SEARCH:
Sign in | Join | Help
search Mercola.com
 
FREE Subscription 
The World’s Most Popular Natural Health Newsletter
Sicko Medical System Debated

SickoIf you haven't seen Sicko yet you simply MUST. It is, without a doubt, one of the BEST films I have ever seen.

To make it easier for you I have provided the link to the film FREE in Google Video below.

The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee has joined other nursing organizations that are hosting 3,000 screenings Michael Moore's film Sicko, which premiered June 29.

The film argues that for-profit insurance companies should be eliminated, as they are financially motivated not to provide the best medical care, but instead to deny claims and withhold care as often as possible.

A press conference held on Capitol Hill featured clips from the film, along with testimony from congressmen who favor greater government involvement in medicine.

The film has already started debates on the subject; film maker Stuart Browning has made a short internet movie attempting to debunk Moore's claim that 45 million Americans have no health insurance and no access to medical care. Other critics have argued that guaranteed health care is not always as good as the film claims, sometimes resulting in death because patients have to wait too long for medical care.

AAPS June 24, 2007


Dr. Mercola's Comment:

Michael Moore's  Sicko is a powerful expose of what is wrong with our health care system  This is simply a must see for everyone, even if you think you are fully insured.  While I don't agree with his solution, I have never seen a better portrayal of what is wrong with the US health care system.


The movie chronicles Moore's interpretations of the problems with the conventional health care industry. And no matter what Moore's critics may argue, there can be no debate that the current medical system, run by multi national corporations with an eye on their profits rather than on your health, is fatally flawed.

What I would caution you though is to ignore Moore's solutions. He would have the US government pay for all the care for the uninsured. While the movie makes some compelling arguments and it might make sense for acute traumas, the bulk of the disease in this country are chronic degenerative diseases.

With the government NOT paying for these expenses the US is already paying more than two trillion dollars a year for "health care" and headed to three trillion per year by the end of the decade.

If the government assumes these costs it will bankrupt the country even faster.

The real solution to all the non trauma disasters that Michael documents is to revert back to natural healing that treats the cause of the disease. I carefully document a comprehensive plan in my ne book, Take Control of Your Health.

A 2001 U.S. study showed that about half of all bankruptcies in 2001 were the result of medical problems -- and most of those who went bankrupt for this reason (more than three-quarters) were covered by health insurance at the start of the illness. Medical bankruptcies affect more than 2 million annually.

It is true that the guaranteed health care practiced by almost all other industrialized nations isn't always perfect. It costs money in taxes, and there can be long waits, especially for problems that are not critical. But most people are already shelling out thousands of dollars each year in insurance premiums, and long waits are infinitely preferable to simply being denied care because the insurance company doesn't want to pay out -- a situation that happens far more often than you might think.

There is no question that we have an ever-increasing insurance crisis in this country for medical coverage. Please don't let the media persuade you otherwise -- this problem is only going to get worse. The solution is to change the entire system. Unless we change the system, drug companies will continue to extract hundreds of billions of dollars from our economy with virtually no benefit -- other than making themselves richer.

The solution is to redirect the spending to care that will build the health of the country. When our nation is focused on health achievement, rather than disease treatment, the total cost of providing medical care would dramatically decline, because healthy people require less medical resources.

Related Articles:







 
 Do you find this article interesting?
Comment on This Article Community Comments (185)
 
 
Posted On Jun 25, 2007
If people want to eat garbage and sit around all day, why do I have to pay for their open-heart surgery? Insurance companies don't pay for my homebirth,  my supplements, my gym membership or my chiropractor. Government health care will not be any different. I will pay for eveyone else's "sick care" and no one but me will pay for my family.  This is not freedom, folks. I don't even believe in vaccines so why should I be forced to buy yours?

This is  why we need to return to the republic the founders intended. Ron Paul for President!  http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

 
Michigan Mom
Savvy User Savvy User, Joined On 6/2006
Michigan Mom  
Replied

limelemon
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 5/2007
limelemon  
 
Posted On Jun 26, 2007

Right on!

Folks, notice she said "republic" not "democracy". This country is a constitutional republic not a democracy.

The difference being that in a republic, people have inalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters.

Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people, but by the rule of law. Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden, and the sheep are armed.



limelemon
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 5/2007
limelemon  
 
Posted On Jun 26, 2007
For those of you who are not familiar with Ron Paul, see this Wikipedia article: 

Political Positions of Ron Paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul



notig
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 12/2006
notig  
 
Posted On Jun 26, 2007
That was my same exact feeling as well. Why should I be stuck paying for someones lipitor when i don't even believe in the medication? When i feel it does more harm than good?

I am curious though... I have not seen his movie... how does he make a case about national healthcare when you hear bad things all the time about the Canadian healthcare system? Does he ignore Canada? Or is there something I am missing?

I am also voting for Ron Paul. YOu can read some of his stances on medicine at the lew rockwell archives. He is also a doctor who has first hand experience unlike most of the other presidents recommending this (Obama)


Reesacat
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 1/2007
Reesacat  
 
Posted On Jun 26, 2007
Notiq has a good question.  Laserman who is from Canada was mentioning he was loosing his doctor and hoped he could find another one.

Perhaps Laserman you could tell your story?



Vigorosa
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 5/2007
Vigorosa  
 
Posted On Jun 27, 2007
Gee,  I don't have any kids...why do I have to pay for Michigan Moms (& others) kids to go to school? Same idea? 


Michigan Mom
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 6/2006
Michigan Mom  
 
Posted On Jun 27, 2007
I homeschool. You're right you shouldn't have to pay for my kids. I'm not sure about the Canada comparison, as I haven't seen the movie yet. I will watch it, just to stay informed.


Deborah.M
Novice User Novice User Joined On 3/2007
Deborah.M  
 
Posted On Jul 10, 2007
There is no way that we are going to have national health care. America is about personal freedom and choices. Look at whats happening with the public school system. Money buys you a good education when that good education should be available for ALL of our kids.

I believe in good healthcare for all but its not how our nation operates and its definitly not the direction we are going in. This type of healthcare will undermine the American philosophy.

Sorry folks.


evw
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 6/2007
evw  
 
Posted On Jul 10, 2007
You are VERY correct, why should I, you, we pay for those who abuse themselves and the system. It does not just stop at that. I divide my time between living in this country and West Africa. I weeks stay there in a hospital (private) would cost me about $400-$600 U.S. I also can go to the pharmacy instead of the doctor/clinic and get "treatment" instantly. The system here is to pay exorbitant salaries for those at the top of the pyramid.

Why is it that it would set me back about $30,000 here for a weeks stay in a hospital? As for government getting involved ask the Canadians about their health care system...That is no picnic either, they are denied treatment as well...


Bikin Mom
Novice User Novice User Joined On 7/2006
Bikin Mom  
 
Posted On Jul 10, 2007
Michigan Mom - check out the British system that doesn't just cover homebirth, they encourage it for every woman... and the OB is for the hospitals, where emergencies are handled. Mothering Magazine had an article about how midwives there take care of the majority of pregnancies. My sister lived in Europe for two years and was completely frustrated because the physicians followed a natural paradigm, she couldn't wait to get home to the good ole USA for some parmaceticals!! Here, its 5 minutes with the DR and here is your script for an antibiotic... in the national health system there, the DR talks with you and gives home remedies and nutritianal advice to try before prescribing drugs. Any Europeans on Mercola notice the difference in treatment between the USA and across the pond?


ozseppo
Novice User Novice User Joined On 6/2007
ozseppo  
 
Posted On Jul 10, 2007
I always get a chuckle out of the "why should I support some else mentality.  Why should I pay for the fire department to put out your blazing house?  Why should I pay for the paved roads linking you to the main highway?  

One day you'll figure out conses will arrive at the answer. 

By the way, I loved the Aussie public health system.  I could go to any doctor, anytime.  Got fixed up after an auto accident.  Doctors had Mercedes.  word got around about those who provided  good care, and they prospered with more patients.  This was during the Labor
Governmentof the 70's, the same one that removed racism with Al Grasby's multicultural revolution.

By the way, I don't hate you the way you small r republicans hate me.  I adore you for the diversity you provide in our society.  Matter of fact, I'm probably your mailman.  Thanks for taking me into your wonderful country.
"WE, the people", not , "I, me, mine".


MaraR
Novice User Novice User Joined On 7/2007
MaraR  
 
Posted On Jul 10, 2007
The problem with our medical system is that it is highly commercialized by the drug companies and the insurance companies, and the AMA - which is against public healthcare.  Free universal single payer health care is a first step to bring us out of this situation.

And a civilized society is one in which we all care for the young, the sick, the elderly, the poor. Michael Moore treats this subject in his film - What happened to the WE, he says. Is it all ME???

You may need this system yourself if you become sick or injured - there is an interesting segment on emergency care. Have you ever waited in an emergency room for hours? And then been hit with a huge ambulance bill?

Are you on the side of those who need reasonably priced medical care, or those commercial entities who mke their moiney squeezing money out of us and denying care to the sick and injured?
You too, Dr. Mercola - let's give this movement some wholehearted support!


C Ed Wright
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 6/2007
C Ed Wright  
 
Posted On Jul 11, 2007
limelemon, you're absolutely right!

...Except for one small point:  We are SUPPOSED to be a constitutional republic, and we did start out as one, although very few people nowadays are old enough to remember those days.  Since about the 1960's we have become increasingly controlled and by now actually RULED by the Mad Morons of Modern Mainstream Media (M5), albeit indirectly but ruled by them nonetheless.  They ultimately control what all our sheeple think & believe, they control the outcomes of our state & federal elections, they control what our elected officials think & do, they control what we can & cannot buy and ultimately even how much it costs.  All of which, at the end of the day, adds up to one inescapable conclusion:

We are a mediocracy.


Mr.AK
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 6/2006
Mr.AK  
 
Posted On Jul 11, 2007
I, too, haven't had any use for traditional medicine all of my life - but if I were in a bad accident and severed a limb, for example, I would sure be glad if there was free emergency care available. There are some things that natural cures don't cover. 

 


kabba
Novice User Novice User Joined On 6/2006
kabba  
 
Posted On Jul 11, 2007
American's are blessed to have such brave individuals as Dr. Mercola and Michael Moore.  It takes guts to go out there and expose the corruption and face the nay sayers who are afraid of change even if it could make your lives better.  That's why they do it. 

Education is the answer.  Find out, read, take action.  American's please get so angry that you take control back from the government.   Get politically active people.   They are talking nonsense when they tell you that a government run program for yourhealthcare would be socialist and that it would cost you more.  They tell you what they think will scare you, not the truth.

The only people who would stand to lose if you went that direction would be the fat cats getting richer off of your dead bodies!  The government officials taking kickbacks as well as the medical insurance companies and drug companies.  The money is already out there but it isn't getting back to you people where it belongs.  The rich are getting richer at your expense right now.

And for those of you who say "I'm not paying for somelse's this or that because they choose to do, eat, smoke whatever else".  Think about this....Do you enjoy paying for an already rich person to further use your money to indulge themselves with unthinkablydecandent expenditures such as $10,000. lunches, $100,000. new cars every year, million dollar homes???????? How does that feel?  That's your money at work!


C Ed Wright
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 6/2007
C Ed Wright  
 
Posted On Jul 11, 2007
Vigarosa, and BTW, Bill Smith, the theory or perhaps i should say argument, for everyone paying every year, kids or not, kids-in-school-or-not, is that we all each pay much less each year by all chipping in a little each year.

Kind of works until you do the math.

That portion of property taxes that goes toward what passes for education is usually supposedly hovering around something like 90%, of local property taxes that nowadays in New Jersey from about $7000.00 for about the smallest house it's legal to live in, on up to the-sky's-the-limit for the $1,000,000-plus McMansions now being erected [since it no longer pays builders to build "affordable" housing that less-than-millionaires can no longer afford anyway].  But in both private schools, and in a few towns accepting students from other towns w/o schools, that's in the same general range as ANNUAL TUITION!


sick2deth
Novice User Novice User Joined On 7/2007
sick2deth  
 
Posted On Jul 11, 2007
Those with health insurance who think they're not paying for everyone else in the system and then some, are misinformed at best. Who do you think pays for malpractice lawsuits, 8-figure incomes of ins. co. execs, & skyrocketing profits of ins. cos.? Hey I admit I own insurance stock, it's more than tripled in value in the last seven years. It's better than an IRA.

On the flipside of that coin is the "denial system" which enables those shareholder profits. Sicko shows footage of the 1980s congressional hearings in which former insurance case reviewers testify on their participation in this system. They explained that the more cases they denied, the greater their annual performance score, raises, and promotions. Life-saving, expensive procedures are at the top of the list in this system. Then there are insurance employees whose jobs consist of nothing but researching patients' backgrounds to find pre-existing conditions to deny them coverage when they begin to get sick. The only way to ensure the for-profit insurance cos.' obscene profits is to insure only healthy people, who don't use their plans for much other than the occasional flu, and to restrict coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.   

This is the ugly truth of for-profit health insurance. Humans are rated, like cars and drivers in the auto insurance industry. One trip to the doctor earns you insurance points, depending on the reason you need a doctor. Acquire too many points and you become uninsurable. This is a common problem in the U.S. 

I strongly recommend Sicko. Michael Moore doesn't exaggerate the truth, there is no need to. The problems speak for themselves. By the way, to answer someone's question about Canada, Moore visits several hospitals there, and interviews patients. The average emergency room wait in Canada is ~30 minutes.


Sray
Novice User Novice User Joined On 1/2007
Sray  
 
Posted On Jul 12, 2007

There is an unfortunate, but natural, tendency to look for solutions outside ourselves, when actually our own behaviors are to blame. It’s pretty convenient. Doctors have to exist. According to Joseph Chilton Pearce, author of The Magical Child and many other books, in the early days of medicine, it was understood  that pediatricians – while assisting during childbirth – by wearing white,  then spanking the baby – and be the first person that the newborn baby sees would guarantee that baby would be a willing medical patient for the rest of their life. It is called bonding.  Just like a baby duck will bond to you, if you are the first person it sees and is denied contact with its mother.  So, for many, the rest of their lives, whenever they get into trouble with the body, or go through a transition, their first (maybe their only) thought is see the doctor. The doctor, remember, is the true mother, he/she is the one who birthed you, spanked you, gave you life. Its an infantile addiction to medicos in white coats who have a free pass to hurt us and be appreciated for it. It’s an infantile unconscious bonding pattern.  In my own case, I got very angry at doctors while growing up, they always hurt me. Thanks to that anger, I broke the bonding. I feel no draw, and now go only reluctantly with tremendous skepticism. Thank you, Dr. Mercola, for the wonderful education you are giving us. 



Halobeans
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 11/2006
Halobeans  
 
Posted On Jul 13, 2007
Ok now,think. I DID NOT see the movie. Although all this argument is useless, I have to enter my thoughts. Things are bad.There is no way of change with our current state. It is corrupt and they do not care nor will they in the future. It is sad and negative I know,but the truth.We are controlled period.The problems will never be fixed.The only way is to get rid of the corruption and agendas of our government.HOW?It wont happen.Although maybe when more people know and see the real truth....Michael Moore is not the brightest candle on the cake.First of all,what is his agenda here? Why could he not do a documentary on the way things really are? How Americans are lied to and brainwashed and there is a better way to health? Does he not know? Obviously not look at him! He needs to do some more research before trying to earn a fat paycheck.Thats his goal afterall.Even if he does care about the issue,he is not well informed or is being paid by (bleep) to push this for reasons we may never know.Look at the big picture.


joyz
Novice User Novice User Joined On 6/2007
joyz  
 
Posted On Jul 16, 2007
Dear Michigan Mom,

I agree with your opinion and sentiments. That is one big reason I am a part of a medical-sharing plan rather than of an insurance company. The solution to our current situation is NOT government intervention.

Thank you for sharing.

 
 
 
Posted On Jun 25, 2007
IF we let the government control our heath care, which they have done recently, we will have more girls dying of "preventive immunizations",  more downs syndrome babies due to "preventive immuniztions" and more medical experiments in the name of advancement ( Tuskegee Airman and many others.) Plus we will have less children, abortion and experimentation. What a wonderful world.

 
goldeneagle
Savvy User Savvy User, Joined On 4/2007
goldeneagle  
Replied

Alexandra_203
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 6/2006
Alexandra_203  
 
Posted On Jul 10, 2007
I agree with you.
It is so sad that Socialism (worse than that) has taken the lead in this country. Yeah, let's let "daddy government" decide what's better for us and our children and let's let daddy government schools indoctrinate our children and take them away from God.


veggienut
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 9/2006
veggienut  
 
Posted On Jul 10, 2007
Are you both serious?  Do you not read any of the articles on this website?  Those things are already happening under the guise of "democratic" society, anti-socialist even.  Call it whatever you want, but I didn't hear either one of you offer a better solution or even admit that one is needed.

I patronize only natural healthcare practitioners for mine and my husband's healthcare.  I pay 100% out of my pocket every single time, while my insurance card, not an HMO, sits snugly in my wallet, useless.  The only value I ever get from that card is to pay for 80% of an eye exam.  Even when I have had a couple non-hospitalized accidents, I sought alternative healthcare, because I knew it worked and didn't want to waste time.

Guess what?  Paid out of pocket again, but I got well.  In Kansas, it was illegal to practice Naturopathic medicine until a few years ago.  How free is that? 


Larry_203
Novice User Novice User Joined On 6/2006
Larry_203  
 
Posted On Jul 10, 2007
What most of you are failing to see is how we have little choice we have now.  I have to see in-network doctors.  None of you have offered a solution.  Just using the socialst boogeyman scare tactic doesn't cut it anymore.  I saw the movie and it should be seen by everyone.  Michael Moore is taking on the corporate elites who Only care about their profit.  You say you don't want the gov. deciding?  The insurance companies do that now.  We are the only industrialized country without universal healthcare.  That is embarrassing.  18,000 people die in this country a year because they are uninsured (Institute of Medicine,Jan 2004. www.iom.edu/?id=19175)  That is 6   9-11's, so how is the free market working so far? To the close minded who hate Moore, see the movie and look up his facts.  I did and he is telling the truth.  Take the profit out of healthcare.  Healthcare should be a right.  To those of you who don't want to pay for others....your doing that now....police,fire,school,libraries etc.  We need universal healthcare.  How it works is up to us.

 
 
 
Posted On Jun 26, 2007

Here’s some more food for thought.

 

There are actually two health care systems, broadly speaking: acute and chronic. 

 

The acute system is world class, usually helpful, and worth supporting.  This system treats things like car crashes, gunshot wounds, broken bones, and various accidents.  The treatments most often restore the patient to some semblance of previous health.

 

The chronic system is apparently staffed with MDs who barely made it through med school, usually detrimental to current and long term health, and generally a leech upon society.  This system treats things like diabetes, blood pressure, cancer, cholesterol, blood lipids, aging(!), sleep, weight, etc.  The treatments, largely drug based, almost never address the underlying causes (the causes are either ignored, totally wrong, or unknown), and commonly create additional chronic illnesses, one or more of which may quickly lead to death.

 

The acute care system is basically alright, though there certainly are problems there as well.  It is the chronic care system that needs to be abolished and completely restructured.  Yet, I would venture it is the chronic care system that creates the lion’s share of medical expenses and is also growing rapidly.  Medical system improvement needs to be focused there foremost.


 
Bob2_203
Savvy User Savvy User, Joined On 6/2006
Bob2_203  
Replied

jalang
Novice User Novice User Joined On 6/2007
jalang  
 
Posted On Jul 10, 2007

Bob2 Thank you a million times over! You just echoed my thoughts for the past 15 to 20 years, but much more eloquently-and specifically-than I've ever articulated! From my experience, I cannot understand what all the doctors and their medical practices that dot the landscape throughout my general area in Maryland do to alleviate health problems as they race from room to room, writing prescriptions while barely listening to what's being said to them. And they don't even pretend to be cordial.

This situation has recently worsened with the integration of computers in the exam rooms. I fully understand the magnitude of paperwork that apparently is required in the medical profession. However, I really do miss the few minutes "extra" that the doctors gave me in the past while they were handwriting whatever they needed to write down in their little folders. At least they could still listen and speak. Now, conversation is completely impossible because they are doing data entry, which requires much more concentration to integrate both their medical thoughts and the requirements that their computer imposes on them. The result is that I'm talking to a doctor for a precious few minutes and then I'm sitting idly by while he/she becomes a mute data entry clerk, generating pages (usually prescriptions), complete with typos and other errors! (I often wonder if most docs in family practice and internal medicine aren't completely disillusioned by their work days and all the clerical foolishness they're involved in.) And they typically regard that action as their last one and dash from the room without going over the papers they've typed. It is a joke and a hoax. I'm beginning to feel sorry for them, since they are as much a pawn in the behemoth as I, the consumer, am.

Also, where I reside, I've noticed in the past 10 years or so that most medical practices consist of numerous doctors, 6 to 10 admin staff, physicians assistants, and nurses. This grow



C Ed Wright
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 6/2007
C Ed Wright  
 
Posted On Jul 11, 2007
You said a mouthful!

The distinction you called "acute" is actually called Emergency Medicine and Trauma Surgery.  They do great work.  They are human, of course, and humans do make mistakes, but that's true of all human endeavor.  Hey, remember, it was Rocket Scientists who put rubber O-rings in 5000-degree F. solid-fuel boosters.  Duh!

Generally, I have no use either for all the run-of-the-mill Me-Doctors (MD's) but in all fairness they're not all complete morons.  I vividly remember a young (22) co-worker who came to work in full-blown nicotine & alcohol withdrawal, 'white-as-a-ghost' and shaking, who told me his doctor the day before had shown him his chest X-ray & told him if he didn't quit cigarettes & booze he'd be dead in 6 months; to make another appointment for 2 weeks later; and if he had another cigarette during those 2 weeks, don't bother keeping the appointment!   (WHOA...!)  Instead of 'treating' him by drugging & butchering him, the doc (truthfully) scared the unholy crap out of the kid, to save the kid's life rather than milk the kid's money.  It actually worked, too.


evw
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 6/2007
evw  
 
Posted On Jul 11, 2007
What segment of the population do you think suffers from the most traumatic wounds such as gunshot, stabbing, etc? I wonder who pays for all of that as I would venture a guess that this segment of the public does NOT have health insurance NOR do they have a vested interest in keeping themselves healthy because we pay for their "health care" in the way of taxes, taxes, taxes.

 
 
 
Posted On Jun 27, 2007
As an NRA member I'm no Michael Moore fan.  But I'm glad to see him go after the health care system.  It goes against my libertarian views, but I think a totally government controlled system is far better than what we've got.  What I'd really like to see is everyone pay for their own care, and in cases where unmanageable expenses occur, some sort of a charity-based system.  But I realize the system is too far gone for something like that to ever work now.

To those who object to paying for other's care, you already are.  For example the cost of an American-made auto includes $1500 for health care.  And who do you think is paying for the gold-plated health insurance government workers are "entitled" to, them?  Of course not.

I get sick of hearing how we need to figure a way to pay for health care.  The problem is there IS NO WAY to pay for health care at current costs. The current system was guaranteed from the beginning to result in out-of-control costs.  It's surprising to me it took so many decades for it to get so bad.

Think about it:  There are 3 components to the system:

Consumers:  They have no incentive to economize when someone else is paying.

Providers:  The higher the prices the more money for them.

Payers:  If you are an insurance company, would you rather be insuring against events that cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, or events that cost much less (as medical care should)?  Obviously, there is more money to be made in the bigger-money game.  In addition, costs of care are so high responsible citizens feel they must be insured regardless of the cost of premiums.  So while insurance companies may try to deny coverage and negotiate lower rates with providers to increase short-term profits, you better believe they are smart enough to realize out-of-sight medical fees are in their long-term best interest.

 
steelj
Novice User Novice User, Joined On 6/2006
steelj  
Replied

steelj
Novice User Novice User Joined On 6/2006
steelj  
 
Posted On Jun 27, 2007
Bill, I didn't say I was a libertarian.  I said supporting a government-controlled system goes against my libertarian views, of which I have many.  I also have some conservative views, liberal views, etc.  I meant to convey I feel more like a libertarian than any other classification.  But I do think libertarian principles must be compromised to solve some problems.  You are correct that I am not a "true libertarian", but I never claimed to be.

As to your solution, I like it but it will never happen.  We need something politically possible.  I would add we need to end the monopoly of MDs.  As long as they have their monopoly a market system cannot exist.  The medical establishment controls the supply by controlling medical school admissions


steelj
Novice User Novice User Joined On 6/2006
steelj  
 
Posted On Jun 28, 2007
Bill, you need to try to calm down.  I bet I agree with you on political issues more than at least 95% of people.  You harm your cause more than help it by attacking your allies.  I actually prefer your libertarian solutions to the health care fiasco, but because of the many shortcomings (IMO) of the typical American voter, I think it's politically impossible.  So I am willing to consider alternatives, you are not.

I suspect you are where I was some years back, really po'd because America is going downhill fast and you wish you could stop it.  Well, I looked around me at the greed and shallowness of most of the
people I see and it finally hit me - America is going down because of WHO WE ARE and if we deserved better, we would simply do better.  It ain't going to happen.  We are going to disintegrate like every other great civilization before us.  Once you accept this you will feel better.


Lynn46
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 12/2006
Lynn46  
 
Posted On Jun 30, 2007
steelj,
Regarding your statement, "Well, I looked around me at the greed and shallowness of most of the people I see and it finally hit me - America is going down because of WHO WE ARE and if we deserved better, we would simply do better.  It ain't going to happen.  We are going to disintegrate like every other great civilization before us.  Once you accept this you will feel better."

I won't comment on your various opinions, many of which I agree with and some I don't. However, I will make the observation that you are a believer of the old adage, "History repeats itself." And I am a believer of that old adage as well.


Lynn46
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 12/2006
Lynn46  
 
Posted On Jun 30, 2007
Bill Smith,
Regarding your statement, "I have accepted long ago that this country will disintegrate. I actually look forward to it now, because I will survive. This world would be a great deal better off with a few billion less people."

Am I to assume that you have a year's worth (or more) of food and water stored in an underground bunker so that you can survive the coming "disintegration"? If you do, well then I say, good for you--you will probably need it in your pessimistic world view. Personally, I live in a small townhouse with no room for an underground bunker.

Planet Earth is now a very, very small and crowded place. Within the next few hundred years, we humans might all survive or we might not. It all depends on the decisions and actions that those of us alive in the 21st century take.


C Ed Wright
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 6/2007
C Ed Wright  
 
Posted On Jul 11, 2007
Bill Smith, please tell us all when the NRA began supporting all the 20,000 gun laws in this country?

Because what I've been reading & hearing over & over from them is they support all existing criminal code laws that are not being enforced properly, with this lack of enforcement resulting in Mad Morons of Modern Mainstream Media (M5) sensationalism & hysteria that fuels public outrage that results in M5 AND public demands that idiot politicians, both the Republicans (merely Far Left) and the Democrats (ranging from merely Extreme to Lunatic Left), "Do Something" which then results in the passage & implementation of un-Constitutional gun laws, of which you noted there are [estimated to be?] some 20,000 now.

Was there an NRA policy shift that I wasn't aware of?


C Ed Wright
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 6/2007
C Ed Wright  
 
Posted On Jul 11, 2007

The Forgotten Man

The "forgotten man" was a term coined by a great conservative pro-market, pro-growth professor named William Graham Sumner. In an 1883 essay, he asserted: "As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine . . . what A, B, and C shall do for X."

Sumner wanted to know about C, the one he called "the forgotten man." As [Amity] Shlaes [in "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression,"] explains, "[t]here was nothing wrong with A and B helping X. What was wrong was the law, and the indenturing of C, his forgotten man, to the cause." Sumner wrote of the forgotten man: "He works, he votes, generally he prays -- but he always pays -- yes, above all, he pays."