BoatBanter.com - OT Michael Moore proves he is the sicko

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:41:15 -0400, katy
wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:
"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:19:08 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
m...

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:48:00 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
news:mntc83d9rodko0301h8hdoag3e5llnpa0h@4ax. com...

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:02:01 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:36:25 -0700, Bart wrote:

What's the problem with government health systems?

What's more important, continued support for a private health care
system,
or American jobs? It seems
to be overlooked that our health care system costs upwards of 15% GDP,
while those countries with
universal health care spend @10% GDP. That extra 5% is the reason is
the
reason our automotive
sector is fleeing north, expanding operations in Canada, while
curtailing
them here. In a global economy,
5% extra cost puts us at a considerable economic disadvantage. Ignore
that at your peril.

All manufacturing is fleeing, not just automotive, and health care
cost is a major driver. I know, I've been there. But universal
health care is not the answer.

Just recently, at a medical school close to my home, the state
legislature mandated to the board of higher education that the number
of seats be increased. There is a very large supply of eligible
candidates, many don't get in. It is the AMA's very sucessful, long
standing attempt to control the supply side, keeping fee schedules
very high.

That's just job losses. Let's not consider the lower life expectancy
and
higher infant mortality our health
system provides.

Our health care system doesn't have anything to do with this. It is a
matter of lifestyle choices. Want a lower infant mortality rate? how
about a lower rate of teen mothers on drugs and alcohol. Want a
longer life expectancy? How about everyone get off your buns and get
some exercise and drop the high fat, high sugar diet.

Frank
Who runs 36 miles a week and at 60 has no aging diseases. No
diabetes, no high blood pressure, no cardiovascular issues, no joint,
ligament, or cartilage issues.

Universal health care is available in all modern cultures except ours.
I'm
sure we're glad you're healthy and can afford health care, but no one
has
a
contract with God.

And you miss the entire point. Adopting healthier lifestyles has
nothing to do with having a contract with God. It just diminishes the
need for the" healthcare" that we have come to believe is an
entitlement in this country, that is we can eat horribly, be obese,
smoke, lead completely sedentary lives, and if pregnant, take drugs,
alcohol and smoke, and we or our newborn will remain healthy, and if
that doesn't work, someone else has to pay to make it happen.

Anything the government has ever gotten involved in that requires cost
control and reasonable product or service has been a disaster.

Frank

And you've missed the point as well... all of your attempts to remain
healthy are great, but that has little to do with the money required to
save
your life or give you a decent quality of life if you get sick and don't
have insurance.

It is the point. I go to the doctor once a year for him to tell me
I'm healthy. There is no burdon on the system. Of course I'm paying
an exorbitant amount for health insurance which I don't need in order
to pay for those that have not made those healthy lifestyle choices.
That's how it works, and the only thing that can make it worse is for
the government to step in.

The VA insurance is a great example of gov't run healthcare
that for the most part works. They can negotiate prices for drugs, they
serve a vast community, mostly quite well.

So have you used the VA system? I had two close relatives now
deceased, who used the excellent VA system. father in law was one of
them. I'm not even going to comment on your assessment of it as a
system that works "quite well"

You're very quick to say that healthcare is an entitlement, as though it
isn't needed, not really. It is needed and that's demonstrated by the
millions who are uninsured, pushing up the costs for those who are. It's
demonstrated by people's inability to get affordable insurance that sticks
with them, rather than changes with their employer. A child of four
getting
cancer is not a life-style problem, but gods forbid if that child's
parents
couldn't afford decent health insurance.

No, what I said is that we seem to believe we can live horrible
lifestyles and we have an entitlement to have some system that is
subsidized by others, either the government or the people in a group
who are making the healthy choices, to offset the effects of those
poor lifestyle choices. That's what sucks up the resources that would
be available for those exceptional cases where the illness is no fault
of the patient. And please site the case where a four year old is not
treated for cancer, whatever the financial status of the parents.

We're very, very quick to talk about "freedom," but we sure are slow to
talk
about decency when it comes to our own

And with that statement, I wonder why I even bother to respond.

Frank

Why are you paying for health insurance if you claim you don't and won't
need it? Seems foolish. You are free to drop your health insurance coverage
at any time.

Insurance is just that...the hedge agaisnt the bet that you may or may
not need it...but in one respect, you're correct...if a person is
magnificently healthy, then putting the money into an HSA might be a
better thing to do...

I have researched it and will probably go that route at the beginning
of the tax year. I like the concept; it is a concept for those who
believe in personal responsibility. It is a concept that encourages
wellness in a proactive manner as opposed to encouraging healing in a
reactive manner or just waste of the services.

Unfortunately, it doesn't go far enough. Premiums for high deductible
policies are still weighted heavily by ones age rather than physical
condition. I believe that if you can prove an overall reduced risk
because of what you are doing or, in many cases, not doing, you should
be able to get a preferred risk rate that reflects that. Life
insurance, car insurance, all have a much more aggressive preferred
risk element.

Ironically, the administration wants to extend it in a manner tht many
more could take advantage of it, particularly small business's that
currently offer nothing or larger operations that are on the fence
with regard to closing and moving offshore, but Nancy and her dancing
clowns have already indicated that it would never come up for a vote.

As one who has studied employer provided health coverage extensivly,
there is a great correlation between cost when "it is assumed to be
free" or when the assumption is "hey, it's coming out of my pocket, I
better do what is necessary to spend it wisely, maybe on wellness,
rather than healing, particularly if I get to keep what's left over".

But this thread was about Michael Moore. He is not a documentary film
maker. He is a propagandist, pure and simple. He starts with a
personally held opinion and creates film around and in support of that
opinion. The "facts" will be presented in a manner that the truth
will never be exposed. You will not get balance, but an avalanche of
information that supports only one side of any particular issue. He
is very skilled at this, and will get a load of media coverage on a
release, because the media is in lockstep with his sort of "reporting"

Frank.