Its just that you refuse to acknowledge that Nixon was behind this stuff, and mainly due to Kaisers lobbying.
Commando, I suggest you take into consideration what you do not understand about the 1973 HMO Act. You’re a model for people who take everything at face value without digging into real facts.
The fact that the government approached Kaiser is a recorded in the National Archives. Kaiser did not approach or lobby the government. The government was looking for a model to follow . . . they opted on Kaiser. In fact, Kaiser didn’t even qualify as an HMO under the orginal act.
You might also note that Ehrlichman didn’t understand what he was talking about (which is exactly one of your problems). His take on the matter was totally off base. And pay particular attention to the fact that the 1973 HMO Act received overwhelming bipartisan support in congress. In other words, if you consider HMOs a big problem, then that problem was created by the U.S. Congress.
My girlfriend has a serious illness. We are still sticking to the public system. Not because it’s free, but because it’s the best there is. Through that system we get help from the best there is in Sweden. We also get free help from US and European experts. Our system picks up the bill from the use of international experts.
Our system has flaws though. There’s no denying that. Not so serious illnesses can, and often do, have waiting times. Often un-acceptable waiting times. If I would need a knee surgery I might concider going for private solutions.
Your comments are valuable for everyone to read. No system is perfect. At least you can “de-bunk” the myth that free healthcare doesn’t mean lower quality. Quality issues exist everywhere, doctors are people, and here in the states there are some bad ones...some average ones...and some very good ones.
Also what most people in the US don’t understand, is that under Univesal Health Coverage, your choice of doctors woul be MUCH bigger. You can choose anyone, anywhere, because they would all belong the the same “HMO”. In the current US system, most HMO’s limit us to only a specific list of certain doctors, who sign agreements with insurance companies on how much or how little they will treat. Doctors that don’t agree to this tend to lose business, because of the increasingly large number of people forced into HMO’s thru the fact that their employers medical only gives them the HMO.
. . . most HMO’s limit us to only a specific list of certain doctors . . .
Yet another one of your seemingly endless fallacies.
Huhhh???? Buzz...whatchya smokin boy? Are you or have you ever been a member of the communist party (errr, I mean HMO)? Look at thier pamphlets again and see the list of doctors that you are only allowed to use.
Commando, before you go off on another of your inane monologues, please read post #52 in this thread and then answer my question that I pose at the end of it. No more dodgin’, boy…
Commando, before you go off on another of your inane monologues, please read post #52 in this thread and then answer my question that I pose at the end of it. No more dodgin’, boy…
yeah, and the whole point is not who helped out JimK first...but the fact that HE NEEDED HEALTHCARE HELP IN THE FIRST PLACE. And guess what...he still needed help to pay the super high premiums...so then he took Moores money.
Here’s the quote you even provided (and no I’m not a fan of the View...only saw news highlights of when she made fun of that idiot Trump).
“ even said to the person who emailed me, this Google Ghost named “Nora LaVelle,” that the sites were all taken care of for the moment, and she asked if I had any other ongoing expenses. That’s when I told “her” about the insurance premiums and “she” said that my “angel” wanted to help. ”
Jim K’s experience continues to highlight the perverse weakenss of our healthcare/coverage system.
You just proved that you have no ability for reading comprehension at all. You accused me of taking moore out of context and I supplied you with 100% confirmation of the fact that moore took JimK’s healthcare situation out of context to build a false timeline. Comment on that, Moore-On.
And if you’d have read further, you’d find out that Jim wasn’t going to let his wife’s healthcare go no matter what, and that moore had nothing to do with it. And the entire scenario only proves that private individuals can take care of needy people’s problems quicker and more efficiently than the guvment can. And that moore didn’t help out until wayyyy after the fact.
But I digress, answer my initial question: did moore take Jim’s healthcare event out of context to create a false timeline to bolster his claims or not? Just answer the question, no more spinnin’ and dodgin’.
He might have...but that’s only a small part of a much bigger story...the fact that America’s health care system is failing us...and in this case it failed Jim.
He might have...but that’s only a small part of a much bigger story...the fact that America’s health care system is failing us...and in this case it failed Jim.
I’ll take your answer as a “yes”. It’s a pathetic pity that you can’t come out and call a spade a spade when moore’s involved. All the same, thanks for finally being openminded enough to read the real, non-fabricated timeline of events that resulted in JimK’s personal situation to be used (and I mean that in the most negative sense) in “sicko”. Moore will exploit anyone to justify his end, including Jim’s sick wife, the destitute blood donor and the rabbit lady in Roger & Me and the kids who were shot at Columbine in BFC. It’s disgusting. It’s even more disgusting that so many of moore’s fans justify these actions.
And it’s not a small part of a much bigger story as you state, it’s the story. If moore will lie and fabricate about one private man’s situation, what makes you believe that he’ll tell you the truth about anything else? You then have to go back and fact check everything that moore has ever said and done. And thats the point of moorewatch…
He might have...but that’s only a small part of a much bigger story...the fact that America’s health care system is failing us...and in this case it failed Jim.
I’ll take your answer as a “yes”. It’s a pathetic pity that you can’t come out and call a spade a spade when moore’s involved. All the same, thanks for finally being openminded enough to read the real, non-fabricated timeline of events that resulted in JimK’s personal situation to be used (and I mean that in the most negative sense) in “sicko”. Moore will exploit anyone to justify his end, including Jim’s sick wife, the destitute blood donor and the rabbit lady in Roger & Me and the kids who were shot at Columbine in BFC. It’s disgusting. It’s even more disgusting that so many of moore’s fans justify these actions.
And it’s not a small part of a much bigger story as you state, it’s the story. If moore will lie and fabricate about one private man’s situation, what makes you believe that he’ll tell you the truth about anything else? You then have to go back and fact check everything that moore has ever said and done. And thats the point of moorewatch...
IF the timeline of somethe distorted people on this website is true, then Moore, while not lying, bent the truth or perhaps just said enough to be legally factual, but giving a false impression.
BTW what did you think of “Sicko” since you criticize him so much.
Bending the truth is lying and moore edited together postings from three different time periods (up to two full years apart from each other) to make a false timeline. How strong can a person’s argument possibly be if they have to string together a line of deceits and false impressions to get his point across? It’s disingenuous and it shows contempt for his audience. Ironic, huh? He holds in low regard the same audience who’s supplied him with tens of millions of dollars by being loyal fans. And for all of that, you still seem unwilling to condemn his actions. How sad.
When sicko shows in my area (ask the guys here, I live in BFE), I’ll go see it. It seems it’s not nearly as popular as F9/11, at least in these parts. As it is, the snippets that I’ve seen seem ripe for fisking. Just ask Dr. Gupta.
When sicko shows in my area (ask the guys here, I live in BFE), I’ll go see it. It seems it’s not nearly as popular as F9/11, at least in these parts. As it is, the snippets that I’ve seen seem ripe for fisking. Just ask Dr. Gupta.
For what its worth, I think “Sicko” is a lot less partisan than 9/11. Some shots were taken at a few Reps, some at a few Dems like Hillary who might be getting bought out by the health insurance industry.
I will say that it was nice to help Jim K out, both the people here on the site if thats what they did, and Moore if he helped with the premiums, but if he did it soley for publicity, then it definately takes the generosity out of it.
But then again,no one said Mikey has to be generous to people who constantly attack him. If he used Jim K, and Jim K put himself in a position to be used (ie attack a medical system that would have given immediate help to his wife and millions more), then Moore doesn’t deserve too much credit, and Jim K should not whine and complain.
So I see Mr. Commie failed to address his insane proposition that Universal Health Care would cost less per year than the Iraq war. Will wonders never cease.
If I, or a member of my close family, needs some fairly urgent medical attention, I’d likely bypass our national system, pay some $$$, and go private. But I like the fact that I don’t have to, and that others who can’t afford those $$$ immediately don’t have to. The problem (at least here in NZ) is that this means I’m paying twice. But again, I don’t mind that so much if it means I can get whatever quality I need, when I need it, and there is a decent system looking after those who can’t afford it.
Of course if I looked into he specific numbers, I might change my mind!
See, I’m more likely to support the opposite setup. Of course, I’d pay whatever I had to for urgent medical care for myself or a family memeber. But ideally I lean towards individuals taking personal responsibility for more mundane care like routine injuries and illnesses, but have catastrophic-coverage insurance (whether private or government) for those major events or illnesses that are more unpredictable statistical events...like cancer. There’s a lot people can do to avoid the mundane maladies, and a lot they can do to recover from them without needing medical attention (and usually little that medical attention can do anyway). There’s not much they can do to avoid the statistical catastrophies, and little they can do to recover without medical attention. That allocation would be closer to having responsibility at the right level of authority than anything else I’ve heard.
I’d probably support coverage provisions for limited routine checkups as well...annual or biannual or something like that.
