Last 60 Comments
Mooronomics
(1 total, Last @ 04:10)
Freedomlover: Great post Mike - but Moore's comment is even more wrong than what you've pointed out: he says this (several trillion dollars of) cash is concentrated into the hands of a few people. But we're talking about (for the most part) publicly traded corporations who are holding this cash. Yes, there are some people who own a lot of stock in these corporations (CEO's, former CEO's, company founders, high level executives, billionaire investors, etc.), but the majority of the shares of these companies are owned by mutual funds, pension funds, and otherwise hundreds of thousands of individual investors, mostly through IRA's and 401(k)'s. This includes the retirement funds of Wisconsin's teachers. I find it hard to believe that Moore doesn't actually realize this, that this hoard of cash IS in fact already owned collectively by the "people". He makes it seem like we're still in the old robber baron days, where these big companies are owned by the families who founded them, and a small group of fat cat zillionaires are holding all this cash, sitting around stuffing their faces like Jabba the Hut from Star Wars. But you're absolutely right, even if this WERE the case, it's still their money, they earned it, and they DO spread it around by creating good paying jobs. Bill Gates may be worth $50 billion, but look at how many Microsoft millionaires he created too. Confiscating money from the coffers of these corporations would end up HURTING the little guy, as you point out. Sometimes I think Moore doesn't actually believe the things he says, that it's all just a gimmick to appeal to his far Leftist base and make money for himself. Kind of like how Andrew Dice Clay in real life wasn't really the character he portrayed in his stand up comedy routines - it was all just an act.
MooreandMe
(8 total, Last @ 10:36)
AnnaMaria: Nice article, thanks.
rental elf
MooreandMe
(8 total, Last @ 06:07)
vinay: I am very thankful to you.In fact your creative writing and abilities has inspired me to start my own blog engine blog now.Really the blogging is spreading its wings rapidly keep up the good work.
hotels in mahabaleshwar
I Am SO Popular in Cuba
(3 total, Last @ 07:36)
edobrien: This doesn't make any sense to me...
MooreandMe
(8 total, Last @ 07:34)
edobrien: I agree that Moore can be disingenuous in his films, books, speeches... BUT, the bottom line truth that we're basically the only industrialized country in the western hemisphere that doesn't attempt some sort of universal health care does bode well with me, or people I know that have been affected by egregious hospital charges. We send our children to public schools, entrusting their education to the state, but we're scared of spending money on keeping people healthy? I guess I just don't get it.
MooreandMe
(8 total, Last @ 12:22)
NobleBrown: Wait a minute. This whole article completely ignores the complete and utter idiocy of the "rape" charges. No, it wasn't a CIA plant or anything silly like that. You know what happened? He had a consensual shagging with a couple of girls without a jimmyhat. Afterward, he refused to get an STD test. THAT'S IT. Apparently, that constitutes rape in Sweden.
MooreandMe
(8 total, Last @ 08:51)
Jocuri Online: I feel pretty bad for her. I wouldn't like it either to have my life threaten
I Am SO Popular in Cuba
(3 total, Last @ 08:37)
Jocuri Online: I thought Mike's film was banned in Cuba!
Now to get Moore banned in this country.
And when Cuba bans you for propaganda, you KNOW you're shoveling lies. But that's old news about Moore, except perhaps to those idiot liberals still buying his crap.
MooreandMe
(8 total, Last @ 02:06)
ledlightsnucashnlfantastico: i need to get used to all the information on this website... damn this is eye opening!
MooreandMe
(8 total, Last @ 01:14)
artmonkey: Victor, nobody (even Moore) is wrong about everything. However... While the act of "raising awareness" can be noble, any inherent nobility in the act can easily be negated (as Moore is an expert in doing) by focusing on entirely the wrong answers to the problem, and trying to vilify those who disagree while stroking one's own ego. Giving Moore credit for "raising awareness" on the subject of healthcare is, essentially, the same as giving credit to the KKK for "raising awareness" on the issue of race relations. Promoting a horrible idea is still promoting a horrible idea.
MooreandMe
(8 total, Last @ 11:29)
vhgm: Hi! Just to let you know: I'm here after watching SiCKO. I read EVERY ENTRY you asked me to read before commenting/posting. I agree with Moore's view that people are entitled a free universal health care. I agree with you it's not as simple as Moore tries to make us believe. I agree with Moore's idea of exposing truth by using offshore examples. I agree with you when you say he polishes truth to make it tastier. He's not 100% right, but at least he's trying to raise awareness about those issues. If he's doing it right or not, it's not up to me to judge. And no, I'm not one of his half-witted fans (actually this is his first movie I watched). This is just my humble (and probably uneducated) opinion. Last topic: No, I didn't check if it was Jim posting or another guy. Just, please, make sure he reads this, ok? Hope Donna's better. Greetings from Brazil, Victor.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 03:26)
gitarcarver: Of course no two systems are alike, but generally speaking the two doctors you depict here, are NOT paid the same. It is called a "schedule of payment" and true for most government run health care systems. You, however, choose to debate the meaning of the word “access” again, and again, and again. Dude, you’re being absurd. I am not debating the meaning of the word at all. You are the one that is proffering a lie and when you are called on it, you whine like a pig. The absurdity here is that your premise that people in the US don't have access to health care is false and yet you want to keep putting it forth. Wouldn’t they recognize freedom either? Maybe not. "Many others" are not here. You are. My statement stands. I was just pointing out that your longing for the old freedom loving days, might be somewhat delusional. Freedom is delusional? Wow. What a concept. I’m sticking with the old one. "I'll keep lying." There. Corrected that for you. Yes, I have chosen to give up some freedom And those who choose to give up freedom have none. Cool to see that you actually can accept that. And certainly you have that freedom. What you cannot grasp is that you don't have the moral right to demand that I give up my freedoms. You seem to think that because you want something, you can take it from me.
I Am SO Popular in Cuba
(3 total, Last @ 01:51)
artmonkey: Dammit, Mike... once again, you've beat me to the punch!
But at least Moorewatch is in capable hands in the apparent absence of Jim K.
It's great to see that Mikey is still getting poked with the sharp stick of truth.
Well written.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 01:19)
Kimpost: Governments set up reimbursement schedules, or didn’t you realize that? So if you have a procedure that is being performed by a top 1% graduate of the University of Oslo who has been in practice for 30 years without a complaint, or the same procedure that is performed by a lowest ranked graduate of the Mickey Mouse School of Medicine and this is his first operation, both doctors are compensated the same amount for the procedure. Where do you get all this from? Of course no two systems are alike, but generally speaking the two doctors you depict here, are NOT paid the same. Because “access” doesn’t mean “access” when you want it to, does it? Thanks again for proving that you don’t want to be held accountable for the things that you say or the words that you use. Context is everything, gitarcarver. When access as a NEGATIVE, IN REGARDS TO THE US HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, is discussed, it should be blatantly obvious that ER access is not what's being discussed. Especially since ER Access alread is there. If, by any chance, doubt still should remain, asking for a simple clarification should be sufficient. After which actual debate should be able to follow. You, however, choose to debate the meaning of the word "access" again, and again, and again. Dude, you're being absurd. You then go on to say how the choices of doctors are those within certain categories. In other words, you can’t choose your doctor. You may be able to choose your doctor within a set of doctors, but that is like saying “you can eat any food you want. Oh, but you can’t eat fish, chicken, corn and squash. But let me remind you that you can eat anything you want.” Eh, yes? I have hundreds or (presumably) even thousands of doctors to choose from, but the choice is not limitless. Never claimed it to be. But be honest. In practice, how limitless is the US system? You are normally limited by the constriants of your insurance plan. So if you want to be truly free, you might need to change plans, to get the doctor you choose. Or pay him outside your insurance. It's not exactly super convenient, even if the theoretical freedom might be greater. As I said, you wouldn’t know freedom if it slapped you across the face like a salted mackerel. Your definition…
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 01:55)
gitarcarver: Your argument wins with or without lawsuits, huh? Convenient! Learn to read before making assumptions, please. Government does not determine wages, hospitals do. Governments set up reimbursement schedules, or didn't you realize that? So if you have a procedure that is being performed by a top 1% graduate of the University of Oslo who has been in practice for 30 years without a complaint, or the same procedure that is performed by a lowest ranked graduate of the Mickey Mouse School of Medicine and this is his first operation, both doctors are compensated the same amount for the procedure. Because that was not what I meant by access. Because "access" doesn't mean "access" when you want it to, does it? Thanks again for proving that you don't want to be held accountable for the things that you say or the words that you use. You choose your doctor. You then go on to say how the choices of doctors are those within certain categories. In other words, you can't choose your doctor. You may be able to choose your doctor within a set of doctors, but that is like saying "you can eat any food you want. Oh, but you can't eat fish, chicken, corn and squash. But let me remind you that you can eat anything you want." Freedom is something more than just freedom from taxes for me. As I said, you wouldn't know freedom if it slapped you across the face like a salted mackerel. Your definition of "freedom" is contrary to the definition that people have held for thousands of years. I am not surprised. Not all of those thousands of years have been pretty. Not even the last 150 years. Most of those ugly years have come when governments or people have tried to trample on the rights of others. They believed they were doing things for the "good of the people" and yet they were not. Just as you are now. I just want society, any society, to guarantee “some kind of health care coverage for all”. Bull. You don't want "society" you guarantee coverage, you want GOVERNMENT to do it. You don't want people to take care of their own. You want GOVERNMENT to take money and freedom from people to accomplish what you believe is a noble goal. Here's a newsflash for you.... "society" and "government" are not the same thing. I…
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 03:54)
Kimpost: It is amazing that you answer your own question and yet don’t realize it. Your argument wins with or without lawsuits, huh? Convenient! So in a government run health care system where the prices for procedures are set, how is competence rewarded? If moron Doctor A does the same procedure as expert Doctor B and they both get paid the same thing, how is that “financially awarded [sic]?” Government does not determine wages, hospitals do. Hospital grants are awarded for efficiency and outcome, amongst other things. If they want highly skilled people they have to pay accordingly. If they don't another hospital gets the guy. Or the private sector might hire him. Since the general demand for morons is low, they are normally paid less. So, there's plenty of financial gain in being good at your trade. Even under our public system. Depends on how the system is setup, I guess. Now, since I like to view myself as a fair guy, I'll admit that the financial gain is greater in US. But that's because of lots of reasons. One is that your market is huge, while ours is small. I will concede, however, that another one of those reasons is because your system is more market based than ours. Here in the US we are starting to understand that the proposed health care system will actually cost everyone - every household and every person - more. As an example, here in the US a family of four with a private insurance company will pay a little over $12,000 a year. For the same level of coverage with government run Medicare, the amount is over $19,000. US healthcare premiums have been rising for years now. Obamacare can not take the entire blame. As regards to the costs for Medicare vs. "Private Insurance" (I'm guessing a median number?), I don't know the specifics. Perhaps there are explanations? For instance; Are Medicare patients sicker than Private Insurance patients (in general terms when comparing demographics). If so, then that might explain all or parts of the difference. Because is it not “word play.” It is a honest discussion - one that you refuse to participate in. For example, you say that people in the US don’t have access to health care. I point out that they do, then you say “going to an emergency room is not access.” How you figure that out…
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 03:14)
gitarcarver: And just as a note.... As stupid as I think that the general population is, I don’t think that they are subjects of that deception. I believe that the term has become to mean “some kind of medical coverage for all”, which effectively kills the possibility of deception. In short, Universal Healthcare is not a selling point. If that is the definition you want to use, that is fine by me for two reasons: 1) It means that US citizens already have "universal health care" which ends the debate. 2) It proves the point that words mean something and the term is used to deceive.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 01:03)
gitarcarver: How the f-ck you fail to understand that competition and accountability are not merely a queston of private versus public, is beyond my, albeit limited, comprehension. You don’t think that there are lawsuits in Sweden, Germany and France? It is amazing that you answer your own question and yet don't realize it. You don’t think that competence is financially awarded? So in a government run health care system where the prices for procedures are set, how is competence rewarded? If moron Doctor A does the same procedure as expert Doctor B and they both get paid the same thing, how is that "financially awarded [sic]?" They don’t cover more, however, and they certainly are not less expensive. Actually, they are. Here in the US we are starting to understand that the proposed health care system will actually cost everyone - every household and every person - more. As an example, here in the US a family of four with a private insurance company will pay a little over $12,000 a year. For the same level of coverage with government run Medicare, the amount is over $19,000. Why make discourse harder by making it into word play. Because is it not "word play." It is a honest discussion - one that you refuse to participate in. For example, you say that people in the US don't have access to health care. I point out that they do, then you say "going to an emergency room is not access." How you figure that out is a mystery to me. You just don't like being held accountable for the terms and perceptions you use. Some might want to add things that are covered too, to avoid possible waiting lines, or to be promised care in a particular facility or by a particular physician, hell if I know. Wait a sec, so in your system I wouldn't have access to my doctor? How is that a good thing? How is that not restricting of access to health care? This is the hypocrisy from people like you. You sit there and say "Americans can't go here," and then revel in the fact that you do the same thing. I hate paying taxes, and government waste, but I suck it up because I want a government guarded safety net. Without one, we have a lesser society. This is where you and I differ. You believe that…
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 07:46)
Kimpost: Regarding the term, do you have any suggestions for something more suitable? "Government run healthcare" suggests that government actually runs the system, which certainly is not always true. I understand that your beef with the term universal is that it, in your mind, implies that everyone is covered by everything. An utopian concept. Therefore you see the term as deceptive. I get you. But... [...]As stupid as I think that the general population is, I don't think that they are subjects of that deception. I believe that the term has become to mean "some kind of medical coverage for all", which effectively kills the possibility of deception. In short, Universal Healthcare is not a selling point.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 07:31)
Kimpost: Unicorns can also exist. It doesn’t mean they do. Wow, your wits are remarkable. Tell me, do you also do birthday parties, or is this your only venue? How the f-ck you fail to understand that competition and accountability are not merely a queston of private versus public, is beyond my, albeit limited, comprehension. You don't think that there are lawsuits in Sweden, Germany and France? You don't think that competence is financially awarded? If you truly don't then you are a moron. We enjoy market success "over here" just as much as you do "over there". Actually, it is very uncommon that the level of service within a government run health care system and a private one is the same. Generally speaking, the private ones are much faster, cover more and are less expensive. Generally they are faster, I grant you that. They don't cover more, however, and they certainly are not less expensive. US healthcare costs are twice as high as they are in Sweden, and you certainly are not twice as good. Not in coverage, accessibility or in outcome. You are discussion that which does not exist. That’s the same point we keep coming back to. You don’t have the right to define well known words to mean what you think they should me. Secondly, ObamaCare is the type of care you feel is “universal,” so any attempt at distancing yourself from it is disingenuous. FoxNews yesterday, Hannity, Segment title: "The Un-doing of Universal Healthcare" The segment then goes on about the ruling you just mentioned. So it seems as if the FoxNews editor uses Universal Healthcare as a descriptive term for Obamacare. You see, the thing you claim does not exist, means something else, much less rigid, to the rest of the planet. That's the gist of it. It is what it is. I suggest that you, as much as you may hate it, suck it up, and learn to live with it, even if you think that it's wrong. Why care? Why make discourse harder by making it into word play. Aren't the actual issues more interesting? So I just want to make sure that I understand what you are saying. A person is required to pay taxes for government run health care that is not universal, and then can option to pay out of their own pocket to get more coverage because the “universal…
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 03:42)
gitarcarver: And for now, government run health care in the US is ruled unConstitutional.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/13/federal-judge-rules-favor-virginia-challenge-health-care-law/
Freedom, the Constitution, and the rule of law prevails over socialism.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 12:13)
gitarcarver: so I’ll pass if it goes down that path. And yet you merrily strolled down the path again. You realise, of course, that competition and accountability can exist within a universal healthcare system? Unicorns can also exist. It doesn't mean they do. It’s not uncommon that more are paid for by government systems. Actually, it is very uncommon that the level of service within a government run health care system and a private one is the same. Generally speaking, the private ones are much faster, cover more and are less expensive. - I’m discussing “universal healthcare” (as I have defined it) as a principle. Not a particular system, such as Obamacare. You are discussion that which does not exist. That's the same point we keep coming back to. You don't have the right to define well known words to mean what you think they should me. Secondly, ObamaCare is the type of care you feel is "universal," so any attempt at distancing yourself from it is disingenuous. Such tactics are common from you, Kim. You throw things out there and then when they are shown to be false, you try and back away by saying "I wasn't talking about that." Like most people who are against individual rights and freedoms, you can't think for yourself and can't think of the logical conclusion of your own statements. You only want the "warm fuzzy feeling" of the fantasy world you live in. allow private health insurance. So I just want to make sure that I understand what you are saying. A person is required to pay taxes for government run health care that is not universal, and then can option to pay out of their own pocket to get more coverage because the "universal coverage" is in fact not "universal?" That's what you are saying, right? Your own position destroys any remnant of the idea of "universal health care" and yet you keep putting it out there. The idea that someone would feel "warm and fuzzy" on the inside for being robbed by the government is ridiculous. No one ever feels good about paying taxes. Most people hate the waste and inefficiency of government which is often demonstrated by government run health care. I enjoyed the trip. Have a great day and enjoy your lunch with the Mad Hatter.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 01:52)
Kimpost: Some games are too boring to play, so I'll pass if it goes down that path. As of now, this. No competition, no accountability, and no legal recourse for this incompetence. You realise, of course, that competition and accountability can exist within a universal healthcare system? It's not even controversial to recognise that. And a few other points. - Yes. People sitting on lousy "contracts" often provide excellent horror stories. - A government run system won't pay for everything, but nor will insurance based systems. It's not uncommon that more are paid for by government systems. - I'm discussing "universal healthcare" (as I have defined it) as a principle. Not a particular system, such as Obamacare. - Some limits will always exist, under any system (insurance based ones too). If you wish to call it rationing, then fine. - Most countries with some form of "universal healthcare" (again, as I have previously defined it), allow private health insurance. All you have to do is pay. Of course you won't get a tax break for doing so, but you'll possibly feel all warm and fuzzy inside for helping paying for someone elses healthcare.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 12:36)
gitarcarver: I’m not entirely sure “your” side would end up winning a health care horror story match up, gitarcarver. As usual Kim, you try to deflect away from the issue. The issue is not "horror stories." The issue is, as I stated, No competition, no accountability, and no legal recourse for this incompetence. The US leads the world in outcome based healthcare, Kim. Unlike you, we don't deal with warm fuzzy feelings and promises of things that don't exist. We deal with reality. Outcome is what matters. There are some "horror" stories of health care in the US. Most times those events are met with compensation to the victims. Is that going to happen in the story I cited? Nope. Just a call for more money to be thrown into the wasteful system. I suspect that you would include in "horror stories" those where an insurance policy didn't include a test or operation and the person now wants the that test or operation. That isn't a horror story, that is a contract. Of course, a government run system won't pay for every test and operation, and the great "ObamaCare" plan now has administrators admitting that there will be rationing of care. Gee, just like those of us against government run health care said there would be. Gee, just like you said there never is in socialized medicine. (That is what you maintained until you couldn't or wouldn't define "universal" in "universal health care." If you want to keep playing Kim, I will. It is clear that you are unable to debate this in a manner where words and ideas matter, but I am still willing to play the game and expose your ideas for the lies and frauds they are.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 03:51)
Kimpost: I'm not entirely sure "your" side would end up winning a health care horror story match up, gitarcarver.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 10:53)
gitarcarver: Yessir, those socialized health care systems provide coverage to everyone: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/902581--woman-dies-waiting-in-er-as-ag-finds-little-movement No competition, no accountability, and no legal recourse for this incompetence. One major difference between those of us who oppose government run health care in the US and those who are for it is that we look at the outcome. We look at costs and patient care. Those who are for it just want to feel nice and warm under the tattered blanket of "universal coverage." It doesn't matter to them that the coverage is horrible, inefficient, and wasteful, it is the illusion that is it better that matters to them.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 01:47)
gitarcarver: Really?
Really.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 12:36)
dvdguy: "But if we had the socialized healthcare system she prefers, that test would probably not exist. "
Really?
The Return of Moorewatch
(5 total, Last @ 10:16)
gexuna: Bild zu PDF konvertieren
PPT in PDF umwandeln
DjVu als PDF speichern
RTF in PDF umwandeln
TIFF in PDF umwandeln
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 10:13)
gexuna: PDF erstellen
Word in PDF umwandeln
Excel in PDF umwandeln
Bild zu PDF konvertieren
PPT in PDF umwandeln
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 03:56)
gitarcarver: Un-be-lie-va-ble!
Which I suppose is "reasoned discourse" in your world.
Thanks for proving me right.
Again.
And again.
And again.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 03:00)
Kimpost: Un-be-lie-va-ble!
:)
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 02:47)
gitarcarver: I’m not defending the WHO report. Yet the WHO report is one of the things that you have used to attack the US Healthcare system. You have used it to justify some of your claims and beliefs. Now that you see (or hopefully see) that the report is statistically flawed, you want to back away from the report, but you won't have the guts or intellectual integrity to back away from your claims. By those, you are effectively killing any attempts to rational discourse. No one is playing word games other than you, Kim. Words mean something. You want to use words without defining them or being held accountable for their meanings. For example, let's take "accessibility." You constantly use it as if it has some universally accepted meaning. When shown that it doesn't you run away like a stuck pig. So let's take the term out of the realm of "healthcare" and put it into another arena. Let's try "accessibility to the internet." Assume for a moment that you believe that everyone should have "access to the internet." In this day and age, that is reasonable, right? But wait... What exactly does "access" mean? Like many elderly people, my mother is scared to death of computers and won't get one for her home. But she has access to the internet through the local public library and the hospital at which she volunteers. Everyone has access to the library computers. Is that "access?" If a person doesn't have a home computer, should "access" mean we have to buy that person a computer in order for them to gain "access" to the internet? Should we pay for their ISP? Is that "access?" Should "access" mean unlimited bandwidth speed? Unlimited downloads? Does "access" mean "the ability to view porn? Kiddie porn?" Does "access" mean "WiFi" hotspots? 5G networks? Mobile devices for everyone? Got it now? Words mean something even in context. The problem with you is that you refuse to believe the meanings of the words you use and the very context you use them. You put up the pretext of wanting a "rational discussion" but won't recognize that until we come to agreement on the meaning of words, "rational discussion" is pointless. We saw that in your disingenuous use of the term "universal health care" when you later admitted the health care was not "universal." We had a similar issue on…
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 01:13)
Kimpost: I'm not defending the WHO report. I'm arguing against some of your unsubstantiated claims. Not by suggesting that the ranking is correct, because I don't think it is, but by pointing out where you are wrong. As for your constant word games, I don't get why they turn you on so much. By those, you are effectively killing any attempts to rational discourse. Accessibility isn't always accessibility. Just as fucking ain't always fucking. There's a concept called context, and if we pretend not to understand that, even when it's in plain sight, then discourse has become pointless.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 12:17)
gitarcarver: I’m not a mind reader. I addressed what you wrote, because it was wrong. Your overgeneralisation painted an untrue picture. Sorry, you don't get away with that one. The original statement says that the statistical analysis is flawed because of the different ways that births are counted. You did not address that point. In fact, you later agreed with the premise that different countries use different ways to count births, and yet you still don't address that different data standards make the stats faulty. I don’t follow you. The WHO ranking does not examine government involvement. “Government contribution” is not one of the criterias. If I’m wrong I apologize, but I just can’t find that criteria. Look under "Fairness Factor." The WHO uses a model of percentage of income that a person pays for health care. When the government pays more of the costs of health care, the "Fairness Factor" is skewed. Like you, the WHO thinks that governments are money factories and that the money doesn't come from actual people and actual taxes. Government contribution should not matter one iota but because you and the WHO think it should, the results are skewed in the direction toward countries that have government run health systems. It’s disingenuous to equate “access through ER” with overall access. Let's go back to what you wrote, shall we? Accessibility is however, So now you are saying that accessibility is not the same as "accessibility." This is the trouble with discussion health care with people like you. You guys throw out terms and when people like me say "you said this," you run away from your own assertions. You run away from the definition of words that you choose to use. Because it is related to healthcare. Really? Say that two twin brothers are out skateboarding. Identical twins, identical parents, identical family surroundings, identical food, identical health insurance,etc. Identical. Got it? One gets hit by a bus and killed on the spot. How is his death anyway attributable to "health care?" It isn't and you cannot make any case that it is. Yet his death counts against a health care system. without filtering it through some kind of propaganda machine. Yet you are defending the WHO report that is nothing but propaganda. You use terms that are nothing but propaganda. You live in a fantasy world, Kim. Perhaps “well insured” suits you better? Once again,…
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 02:39)
Kimpost: The term “premium insurance” has no meaning whatsoever. Once again you try to introduce a term that is outside the scope of any logical or reasoned discussion.
I tried to come up with an understandable term for portraying the opposite of people who are either uninsured or underinsured. Perhaps "well insured" suits you better?
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 02:30)
Kimpost: You know Kimpost, you’re right. It was an overgeneralized statement. However, the point and the fact remains that the data is not collected the same in every country and yet that is not taken into account by the WHO. That is the essential point and you fail to address it. I'm not a mind reader. I addressed what you wrote, because it was wrong. Your overgeneralisation painted an untrue picture. So Kim, when a study is set up that examines one thing, that isn’t criteria for the basis if the study? When the WHO uses “government contribution” as one of the criteria, doesn’t that mean that they think that government run health care is a good thing? I don't follow you. The WHO ranking does not examine government involvement. "Government contribution" is not one of the criterias. If I'm wrong I apologize, but I just can't find that criteria. And once again, because I know that you have a hard time with this, no one in the US is denied health care. Which makes you wonder why the US would rank lower in “accessibility” when all people have access? Emergency rooms all over respond in kindness to all requests of physicals and desired screenings now, do they? It's disingenuous to equate "access through ER" with overall access. An honest approach would be to recognize accessibility as a con in the US healthcare system. It might be a con worth accepting, but it still is a con. Why does the WHO include “life expectancy” as a rating of health care? “Health care” and “health outcomes,” which are much more dependent on broader social forces so why include a ranking that does not relate to health care? Because it is related to healthcare. You can argue it's importance, and how it should be weighted, but that's a seperate discussion. The WHO Study, upon which so many people like you cite, is flawed. Seriously, totally and fatally flawed. Yet people like you are so interested in the outcome, that you never stop to think that the supporting data is wrong. All you want is something that supports your fantasy world. Hey. I am the one who just gave you an actual reason as to why the US ranking on infant mortality is flawed. I don't care much about any particular ratings. I don't even think that I have ever cited a ranking as…
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 01:55)
gitarcarver: And by the way, in the following assertion:
If all 300+ million Americans were covered by premium insurance,.....
The term "premium insurance" has no meaning whatsoever.
Once again you try to introduce a term that is outside the scope of any logical or reasoned discussion.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 01:01)
gitarcarver: That’s just not true. You know Kimpost, you're right. It was an overgeneralized statement. However, the point and the fact remains that the data is not collected the same in every country and yet that is not taken into account by the WHO. That is the essential point and you fail to address it. As far as I know, there’s no such criteria. So Kim, when a study is set up that examines one thing, that isn't criteria for the basis if the study? When the WHO uses "government contribution" as one of the criteria, doesn't that mean that they think that government run health care is a good thing? And once again, because I know that you have a hard time with this, no one in the US is denied health care. Which makes you wonder why the US would rank lower in "accessibility" when all people have access? Why does the WHO include "life expectancy" as a rating of health care? "Health care" and "health outcomes," which are much more dependent on broader social forces so why include a ranking that does not relate to health care? The WHO Study, upon which so many people like you cite, is flawed. Seriously, totally and fatally flawed. Yet people like you are so interested in the outcome, that you never stop to think that the supporting data is wrong. All you want is something that supports your fantasy world.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 02:22)
Kimpost: RE:WHO ranking. One of my favorites. The WHO set up criteria on what they believe is important, and then ranked accordingly. For example, government contribution to health care was a criteria. That means Cuba ranked higher than the US. As far as I know, there's no such criteria. Accessibility is however, but that's certainy not the same thing. If all 300+ million Americans were covered by premium insurance, then you would rank high. Hell, you would proably be ranked number one.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 02:16)
Kimpost: Like you say carver. We've walked this road before. Which makes me wonder why honest debate is so difficult. RE: Infant mortality. The US ranks lower because it counts any live birth as a birth. Other countries (the ones above us) only count children that are carried to term and then live for 6 months. The US tries to keep premature babies alive while and counts their sad and untimely deaths. Other nations do not. The statistical analysis is flawed. That's just not true. Some countries count live births differently, but most do it exactly like you do. Here's a 2004 list of countries doing it "your way". As you can see, many of them are ranked "above you". Austria, Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Scotland, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, United States. And amongst the ones differing it's not as clear cut as you portray it to be. There's no general 6 month rule. I'll grant you this though. The stats are still not fair to the US, but it's not mainly because of differencies in reporting. It's because of another health problem. Namely the large number of preterm births in the US (twice as many as in Sweden) Since preterm births generally means increased infant mortality, your stats are effected. Here's a US study on it. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm If you discount preterm births, and if you take differencies in reporting into account, you make top ten. Congrats! But then again, isn't the amount of preterm births a health problem initself?
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 09:12)
Belcatar: I think the KOSkids just banned me for calling Michael Moore a turd-in-a-skin. They said I was violating site policy by leveling personal attacks on a fellow Kos member. Now, the interesting thing is that I was commenting on the personal attack Moore made on the President when he told the President to take off his Pink Tutu. I wasn't defending the President so much as I was attacking Moore's rank hypocrisy. It's too bad, because Lefty-Baiting is one of my favorite sports. It's so much fun to poke the nest and watch them scurry about looking for facts.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 11:20)
Belcatar: Check out the latest masterpiece from Mr. Moore:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/16/920935/-Lets-Pass-Some-Laws-Before-the-Republicans-Head-Into-Town-(after-all,-thats-what-theyd-do)
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 10:54)
gitarcarver: mayjobs, We have been down this path with so called "truth seekers"like yourself before. You don't know or care about the truth, so please stop talking about it as if you and only you were privy to it. RE: Infant mortality. The US ranks lower because it counts any live birth as a birth. Other countries (the ones above us) only count children that are carried to term and then live for 6 months. The US tries to keep premature babies alive while and counts their sad and untimely deaths. Other nations do not. The statistical analysis is flawed. RE:WHO ranking. One of my favorites. The WHO set up criteria on what they believe is important, and then ranked accordingly. For example, government contribution to health care was a criteria. That means Cuba ranked higher than the US. RE; Life expectancy. It is interesting that Japan is #1 - a country with the highest suicide rates in the world. Life expectancy takes in many things. Citizens in the US are more likely to be killed on highways because we travel more. Accidental deaths have nothing to do with the health care system, but yet lower the age expectancy. Educational stats: You are correct in that the US has some improving to do. Any attempt to hold schools accountable has been met with opposition of teacher's unions which are no friends of this country. Go talk to them. RE: Women's Rights. One of the criteria is abortion on demand paid for by the government. Most people in this country do not believe in such a thing, so the US ranked lower. Isn't it funny that you are putting forth a "study" which tells women they are not in control of their bodies and the government must support them? RE: Journalistic Freedom. The Reporters Without Borders report heavily criticized the US for military reporting. They believe that no plan of battle should not be made public. They believe that countries should not have secret documents, but want to keep their sources secret. The RWB report criticized the US for not allowing non-vetted reporters on the front lines. (After all, what could go wrong with that, right?) They also criticized the US for not launching a rescue mission to retrieve reporters that were captured when they crossed into areas the US had told them to stay out of. As to giving the most…
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 02:25)
maryjolos: Do not remove my comments Man! Be honest! The USA has one of the highest infant mortality rates of any developed country. I would say we are pretty close to low man on the totem pole on this one. As for overall health of our children, well have you see our children? This generation is predicted to be the first not to live as long as their parents. Now how can anyone say that is healthy is beyond me. Diabetes, heart disease etc is plaguing our children at younger and younger age. USA ranking on infant mortality rate: #32 ( #1 Sweden and #2 Finland) Save the children report USA ranking on health care quality index: #37 (#1 France and #2 Italy) World health organization USA ranking on life expectancy: #29 (#1 Japan and #2 Hong Kong) UN human development report We consistently rank very low as far as education goes. I have some stats. 1) USA ranking on Literacy scale: #9 (#1 Sweden and #2 Norway) OECD 2) USA ranking of student reading ability: #12 (#1 Finland and #2 South Korea) OECD PISA 3) USA ranking of student problem solving ability: #26 (#1 South Korea and #2 Finland) OECD PISA 4) USA Ranking on student mathematics ability : #24 (#1 Hong Kong and #2 Finland) OECD PISA 5)USA ranking of student science ability: #19 (#1 Finland and #2 Japan) OECD PISA You would also think since most Americans believe the USA is the best country in the world, then no other country could surpass us on women's rights. WRONG! USA ranking on women's rights scale: #17 (#1 Sweden and #2 Norway) World economic forum report Freedom of the press is surely something America leads the pack in, right? USA ranking on journalistic press freedom index: #32 (#1 Finland, Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands tied) Reporters without borders. Of course we all know our political system is one of the worst. Corruption runs rampant. USA ranking on political corruption index: #17 ( #1 Iceland and #2 Finland) Transparency international As for overall quality of life goes, wouldn't the best country on Earth at least come in in the top 5? USA ranking on quality of life survey: #13 (#1 Ireland and #2 Switzerland) The economist magazine USA ranking on human development index: (GDP, education, etc) #10 (#1 Norway and #2 Iceland) UN human development report Maybe these little nuggets of…
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 01:04)
gitarcarver: Reter, Welcome to the discussion. about a free social healthcare system are completly true. No health care system is "free," and any attempt to label it as such or tout its benefits are lies. sry guys....but that is...BULLSHIT. Except for the fact that there are articles that validate the claim. Why would a person or company work to develop a test and then be forced to give it away or not make a profit from it to fund further research? As some proove here 2 small links to it.... Interesting articles. Now note how in your own country there is a mix of private competition and government health care. The same holds true in France. That is what we currently have here in the US. The author of the article comparing France and the UK's heath system demonstrates the fallacy of "universal health care" or "unlimited health care" or "socialized health care." That´s our unemployment System.... Your system has several things that are not allowed by the US Constitution. Interesting system though.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 10:05)
Peter-Paul Gajewi: Hi Guys sry I´m new here and since I´m a german it could happen that my english spelling and gram is pretty crude. I just wanna say as a heads up I don´t think that that Michael Moore is one of the best documentary filmers but some of his comments about a free social healthcare system are completly true. Mostly I mean stuff like the sentence I rode above: “But if we had the socialized healthcare system she prefers, that test would probably not exist.” sry guys....but that is...BULLSHIT. Since I live in Germany and my father lived many years in France I can tell that is working pretty fine believe me. As some proove here 2 small links to it.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Germany http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/bb3Germany.php ---- from a british doctor And just as a little Bonus: That´s our unemployment System.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartz_concept I think its not bad for the nr 4 (with 81 million people ----- 20% of them foreigners) in the List of countries by GDP....and believe me...we are still complaining that it is not enough. greets Peter-Paul
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 09:54)
gitarcarver: I’m not living a fantasy. Of course you are. You are labeling something as something it is not. For some weird reason, you don't think that matters. Yet when Obama talked about the universal health care, he proudly proclaimed that no one would be turned down, that no pre-existing condition would be denied, that no coverage would be denied. Despite your silly "noone I know believes that 'universal healthcare' equals 'limitless fantasy world healthcare,'" the fact of the matter is that is the way it was marketed. That is the way it was presented to the people of America. In other words, you either are being disingenuous, or you know no one else. Limitless and universal are different words, with different meanings. And one does not need to include the other. Universal: of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience. 2. applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure. 3. affecting, concerning, or involving all: universal military service. 4. used or understood by all: a universal language. 5. present everywhere: Limitless: without limit; boundless: limitless ambition; limitless space. Sure. There is no similarity or synonymous meanings to the words, are there? This is ridiculous. I agree. It is ridiculous for people such as yourself to lie about health care.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 04:33)
Kimpost: Christ. I'm not living a fantasy. I fully understand that there are limitations to any healthcare system. Sweden isn't perfect (effin' far from it). Nor is France or US. All systems have flaws, which is something most reasonable people understand. You think that the label is part of the problem, I don't. I think it's insignificant. Noone I know believes that "universal healthcare" equals "limitless fantasy world healthcare". Noone. There's no agenda in using the term. I use it bevause that's what people use for describing an "organized health-care system built around the principle of universal coverage for all members of society". It doesn't have to be universal in all aspects of the word. Limitless and universal are different words, with different meanings. And one does not need to include the other. This is ridiculous.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 12:54)
gitarcarver: Look, I didn’t invent the term. Someone else did. I just use it as it’s being used by pretty much everyone, but you. You still don't get it, do you? I don't care what term people use. I care about the accuracy of the term. It is, at best, misleading. It is better described as a lie. People of your ilk use the term because it describes your fantasy world where everyone is universally covered for every condition in the universe. That isn't reality but you keep wanting to use the term because that is what snake oil salesmen do - they promise one thing and deliver another. Until you are willing to admit that the term is misleading, there can be no "real world discussion" because your premise is faulty and deceptive at the very start. And do not, for one second, think that I have forgotten that you cannot and will not answer the two arguments brought forth for proponents of state controlled health care. In fact, you said, "You on the other hand are discussing things I have not stated. That does not line up with your statement that people start by debating whether it wants universal healthcare or not. Yet you don't really want that debate, do you? You only want to say what others should do and what you believe and live in a fantasy world where real people make real decisions and real words have real meanings. You want to lie in using words that do not mean what you say they mean. You misrepresent your intentions. You want to control the ideas and the terms used in any discussion because otherwise your little house of cards crashes to the ground. The fact of the matter is that people like you can't debate or be honest in discussions like this. It just isn't within you.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 11:57)
Kimpost: *sigh*
Ok. "Universal healthcare as the term's generally understood, in Sweden does not cover optical."
Look, I didn't invent the term. Someone else did. I just use it as it's being used by pretty much everyone, but you.
Fight it if you wish, Don Quijote. I'm not interested enough.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 10:58)
gitarcarver: By your definition no country in the world has universal healthcare, never have, never will. I am not making the claim that countries have "universal health care." You are. Clearly you do not wish to stand by that which you state. Tell me Kim, do you believe in "truth in advertising?" In other words, do you believe that something that is advertised and sold should actually be that product? Or are you happy being deceptive? I’m not that interested. Of course you aren't. If you were actually interested, you would know that what you and others advocate is fantasy. You talk about being interested in "practical real world solutions" but yet use words that distort your actual meaning. It is dishonest. The thing that bothers you is not the dishonesty, but that someone is calling you out in your being dishonest. I try not to use false claims, or to lie. Yet you did and continue to do so. Chill, will you? Have integrity, will you? I just like honest and reasoned discourse. Sorry Kim, but that doesn't pass the laugh test. In our last conversation you did the same thing. Time after time you dismissed studies and logical thought processes because of your wanting to define terms and mislead people. Cuba is not an exception. But Cuba has the very "universal health care" you advocate. Isn't it interesting that you talk about wanting to be in the "real world," and when that real world contradicts your fantasy world, you run away from reality. (Universal healthcare in Sweden does not cover optical) The healthcare is not universal then, is it?
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 09:56)
Kimpost: I'm not a fan of totalitarian regimes. Cuba is not an exception. Hell, I'm not even a fan of Mikey. I just like honest and reasoned discourse.
(Universal healthcare in Sweden does not cover optical)
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 09:50)
Kimpost: By your definition no country in the world has universal healthcare, never have, never will. Yet, for some inexplicable reason the debate goes on between people who clearly don't subscribe to your interpretation of the phrase. Go ahead and find another suitable term for what the rest of the world calls universal healthcare. Good luck with that. Personally, I'm not that interested. I'm more interested in practical real world implementations. I try not to use false claims, or to lie. You on the other hand are discussing things I have not stated. Chill, will you?
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 09:28)
gitarcarver: Oh, and by the way Kim, take a look at this:
http://bigpeace.com/hfontova/2010/11/04/abcs-tradition-of-cowardice-and-treachery/
Look at the cowardliness and gutlessness of people such as Moore that promote the "universal health care" in Cuba.
Maybe "universal health care" in Sweden will cover a new pair of "realism glasses" for you.
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 09:23)
gitarcarver: No, we are not going to "skip the word play" because words have meanings. The last time you commented on this subject you did the same thing - you threw out terms and then denied their meaning. First, I have yet to hear of a private insurer say "universal health care" when describing their coverage. The reason for that is that companies have agreements and contracts that spell out what they will and will not cover. Companies have limited care and coverage by agreement with the insured. "Limited coverage and services" is not the same thing as "universal health care." So when you say the US should have a debate on whether it wants "universal health care," how do you propose to have a debate on something that, by your own admission, does not exist? Yet, I’m pretty sure people generally regard police or national defence as universal benefits. No they don't. No one expects the police to be everywhere. Police in one district do not have jurisdiction ion another. No one expects the military to be everywhere. It is impossible. No one - except for people who are purposely disingenuous like yourself - uses the term "universal" to mean anything other than the correct definition. Judging by other countries the latter seems to be more of an ongoing process… Yeah, because we see how great the systems you put forth are working. England - broke. Canada - broke. Japan - broke. Germany - broke. You see Kim, one of the things that people such as yourself always ask is "what about people that cannot get coverage for a particular condition?" You then advocate "universal health care" knowing full well that the same limitations (if not more) on coverages for conditions are placed by government run systems than private companies. You sit there and say "what about the added cost to everyone for uninsured people that go to the hospital, and can't pay?" The premise of your question being that everyone's costs go up even though study after study show that with so called "universal health care," costs are higher for patients than without it because a person is more likely to go to a hospital emergency room for a minor ailment than not. The fact of the matter is, Kim, that once again you have ventured into a conversation using false statements, lies and claims. After our last conversation,…
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 08:24)
Kimpost: Services are always limited, private and government. Yet, I'm pretty sure people generally regard police or national defence as universal benefits. Pretending that people don't is just making a mockery out of serious subjects. So let's skip the word play. I'm just saying that US should start by debating whether it wants universal healthcare or not. If yes, follow that one up by debating its limitations, at least initially. Judging by other countries the latter seems to be more of an ongoing process...
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 04:46)
gitarcarver: The first thing I think US needs to debate is whether you want universal healthcare at all.
So the "universal healthcare" in Sweden is not "universal, is it?
If services are limited, then the care is not "universal."
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 05:51)
Kimpost: There are plenty of medical tests, treatments and drugs which are deemed too expensive for their respective purposes - on both sides of the atlantic ocean. There are things we generally do in Sweden, but you don't do in US (even under premium insurance). And the other way around, of course. Needless to say, cost is rarely officially admitted to be an issue. Not in US, not in Sweden. You'll have to evaluate treatments/drugs/tests individually, compare them with variations in FDA regulations/recommendations (a drug approved in US might not be approved in Sweden, and the other way around), aswell as to the particulars of the insurance policy in US compared to state and local treatment variations in Sweden. There are many things to factor in. No need to oversimplify things. There is however room for extreme cost healthcare in Sweden too. The first thing I think US needs to debate is whether you want universal healthcare at all. If you do, debate how such a system should look like. If you don't, you don't. (using Sweden as an example, since it is what I know best)
A Look at Bloggy Goodness
(59 total, Last @ 11:36)
sl0re: "socialized healthcare system she prefers, that test would probably not exist."
and even if it did exist, they wouldn't pay for it.