bob_brigante wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> bob_brigante wrote: >> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/business/07online.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Well of course we're going to see all kinds of hit pieces on >> > Sicko. The > >> health insurance and HMO gangsters are in full attack mode: >> http://michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=215 >> >> We can't have a health care system that doesn't allow them to take >> > their > >> greedy share. Poor Bill McGuire of UnitedHealth Group might not be >> > able > >> to build a new castle for his family: >> http://www.startribune.com/1069/story/386343.html >> >> We're getting screwed folks. Many of us (who think) knew that >> > before > >> Sicko ever came out. The movie just is another re-affirmation. It >> isn't perfect but it is far more perfect than the current health >> > care > >> swindle er... system in the US. Hey George, my windows need >> > washing! > > > > ************ > > This article is not a hatchet job on Sicko -- the article just points > out that there are trade-offs when you are talking about giving more > people health insurance. > > Middle and upper class people who have good health insurance now in > the USA are opposed to a Canada-style health system because they > would have less favorable access to medical treatment because more > people are in the queue (ask any Canuck, it can take a long time to > get treatment). > > So those people who currently have good health coverage in the USA > would be worse off than now, and those people are in the majority ( > ~2/3 of the population under age 65 has health coverage: > http://pages.citebite.com/g1g9s3s5v2kdd ), and in a democracy, the > majority gets its way. > > But within 10 or 20 years, even this reluctant majority is going to > see the benefits to society of covering everybody, since anybody can > fall out of the middle class these days when their job goes overseas. > Let's see, we can guess you haven't seen the movie even though you pointed to a link to see it online? The movie points out that people who *thought* they had good health insurance found out they did not. You're also saying that because an "elite" supposedly have good health insurance the rest of the populace should suffer? As for the myth that it takes a long time to get treatment in Canada, Moore tested that premise in the movie and found it wasn't true.
You should well know that the "dumb" approach to health care is to wait around until one gets sick before doing anything. Preventative measures should be emphasized rewarded as that keeps health care costs down. If you did watch the movie maybe you need to watch it again.
