Questions about Moore's facts.

[classicman]

I like his movies, but not his politics. Really don't see where the two intersect unless he pushes his opinions down my throat.

Oh yeah he's doing just that. hmm

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

I like his movies, but not his politics. Really don't see where the two intersect unless he pushes his opinions down my throat.

Oh yeah he's doing just that. hmm

To bad his "facts" are so distorted and cherry picked that they really turn out to be BS when taken as a whole.

I recon that Michael Moore sticks much closer to the truth than both Hollywood and the White House. The thing is that Moore has far more important things to say than Hollywood and the White House put together and what he has to say will effect the whole world in a more positive way, rather than the destructive way that the others do.

[DanaC]

Well said Dr.

See all this is is just so much intellectual discussion until I go see in another thread that Bri is having to think about the cost of her pills. That the insurance companies won't cover the cost of anti-nausea medication for two thirds of her treatment.....that she is having to do that kind of maths at all. Makes me so fucking angry I could smash something up. Politics be fucked, our friend is suffering. And her suffering could be alleviated as easily as swallowing a tablet if the healthcare system she has no choice but to work within did its job properly. I'm not saying ours is perfect, and God knows there are gaps in the net...but there's got to be a better way than the current American healthcare system, when Bri can't get the pills she needs to get through this without having her days wrecked by constant nausea.

The primary goal of any health insurance company is to make profit. To take as much money in and pay as little money out as they possibly can. How, please tell me, how can that lead to good healthcare?

Originally Posted by DanaC

...there's got to be a better way than the current American healthcare system ...

There is - and it's been in use in many countries for a long, long time.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

..... you reckon your system would have paid the £40,000 for the experimental treatments?

If that question is to me then the answer is probably YES.

The thing is that the U.S. sees tax money as the government's property and so it’s hoarded for "their own” benefit such as politicians and big business scratching one another's back and getting fat on the profits while the underprivileged suck on moss-covered rocks for their sustenance.

We, on the other hand, see tax money as insurance for the whole population i.e. the individual citizen. The funds are there for us when we need it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that the whole idea with democratic, political policies?

[lookout123]

while the underprivileged suck on moss-covered rocks for their sustenance.

You're so deluded about life in America that it is mystifying. Moss-covered rocks are for the middle class. Nothing so fancy for those poor bastards who pull the weeds from my yard.

Originally Posted by lookout123

You're so deluded about life in America that it is mystifying. Moss-covered rocks are for the middle class. Nothing so fancy for those poor bastards who pull the weeds from my yard.

But wouldn't the weeds be more nourishing than moss? Jesus! Ain't your weed-pullers priviledged bastards!

[Undertoad]

Hey I'm not saying, but you reckon your system would have paid the £40,000 for the experimental treatments?

[Aliantha]

I know we're not from the UK, but my aunt has been having 'experimental treatment' for her cancer for the last 5yrs. It's all subsidised, although because she has private health insurance, she chooses to stay in a private hospital for her treatment.

[DanaC]

Hey I'm not saying, but you reckon your system would have paid the £40,000 for the experimental treatments?

Depends on a number of factors, but often yes. A friend of mine was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis about ten years ago and was put onto an experimental treatment for two years. Cost to the national health service: approx. £30k; cost to my friend: £6.75 a month for standard prescription charge.

[Trilby]

Hey! No fighting in my name!

I'm in a clinical trial---there are six "arms" to this trial and you are randomly placed in an "arm"---I'm in the most traditional "arm" of the possible treatments. I went into the trial only because THE TRIAL WILL PAY FOR SOME OF THE TESTING I NEED. They pay for some blood work, some pre-chemo diagnostics (eg. the whole body CT I got) and some u/a's. What they are doing in the trial is switching the traditional sequence of chemo (traditional: A/C first, taxotere second. Trial: taxotere first, A/C second) OR the A/C taxotere with something extra added---don't ask me what.

Anyway--thanks for the concern, DanaC. I know that, somehow, I'll be ok. If I can't afford it and can't find someone to help with cost---I still might be ok without it. I have a very cheap anti-nausea drug called compazine that, added with ativan and dexamethasone (both pretty cheap) might work ,too.

[Undertoad]

If'n I was there I would get you some weed

[Trilby]

Sweeeeeet!


srly, thanks, all of you, for being so supportive and caring.


now. can anybody mail me some percs?

[Flint]

IS THIS THE THREAD WHERE WE COMBINE DELIBERATE MISDIRECTION WITH MASSIVE ALL-CAPS?

[aimeecc]

Just to bring up a dead issue...
If all absentee ballots in all states that were date stamped by the deadline were counted... Bush most likely would have won the popular vote. States don't count the absentee ballots unless the margin between the candidates is smaller than the number of absentee ballots received. Otherwise its viewed as a waste of time and effort to count them. One prime example - Texas. Texas did not count absentee ballots (they didn't need to). A large percentage of the military is... guess what... from Texas and Republican. Also, the whole date stamp issue... military members can't control the postal system. It doesn't get stamped until it reaches our golden shores... so some poor soldier stuck in Iraq or Afghanistan or Korea did his civic duty by filling out the ballot in a timely manner, put it in the mail... only to have it sit on some loading dock or some warehouse for weeks. Its not like the military heard Bush was loosing on the day of the election and they all ran out and grabbed an absentee ballot and put it in the mail. Also, you have to request an absentee ballot weeks in advance. So even to just receive the absentee ballot means you already went through the effort of requesting one, and are thus intending to vote. People that don't intend to vote don't waste their time to request an absentee ballot. It took several phones call for me from Japan to Texas in 2004 to get my absentee ballot because I hadn't voted in 4 years (no surprise there) so they had dropped me from the roles. I had to dig up an old voter registration card (very fortunate I keep all records) and fax it to them so they could look in the archives for my records.
Also, its not only military overseas that use absentee ballots. Service members stationed in North Carolina but registered in California use absentee ballots. Heck, your cousin Sue from Timbucktoo can use an absentee ballot because she can't get away from the kids to vote, and Uncle Ed can use and absentee ballot because he'll be traveling outside the state on election day.