--- In [email protected], 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.
