Michael Moore Interviewed by Oprah 6-5-2007

[26 X World Champs]

I recorded Michael Moore's 22 minute interview last Tuesday on Oprah to promote his soon to be released documentary, SICKO.

I found it to be an incredible interview, non-political and very intense. The film is actually NOT about the 50 million uninsured Americans. It is about the 250 million Americans with health insurance and that is what is so scary.

The biggest point that I took away is that health insurers are FOR PROFIT organizations so they are required by law to maximize profits for their shareholders...to do that they need to deny coverage as often as possible so they can make more money. Get it? Our health care insurers are required by law to make money so they need to pay out as little as they can to make more money...Moore's film is about this paradox.

Below are the two links from youtube. I realize that some of you (Navy Pride I'm talking about you) are so anti Michael Moore that you will not allow yourself to watch this interview. Please watch it Navy Pride and please watch it everyone else. Let's then discuss the major points they talk about.

One last thought for all of you who have a phobia about socialized medicine because you perceive it to be Un-American. Moore points out that we already have plenty of "Socialized" government programs...like Fire Fighters, Police, Public School...and all are not for profit....Imagine if Fire Fighting were a for profit business? Now think about the health insurance industry being for profit....Get it?

YouTube - Oprah: Michael Moore on 'SiCKO' - Part 1

YouTube - Oprah: Michael Moore on 'SiCKO' - Part 2

 

[Mendacious]

Michael Moore: A Criminal Profile
The Fifth Column Paul A. Ibbetson
June 9, 2007

There is little doubt that Michael Moore is one of the most public anti-American propagandists of modern times. Without fail, his lengthy lists of so called documentary works have all encompassed his varying visions of the shortcomings of the United States. What many Americans take issue with Moore, is the deceptive means by which he collects his information and the even more deceptive way he portrays this information to the public.

When lamenting about Moore’s last work Fahrenheit 9/11, Christopher Hitchens would say, “To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental…Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of “dissenting” bravery.” (Hitchens, 2004, ¶3).

The Hitchens observation is important to the profiling of Moore for two reasons. First, it encapsulates a general feeling of many Americans, and more importantly, it shows that even the most godless among us realize that there is something fundamentally wrong with Michael Moore. Dave Kopel, of the Independence Institute, who appears in the Michael Moore rebuttal film Fahrenhype 9/11, has chronicled fifty- nine falsehoods within Moore’s documentary.

Hitchens and countless others have been able to touch upon the modus operandi of Moore which includes an overabundance of lies and trickery. Examples of trickery include ambushing politicians trying to make their way into government buildings, and the lowly deception in Bowling for Columbine of pretending to be a second amendment advocate to get into Charlton Hesston’s home to verbally attack the aged actor for his kindness. Moore has used his abilities in “cut and paste” respondent editing to make a mockery of the truth and cater to the far left anti-American crowd. It should also be mentioned that he has made a fortune in the process.

However, realizing that Michael Moore is an America hater who lies, is only observing the symptoms of what truly makes the man what he is. To have an adequate profile of Moore, a person must understand why he does what he does.

First, it must be understood that Moore is not a dupe or lackey. To compare Moore with dim-witted pawns of the Democratic Party, such as Cindy Sheehan, is to make a serious under-estimation of Moore’s intelligence. For everything Moore is, he is not stupid. While this may sound like a compliment, it’s far from it. Moore’s full mental capabilities exempt himself from the forgiveness that some will extend to the Sheehan types of the world.

While it is no doubt true that Moore benefits from the socialist movement within the Democratic Party, he is also not a gun for hire. Moore and the Democratic left simply have similar aims at the moment and this is a point of confusion for many people. When we see Michael Moore sitting in the place of distinction with Jimmy Carter at the 2004 Democratic convention, we are not seeing Michael Moore the faithful soldier of the Democratic Party, what we are really seeing is Michael Moore representing Michael Moore Inc. It is here that we can observe the beginnings of the true sociopathic nature of Moore.

What’s confusing to most people is that when we think of the sociopath, visions of stone cold killers like Ted Bundy come to mind, not plump loud mouths from Michigan. However, it is the nature of the sociopath that makes Moore a perfect Goebbels style propagandist.

The sociopath is void of a standard conscience and is not limited in personal action due to feelings of guilt. If this individual can attain what he/she wants, the means to that end have no relevance. Being seen as a hypocrite or dishonest carries no weight past what formal sanctions can bring. When Michael Moore attacks Dick Cheney for his affiliation to Haliburtan, while owning stock himself, there are no pangs of guilt or remorse, only frustration at being exposed. Moore, as a sociopath, is free to attack the war effort as well as the survival of the country for his own personal gain with impunity.

Sociopaths are highly functional, while they do not feel bound to general moral codes, they do realize that to stay free in society, to continue the quest for their personal gratification, they must appear to conform to societal norms. Sociopaths are often identified by the public by their personal indulgences that are so deviant from societal norms they require incarceration or elimination.

http://www.therant.us/guest/p_ibbetson/06092007.htm

 

[26 X World Champs]

Michael Moore: A Criminal Profile
The Fifth Column Paul A. Ibbetson
June 9, 2007

Did you watch the clips or not? If you didn't then your post is even more pointless then I can imagine because in my thread starter I clearly stated that before anyone degrades this Forum with Anti-Moore bullshit they need to watch the damn clips and then make their comments.

So....did you watch them or not?

 

[The silenced majority]

1.) Oprah is always quick to prove herself an absolute moron. Did you notice that the trailer for the movie specifically said this movie wasn't about the 50mil un-insured, rather focusing on the 250mil who had it?

"I think it's the kind of film that is going to be an "eye opener" for alot of us the 250mil who have health insurance (I'm in that category) who never thought about what it's like for the other guy; the 50mil who don't"

Of course since she parroted a socialist platitude (as she is always apt to do) Moore let's her go even though it had nothing to do with what the movie was about .

2.) Again Oprah proves she is beyond a moron by asserting that "the police, public schools and libraries are free to the public paid for by nobody".

Why would anyone who has that mindset be concerned with including universal health care into the stable of "free" public services? Of course, anyone who isn't a moron like Oprah Winfrey should realize is that we do pay for these public services via our taxes, and if we were to include health care in the pantheon of public services our taxes are going to go way up. Most local FD's out here in the boonies are funded by private donations, but in the cities; they're on the public payroll as well.

It goes without mentioning that taxes going way up is one of Moore's most important goals.


This movie doesn't seem to be too far of a departure of Moore's past efforts. He's masterful at setting up several unique facts in a way that leads the viewer to the outcome that he wants them to arrive at. Of course there are major problems with our health care system, HMO's and insurance companies. That's not to say that we need to arrive at the conclusion that individualism and free-enterprise are inherently bad things. That's what he's essentially advocating: Major corruption amongst Hmo's is a result of a profit driven society and if we weren't a profit driven society our health care wouldn't be so bad. What he fails to point out is that if we weren't such a profit driven society, the rest of the world's health care would have suffered immeasurably. Since the health care they are able to provide throughout rest the world comes largely due to outright intellectual property theft; they wouldn't have their health care systems if the capitalist health care org's weren't coming up with new drugs and cures.

Thankfully work is starting to be done to reverse this: Bayh and Voinovich work to combat foreign intellectual property theft

As per usual Moore spews forth his socialism on another friendly venue where no dissenting view is presented. His corrupt messaging does go over quite well in a post-literate culture that relies largely on moving pictures for their opinions and reviles the work that had been necessary for the maintenance of freedom for so long:

reading & understanding history.


...sad.

 

[WI Crippler]

This is all just an effort by Michael Moore to have the public pay for his inevitable gastric bypass.

 

[rathi]

Although Moore is hardly the paragon of objective viewpoints, his movies do have some real content. His point in bowling for columbine that guns are not the reason that Americans like to kill each other so often was well made. Although I except the usual sensationalist emotional nonsense, sicko is still worth watching. Our healthcare system is horribly broken.

 

[faminedynasty]

Moore is a madman! An absolute psycho! Crazy Crazy Crazy! For example, he said that the Iraq war was bad and wasn't going to work out well. He must be embarassed for having miscalculated so badly.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Moore is a madman! An absolute psycho! Crazy Crazy Crazy! For example, he said that the Iraq war was bad and wasn't going to work out well. He must be embarassed for having miscalculated so badly.

Being right on one issue doesn't make one right on other issues, though it does lend to his credibility he is still wrong about health care.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Being right on one issue doesn't make one right on other issues, though it does lend to his credibility he is still wrong about health care.

How is he wrong about health care?????

Did you watch the clips? Did you note what he said about the paradox of health insurers needing to make as much money as possible and thereby that creates inferior care because to provide better care would hurt their profits?

BTW - he is not necessarily promoting FREE universal health care. I took him to mean that he wants to make the health care insurers not for profit organizations so that their decision making is determined by need of the patient rather than need of the stock holders.

 

[Mendacious]

How is he wrong about health care?????

Did you watch the clips? Did you note what he said about the paradox of health insurers needing to make as much money as possible and thereby that creates inferior care because to provide better care would hurt their profits?

BTW - he is not necessarily promoting FREE universal health care. I took him to mean that he wants to make the health care insurers not for profit organizations so that their decision making is determined by need of the patient rather than need of the stock holders.

I watched the clips.

Moore comes off sounding like a dyed in the wool socialist.

Interesting that Moore would make a film about healthcare since he is a walking advertisment portraying a person that will suffer an imminent coronary.

 

[talloulou]

I watched the clips. Healthcare insurance is a huge fiasco here in the US. Moore seems to be pushing the idea that " a profit must be made" as a horror. And in many ways it is. However had he the mind too Moore could also make a movie about Canadian healthcare and the horror of waiting lists. Look up Canadian waiting lists for surgery and what not and you'll see more horror. Our health insurance industry needs more regualtion and it needs to make more sense then it currently does. Handing the whole system over to the government is just going to create new problems. Basically if you're healthy you are better off in Canada because you can receive all your preemptive care for free. However if you need surgery or something you're gonna wait an awfully long time and I'm sure if Moore wanted to he could pull our heart strings with sob stories of Canadians who died waiting.

I agree 100% that there is a problem. I don't agree universal heathcare run by the government is the answer. I wouldn't be dead set against it or trying it out but my gut instinct tells me it's not the best answer. I've seen far too many rich Canadians coming to the US for surgery to be fooled into thinking government sponsored universal health care is a big plus.

NUPGE appeal to Ottawa on Canada Health Day

Ottawa - The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE), citing alarming heart death statistics in Quebec, is appealing to the federal government on the first Canada Health Day of the new millennium to begin serious re-investment in health care.

"How can we celebrate Canada Health Day when 36 people in Quebec die every year waiting for surgery?" asks National Union President James Clancy.

"With waiting lists growing across the country you have to wonder how many others are dying because of inadequate services in the other provinces?"

Waiting lists are common in many areas of health care. For example, cancer patients are waiting six to 16 weeks for treatment, far beyond the three to four weeks recommended by the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists.

"This suggests that hundreds of people may be dying from what is quite simply under-funding of the system," Clancy said.

Why Must Canadians Die Waiting for Surgery?

There's tons more on Canadians waiting lists and their problems.

Another thing that is constantly claimed is that Canadians are healthier and appernetly they really really are. But you have to wonder if they are in fact healthier because of their universal health care or if they're just healthier due to differences in lifestyles. Canadians are thinner than Americans. Certainly a dr. doesn't make you less obese. And Canadians are far less likely to have diabetes which is something that drs. can treat but can't cure and again there is evidence that diabetes is as much about lifestyle choices as it is genetics. So I'm not convinced Canadians live longer because of their universal health care. If I were convinced of that I would be all for Universal healthcare in a heart beat. But I fail to see how free health care for everyone is going to make the number of obese Americans go down. I fail to see how it's going to get more Americans exercising as we apparently exercise less than Canadians.

Anyway those are some of my thoughts.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I watched the clips.

Moore comes off sounding like a dyed in the wool socialist.

A "Socialist" OOOOH how scary, what a bad word to use in America. It's one of those Republican bullshit talking points that they like to use to scare their flock into not considering anything someone contributes, just call them a "socialist" or a "commie".

You say you watched the clips so please elaborate on what you think is flawed in what you watched. What do you think he is wrong about, specifically?

 

[26 X World Champs]

I watched the clips. Healthcare insurance is a huge fiasco here in the US. Moore seems to be pushing the idea that " a profit must be made" as a horror. And in many ways it is. However had he the mind too Moore could also make a movie about Canadian healthcare and the horror of waiting lists. Look up Canadian waiting lists for surgery and what not and you'll see more horror. Our health insurance industry needs more regualtion and it needs to make more sense then it currently does. Handing the whole system over to the government is just going to create new problems. Basically if you're healthy you are better off in Canada because you can receive all your preemptive care for free. However if you need surgery or something you're gonna wait an awfully long time and I'm sure if Moore wanted to he could pull our heart strings with sob stories of Canadians who died waiting.

I agree 100% that there is a problem. I don't agree universal heathcare run by the government is the answer. I wouldn't be dead set against it or trying it out but my gut instinct tells me it's not the best answer. I've seen far too many rich Canadians coming to the US for surgery to be fooled into thinking government sponsored universal health care is a big plus.



Why Must Canadians Die Waiting for Surgery?

There's tons more on Canadians waiting lists and their problems.

Another thing that is constantly claimed is that Canadians are healthier and appernetly they really really are. But you have to wonder if they are in fact healthier because of their universal health care or if they're just healthier due to differences in lifestyles. Canadians are thinner than Americans. Certainly a dr. doesn't make you less obese. And Canadians are far less likely to have diabetes which is something that drs. can treat but can't cure and again there is evidence that diabetes is as much about lifestyle choices as it is genetics. So I'm not convinced Canadians live longer because of their universal health care. If I were convinced of that I would be all for Universal healthcare in a heart beat. But I fail to see how free health care for everyone is going to make the number of obese Americans go down. I fail to see how it's going to get more Americans exercising as we apparently exercise less than Canadians.

Anyway those are some of my thoughts.

I again want to point out that he is not calling for full blown universal health care. He's calling for NOT FOR PROFIT private health insurance. Take the profit motive out of the equation and then allow for private insurance where the funds collected are to cover all costs and to further research rather than to make a giant annuity for shareholders.

You watched the health care executive admit that she denied coverage to people to save her company money and those people then died which is outrageous. Had the profit motive been removed then that person might be alive today and who knows how many others like her/him?

Not for profit health insurance is not free to you and me. It would be cheaper which most likely would mean more people could afford it and therefore people would be healthier and therefore health costs would go down.

I was also struck by the fact that health care in the US ranks 37th in the world for quality of care and results. Doesn't that bother all of you? We're the wealthiest and smartest and most advanced country on the planet yet we rank 37th in health care quality?

 

[RightOfCenter]

How is he wrong about health care?????

Did you watch the clips? Did you note what he said about the paradox of health insurers needing to make as much money as possible and thereby that creates inferior care because to provide better care would hurt their profits?


BTW - he is not necessarily promoting FREE universal health care. I took him to mean that he wants to make the health care insurers not for profit organizations so that their decision making is determined by need of the patient rather than need of the stock holders.

The reason there is an insurance industry at all is a need to make a profit, if there was no money in it then absolutely NO ONE would have health care aside from the rich.

 

[26 X World Champs]

[The reason there is an insurance industry at all is a need to make a profit, if there was no money in it then absolutely NO ONE would have health care aside from the rich.

Huh? What facts do you have to substantiate your claim? It's absurd to me. There are many, many not for profit corporations that thrive so I have no clue as to what you mean especially since you've not provided one fact to back your assertion.

 

[talloulou]

I again want to point out that he is not calling for full blown universal health care. He's calling for NOT FOR PROFIT private health insurance. Take the profit motive out of the equation and then allow for private insurance where the funds collected are to cover all costs and to further research rather than to make a giant annuity for shareholders.

You watched the health care executive admit that she denied coverage to people to save her company money and those people then died which is outrageous. Had the profit motive been removed then that person might be alive today and who knows how many others like her/him?

Not for profit health insurance is not free to you and me. It would be cheaper which most likely would mean more people could afford it and therefore people would be healthier and therefore health costs would go down.

I was also struck by the fact that health care in the US ranks 37th in the world for quality of care and results. Doesn't that bother all of you? We're the wealthiest and smartest and most advanced country on the planet yet we rank 37th in health care quality?

Well again I'd have to see actual statistics and then try to interpret them. But I'm fairly certain that many of these studies that talk about life expectancy and how healthy a population is or isn't tend to say as much if not more about the lifestyle choices of the population as they do about the healthcare system. Fatter less healthy people are going to have worse medical outcomes than skinnier people who exercise more regularly and probably eat less junk.

Patients who suffer a heart attack do way better in the US than they do in Canada though less people may suffer heart attacks in Canada.

When you compare the US population to other populations we live less healthy lifestyles in most cases across the board. So clearly it is going to be fairly easy to come up with and interpret statistics about our health and make it appear that our health care system is to blame.

I think if one were to research the best heart hospitals in the world, the best childrens hospitals, the best cancer institutes ect... I am fairly certain the US hospitals would be at the top of every single list. Our problem is that we have some of the best care around but there is not access to that care for everyone.

The findings in these three areas, drawn from four dozen academic studies, can be summarized. First, for-profit hospitals have no clear performance advantages or disadvantages compared to non-profits. Second, private hospitals do have a clear advantage over public ones. Third, competition has been clearly beneficial for American health care consumers over the last 10 years.

But clear and significant differences in private and public hospital performance remain, as public hospitals are consistently found to be less efficient than private ones, as they do not offer the opportunity to be operated like for-profit firms.

First, it indicates the strong case for the superiority of private, compared to government-run, hospitals. Of the 15 studies reviewed, 8 showed that private hospitals performed better, 3 found that public hospitals performed better, and 4 revealed no difference in performance. Furthermore, these private-hospital advantages are not confined to the US; studies also find successful hospital privatizations in third-world nations such as South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Fourth, US analysis of the effects of competition finds that the desirable consequences from enhanced hospital competition are larger in settings where the hospital market was the least competitive to begin with. Given the extreme limits on hospital competition now found in Canada, which the Alberta proposal would modestly reverse, this finding augurs well for that proposal. Furthermore, the potential for a "medical arms race," like that found to have occurred at times in the US, is quite limited in Canada due to its woefully low stock of medical technology.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=194

I think if we were to get rid of the profit the absence of competition would eventually lead to a reduction in innovation.

I'd prefer to see more regulation which makes the insurance industry fair and accessible for the majority of Americans. The insurance companies also have many policies that do border on or should border on criminal. All this can be fixed with heavy regulation while keeping competition and profits intact so that we continue to have the most innovative health systems around.

There is a reason students come from all over the world to be trained at our medical schools.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Huh? What facts do you have to substantiate your claim? It's absurd to me.

It's absurd to you that people provide services to make money to improve their own lot in life?

There are many, many not for profit corporations that thrive so I have no clue as to what you mean especially since you've not provided one fact to back your assertion.

They thrive from government and private donations, not through any act of their own. The most succesful one I can think of is the The International Red Cross and Red Crescent, a very important organization, but also an organization that absolutely could not survive on its own, just like any other not for profit.

All payments to the ICRC are voluntary and are received as donations based on two types of appeals issued by the Committee: an annual Headquarters Appeal to cover its internal costs and Emergency Appeals for its individual missions.

International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Private giving to organizations like this are all well and good but forcing people to give to it through taxes is idiotic.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Well again I'd have to see actual statistics and then try to interpret them. But I'm fairly certain that many of these studies that talk about life expectancy and how healthy a population is or isn't tend to say as much if not more about the lifestyle choices of the population as they do about the healthcare system. Fatter less healthy people are going to have worse medical outcomes than skinnier people who exercise more regularly and probably eat less junk.

Patients who suffer a heart attack do way better in the US than they do in Canada though less people may suffer heart attacks in Canada.

When you compare the US population to other populations we live less healthy lifestyles in most cases across the board. So clearly it is going to be fairly easy to come up with and interpret statistics about our health and make it appear that our health care system is to blame.

I think if one were to research the best heart hospitals in the world, the best childrens hospitals, the best cancer institutes ect... I am fairly certain the US hospitals would be at the top of every single list. Our problem is that we have some of the best care around but there is not access to that care for everyone.

Fraser Institute - How Private Hospital Competition Can Improve Canadian Health Care

I think if we were to get rid of the profit the absence of competition would eventually lead to a reduction in innovation.

I'd prefer to see more regulation which makes the insurance industry fair and accessible for the majority of Americans. The insurance companies also have many policies that do border on or should border on criminal. All this can be fixed with heavy regulation while keeping competition and profits intact so that we continue to have the most innovative health systems around.

There is a reason students come from all over the world to be trained at our medical schools.

I am not really talking about hospitals. I am referring to health insurance companies that decide whether your service will be provided under your policy and that those decisions, when driven by profit motives end up killing way too many people.

Make the health insurance providers not for profit and let hospitals remain both public and private and then health care will improve.

Your point about our having certain world class state of the art facilities is very true but you also pointed out that they do not serve the 300 million Americans and in reality only service a very small percentage, almost an insignificant amount, statistically.

 

[talloulou]

I am not really talking about hospitals. I am referring to health insurance companies that decide whether your service will be provided under your policy and that those decisions, when driven by profit motives end up killing way too many people.

Make the health insurance providers not for profit and let hospitals remain both public and private and then health care will improve.

Your point about our having certain world class state of the art facilities is very true but you also pointed out that they do not serve the 300 million Americans and in reality only service a very small percentage, almost an insignificant amount, statistically.

I guess I'm confused. Why would there be any insurance companies at all if the government was just paying for everyone universally and the money came from taxes? It seems to me that if we were going to have a universal healthcare system where our taxes covered medical care for everyone there would be no need for medical insurance. Why have a middle man when a middle man is no longer necessary? What would be the need to have insurance if it's a given that your medical care is covered by your taxes?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Private giving to organizations like this are all well and good but forcing people to give to it through taxes is idiotic.

Really? So the AMA, the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Foundation etc. (all of which are not for profit) is idiotic to you? Some of their monies come from government grants and some come from private donations through concerted fund raising and thinks like AIDS Walks, Cancer Awareness stuff et al.

No one is saying that Doctors and hospitals cannot make a profit. What IS being said is that the Health Insurance providers are making obscene profits at the expense of your health care and that by their being for profit people will die due to benefit decisions being made out of fiscal responsibility to profit rather than the best interest of the patient, medically.

How will you react when you're diagnosed with a brain tumor and your health care provider denies you coverage for whatever the reason thereby assuring your death? What would you do then?

 

[26 X World Champs]

I guess I'm confused. Why would there be any insurance companies at all if the government was just paying for everyone universally and the money came from taxes? It seems to me that if we were going to have a universal healthcare system where our taxes covered medical care for everyone there would be no need for medical insurance. Why have a middle man when a middle man is no longer necessary? What would be the need to have insurance if it's a given that your medical care is covered by your taxes?

The government would not necessarily be paying for your health care. Your employer would or you would on your own BUT without the profit motive the costs would be much lower and more affordable AND denial of benefits would decrease dramatically because the denial for financial gain of the provider will disappear.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Really? So the AMA, the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Foundation etc. (all of which are not for profit) is idiotic to you? Some of their monies come from government grants and some come from private donations through concerted fund raising and thinks like AIDS Walks, Cancer Awareness stuff et al.

I'm saying its idiotic to force people to fund them through taxes. If I want to donate my time and energy (which I do, my home town has an annual Relay for Life which raised more money per capita than any other in the nation for the past 5 years) I will.

No one is saying that Doctors and hospitals cannot make a profit. What IS being said is that the Health Insurance providers are making obscene profits at the expense of your health care and that by their being for profit people will die due to benefit decisions being made out of fiscal responsibility to profit rather than the best interest of the patient, medically.

Insurance companies have a responsibility to make money not take care of people. That is their business. If you don't like it, then by all means stop buying insurance or buy your insurance from a company that is more lax in deciding what policies cover what procedures. Better get to one of those companies while you can because they won't be around for long.

How will you react when you're diagnosed with a brain tumor and your health care provider says denies you coverage for whatever the reason thereby assuring your death? What would you do then?

I'd be sure to have a policy that covers those eventualities and I would have earned the money to pay for that policy. If it happens to someone else I don't really care.

 

[RightOfCenter]

The government would not necessarily be paying for your health care. Your employer would or you would on your own BUT without the profit motive the costs would be much lower and more affordable AND denial of benefits would decrease dramatically because the denial for financial gain of the provider will disappear.

If they don't make a profit there won't be a company. We've already been over the fact that not for profit companies can not survive if governments and private donations don't help them, so the government would HAVE to pay for someone's health care if this system is to survive more than a few years.

 

[talloulou]

The government would not necessarily be paying for your health care. Your employer would or you would on your own BUT without the profit motive the costs would be much lower and more affordable AND denial of benefits would decrease dramatically because the denial for financial gain of the provider will disappear.

Wouldn't lack of profit eventually lead to lack of competition? I mean really why bother? Without profit most will pack up their bags and walk out of the business. If there was to be universal healthcare the insurance companies should, in my opinion, cease to exist. We all just pay more taxes and the government pays our medical bills.

I also think without question this current business of having employers provide insurance needs to stop. Bigger business with tons of employees bargain for better prices. Smaller companies or people who are self employed get completely screwed over. Plus you have people who are forced to stay at a job they no longer want because they have "pre-existing conditions" which means leaving their current job and changing their health insurance is now all but impossilbe.

If we do go for some type of universal health care I would hope we would have the sense to do away with the insurance companies all together!!!

 

[26 X World Champs]

I'm saying its idiotic to force people to fund them through taxes. If I want to donate my time and energy (which I do, my home town has an annual Relay for Life which raised more money per capita than any other in the nation for the past 5 years) I will.

So you're 100% against ANY government funding for medical research, hospitals, Medicare, Medicaid, etc? Your tax money is used everyday to fund medical advancement and without those funds American medical research / health care would decrease far lower than #38 where we are now/

Insurance companies have a responsibility to make money not take care of people. That is their business. If you don't like it, then by all means stop buying insurance or buy your insurance from a company that is more lax in deciding what policies cover what procedures. Better get to one of those companies while you can because they won't be around for long.

That is EXACTLY what is wrong with the system! Did you watch the clips? Did you see the parts of SICKO that were shown? WOW! Making profit is more important than the health of Americans to you! WOW! That is something I could never believe. I'm shocked that you would come right out and admit that you don't give a sh!t about the health and welfare of your fellow countrymen! WOW!

I'd be sure to have a policy that covers those eventualities and I would have earned the money to pay for that policy. If it happens to someone else I don't really care.

I'm sorta feeling that you have not actually watched what I posted because had you watched it you would know that there are so many loopholes to most policies that even when you think you're covered you're not...which is the whole point of his movie! How'd you miss that?

But please answer me on my last question? If you were diaganosed with a life threatening illness and you were denied coverage by your insurer even though you believed you are covered and you knew you were going to die what would you do?