1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The best movie of the year... I still can't believe it...

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Mizzougrad96, Jun 15, 2007.

  1. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Pastor / JR / Zeke, I didn't write what I linked to. I just posted it...

    Pastor, I can say this about France. You can't look at anything related to life in France in a vacuum. You have to look at quality of life in France overall, as you do in Cuba or anyplace else. The French are miserably unhappy because the country's economy is in the crapper and there is chronically high unemployment. That is why the poll that guy references is significant. In the last election, they swung all the way right because they realized how much of a mess the socialized systems (including health care) have created. They realize--unlike the people here talking about how wonderful it is in France--that the country's cradle-to-grave social benefits are unsustainable and have created the economic woes they are living with currently. But hell, they have a socialized laundry service (what I believe someone said is pointed to as evidence of their superiority in Moore's film). If that is indeed in the film, I'd think that is more evidence of what happens to people when they pathetically expect government to tend to every need than it is evidence of how wonderful it is live in France. Because all of that "government taking care of the people" has destroyed the French economy, caused high unemployment and is unsustainable. That is why the French in that poll expressed disatisfaction with the direction their country is headed. Their health care system is part and parcel of French society as a whole. You can't have an unsustainable system, such as their health care system, WITHOUT causing the economic woes (that are causing demonstrations in the streets) they have brought upon themselves.
  2. Pastor

    Pastor Active Member

    Ragu, I never claimed that you wrote the piece yourself. I only pointed out the obvious flaws and hypocrisy of the piece. You have derided such practices in the past so I was surprised by your suggestion of it.

    France's policies do not exist in a vacuum. I think it would be foolish if this country said that it would take care of the laundry for you (I'm certain they would ruin all of my soccer jerseys). However, because we are talking about healthcare, it doesn't hurt to take a look around and see what other countries are doing.

    With proper research, discussion and analysis, you can develop a model of healthcare that is optimal for the citizens of this country. This includes looking at countries that have downright awful systems in place (China) and countries that have fairly good systems in place (Cuba).

    I seriously doubt that an honest assessment of healthcare in Cuba would result in a finding that government suppression of the populace is required. I also doubt that an honest assessment of the French healthcare system will result in the government dry cleaning my suits.

    Many of the problems that European countries have in regards to the economy is direct result of many of the social policies that they have implemented. Most importantly, they are derived from their overly generous unemployment pay. Last time I checked, you don't need to adjust unemployment when you are addressing healthcare.
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Cuba is a prison state in which something like 10 percent of the country lives without electricity, and a good chunk of people are literally STARVING, while its leaders live like fat, happy pigs. Castro entirely controls the economy, keeps his people living in extreme poverty BUT he has put health care clinics on the corners--primarily because (and this is praise, but jeez) they were smart enough to realize that prevention is a lot cheaper than dealing with problems caused by neglect when you are causing that kind of poverty.

    Still, you could take what Castro is putting into health care in Cuba and instead put it toward eradicating the poverty he has caused, and it STILL wouldn't make a dent in alleviating the misery caused by his management of the economy. So yeah, it's fair to conclude that you can't have health care clinics on every corner without the government suppression of the population. When part of the population is starving, and electricity or an automobile is a luxury item, that is an obvious conclusion.

    Again, you can't look at health care in Cuba in a vacuum. You have to look at the misery caused by the stranglehold Castro has on the population and all of the negative things that come as a result of Castro as the tradeoffs for those health clinics. Those health clinics are not sustainable without the tradeoff.
  4. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    How about lifting the embargo? That might help alleviate some of the poverty that it's helped to create.

    Sorry, but to state that in order to have universal health care you have to suppress the population is ridiculous.

    You could equally make the argument that if your government didn't spend billions and billions on defence, you could easily afford universal health care for the 45,000,000 Americans who don't have it.
  5. Pastor

    Pastor Active Member

    Why are they not sustainable without the supression?

    Castro doesn't suppress his people in order to bring them healthcare. He suppresses them to retain his power. He provides healthcare to keep certain costs down. One doesn't have much to do with the other.
  6. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    "I just posted it..."
    Puhlease. Grow a pair.
  7. Mighty_Wingman

    Mighty_Wingman Active Member

    Yeah, but then we wouldn't be able to defend loud-mouthed ungrateful free-loading Canadians, so that's no good...
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Actually, you can't have "universal health care." At least not in a way that encourages medical innovation while giving people timely, universal access to the best health care available. There is no way to make that "universal," because scarce resources mean choices. There isn't a place on earth that has the resources to pay for "universal health care." That is especially true in the U.S., where obesity is an epidemic and lifestyle choices have made it costlier to treat our population than any place else in the world. The choices are something that is a reality in the U.S. and it's something that is a reality in Canada, France and Great Britain, frankly.

    The best you can hope for are different choices of some kind than the ones being made in the U.S. In Canada, it means reducing prescription costs by piggybacking off the U.S.'s willingness to subsidize the rest of the world in order to ensure that medical innovation continues to flow from here (advances aren't coming from Canada, by and large, they flow from the U.S.). That isn't an option available to us, obviously.

    In Canada, it also means chronic waits in emergency rooms and horror stories (with people dying on emergency room floors) that rival the worst stories from the U.S. It means waits of years to get routine surgeries and treatments that are readily available in the U.S.--a reason why people who can afford it cross the border from Canada to avail themselves of our system. It is also the reason why Canada's system has faltered to the point that Quebec is now allowing private health insurance to cover the systems failings (this used to be illegal) and there is a big push to allow further privatization nationwide. That is because of the realization that what Canada has isn't nirvana, is not that cheap and has not been universal to the degree promised (an impossibility). If you ask most Canadians other than you, they will happily point out the systems failings. It's why most of the Canadian reviewers at the Cannes festival who saw Moore's film laughed at his portrayal of Canada. I haven't seen Sicko yet. But if Canada gets pointed to as a model for us, is any of this pointed out?
  9. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    From what? Your bogeyman of the month?

    Did you take your anti-intelligent pill this morning? That's idiotic even by Hondo standards.
  10. three_bags_full

    three_bags_full Well-Known Member

    Ahem. *whistles.* JR. You may want to address || while you're handing out paddlings, as well.
    \ /

  11. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Ragu, you don't have a clue about the problems with the Canadian health care system other than posting talking points from those opposed to universal health care in the United States.

    I never said that there weren't problems -as Jones has pointed out-- but to conclude that there are systemic problems with our system based on a few so-called "horror stories" is flat out ignorant.

    And I'm sorry, but "universal health care" and medical innovation are not mutually exclusive. You've been reading too much Ayn Rand again.

    And Ragu, our health care system is far cheaper than yours--a fact which is pointed out regularly but one which you seem to ignore.

    And the number of people who go to the U.S. for procedures is insignificant and in fact, irrelevant to the argument.

    The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto is internationally renowned and regularly treats Amerian children because the parents can't find the expert medical advise that they require for their children in the United States. Does that mean your system is a failure? I hardly think so.
  12. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    The Cuban embargo is about as silly and antiquated bit of foreign policy as you can get. If you started embargoes on every two bit dictator, you'd have one trading partner: us.

    And your statement that the purpose of the missile sites was for "eradication" purposes is a little overwrought don't you think? This was the Cold War. Everyone had missiles pointed at everyone else.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page