael Moore on Hardball last evening? Very good. Makes one reconsider all there is to socialistic medicine. Did you know we are the ONLY nation to call it a benefit, all other countries call it a RIGHT.

July 24, 2007 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )