Even the MTV review is calling it out for being a mostly worthless analysis that is blind to the massive faults of socialized medicine. Waste of time for anybody IMO, regardless of how much you do or don't know about the subject.
Even though this is being hyped as an apolitical film, I think the review of the film is going to directly correlate with the political leanings of the viewer. There's no way a conservative is going to go into this movie thinking they'll enjoy it. It's got a 91% on Rotten Tomatoes though and the only featured critic to give it a negative review is from the New York Post.
I'd like to see it, but I'll have to wait for DVD. I like the idea of nationalized healthcare; I know some people really don't, and that's cool. I just know a lot of people have a difficult time going through our healthcare system. I feel lucky I never have.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Yoda wrote:I am sort of pro socialized medicine. Just like Copper, I want to see the movie but will wait for DVD.
I'm wary on the idea; I support businesses providing that to their employees but I'm at odds over where we, as a society, should draw the line and say that too many of our own citizens are in need to health care to not do something about it.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Not looking to set off a big debate here, but the thing people don't get about socialized medicine is the economic absurdity that follows. When something is free, people will use as much of it as possible. When people use as much as possible of a free, finite resource it will disappear unless the flow is controlled. Flow control = rationing. A vote for socialized medicine is a vote for letting the govt tell you how much health care you are allowed to have by whatever whims they desire, no matter how logical or illogical. Our current system has some similar shades of inefficiencies and questionable delegation of authority, but this is driven by the largely 3rd-party payer system, of which national healtcare is the full, ugly version.
RugbyD wrote:Not looking to set off a big debate here, but the thing people don't get about socialized medicine is the economic absurdity that follows. When something is free, people will use as much of it as possible. When people use as much as possible of a free, finite resource it will disappear unless the flow is controlled. Flow control = rationing. A vote for socialized medicine is a vote for letting the govt tell you how much health care you are allowed to have by whatever whims they desire, no matter how logical or illogical. Our current system has some similar shades of inefficiencies and questionable delegation of authority, but this is driven by the largely 3rd-party payer system, of which national healtcare is the full, ugly version.
It is my understanding that many European countries have socialized medicine. Is this true? How does it work and does it work well? If it does work then why can't we do it?
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." ~George Carlin
RugbyD wrote:Not looking to set off a big debate here, but the thing people don't get about socialized medicine is the economic absurdity that follows. When something is free, people will use as much of it as possible. When people use as much as possible of a free, finite resource it will disappear unless the flow is controlled. Flow control = rationing. A vote for socialized medicine is a vote for letting the govt tell you how much health care you are allowed to have by whatever whims they desire, no matter how logical or illogical. Our current system has some similar shades of inefficiencies and questionable delegation of authority, but this is driven by the largely 3rd-party payer system, of which national healtcare is the full, ugly version.
It is my understanding that many European countries have socialized medicine. Is this true? How does it work and does it work well? If it does work then why can't we do it?
The United States population is about the size of the combined total of all the countries in Europe put together. Canada has a whopping 35 million people. Are there any countries even remotely close to the United States in population that have nationalized health care? You also don't have near the divide between rich and poor that there is here. There are certain demographics of our society where for whatever reason, a very large percentage of them are below the poverty line and can't seem to get ahead. Also, as Rugby said, once health care becomes free, every hypochondriac in this country will milk it for all it's worth while truly sick people will have to wait. Canada's health care system might be free, but do you want to have to wait 4 months for an MRI where here you could have one by Tuesday?
I agree something has to be done, but it's nowhere close to being as easy as some people make it out to be. Malpractice tort reform would be a good first step in lowering health insurance costs.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by beatdrum » Fri Jul 06, 2007 12:38 pm 
