Michael Moore's "Sicko"

Anyone heard any recent news on this?????




Michael Moore's "Sicko" documentary project causing preemptive fear among drug companies
by NewsTarget

(NewsTarget) -- Michael Moore's upcoming 2007 documentary "Sicko" -- aimed at the $1.5 trillion healthcare and pharmaceutical industry -- has mobilized many companies within the medical industry to try to discredit Moore and the film, AdAge.com reports.

Moore, who directed such documentaries as "Roger and Me," "Bowling for Columbine" -- which won an Academy Award -- and "Fahrenheit 9/11," says on his website that he asked the public to send him letters about their healthcare system experiences, and received more than 19,000 of them.

"To read about the misery people are put through on a daily basis by our profit-based system was both moving and revolting," Moore writes. The filmmaker says he won't discuss the documentary with the public, but says, "'Sicko' is a comedy about 45 million people with no health care in the richest country on Earth."

AdAge.com claims that the pharmaceutical industry is attempting to discredit Moore's film by trying to spin the filmmaker as biased and one-sided. Ken Johnson, senior vice president for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), says America needs a "thoughtful and well-researched" investigation into America's healthcare problems, and insists Moore's film won't provide that.

But consumer health advocate Mike Adams disagrees. "Big Pharma is the king of spin and propaganda," he says. "And drug companies will paint anything as 'biased' if it doesn't bow down to the lies, distortions and fraud being promoted by the industry. Big Pharma is not merely afraid of Michael Moore, they're afraid of anything resembling honest scrutiny or investigative journalism," he added.

Moore says that every family he talks to about healthcare nightmares suddenly receives free health care when pharmaceutical companies learn they've spoken to Moore. "There has been a 100 percent success rate of the people we're filming of getting whatever they need from HMOs, pharmaceutical companies, whatever," Moore says.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Anyone heard any recent news on this?????




Michael Moore's "Sicko" documentary project causing preemptive fear among drug companies
by NewsTarget

(NewsTarget) -- Michael Moore's upcoming 2007 documentary "Sicko" -- aimed at the $1.5 trillion healthcare and pharmaceutical industry -- has mobilized many companies within the medical industry to try to discredit Moore and the film, AdAge.com reports.

Moore, who directed such documentaries as "Roger and Me," "Bowling for Columbine" -- which won an Academy Award -- and "Fahrenheit 9/11," says on his website that he asked the public to send him letters about their healthcare system experiences, and received more than 19,000 of them.

"To read about the misery people are put through on a daily basis by our profit-based system was both moving and revolting," Moore writes. The filmmaker says he won't discuss the documentary with the public, but says, "'Sicko' is a comedy about 45 million people with no health care in the richest country on Earth."

AdAge.com claims that the pharmaceutical industry is attempting to discredit Moore's film by trying to spin the filmmaker as biased and one-sided. Ken Johnson, senior vice president for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), says America needs a "thoughtful and well-researched" investigation into America's healthcare problems, and insists Moore's film won't provide that.

But consumer health advocate Mike Adams disagrees. "Big Pharma is the king of spin and propaganda," he says. "And drug companies will paint anything as 'biased' if it doesn't bow down to the lies, distortions and fraud being promoted by the industry. Big Pharma is not merely afraid of Michael Moore, they're afraid of anything resembling honest scrutiny or investigative journalism," he added.

Moore says that every family he talks to about healthcare nightmares suddenly receives free health care when pharmaceutical companies learn they've spoken to Moore. "There has been a 100 percent success rate of the people we're filming of getting whatever they need from HMOs, pharmaceutical companies, whatever," Moore says.

Apparently Moore doesn't have a degree in Economics... or even Journalism 101. More like Sensationalism 429... which will certainly limit his appeal to the rarefied regions of the coastal blue states. Please pander more to the audience, mister organ grinder...

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Apparently Moore doesn't have a degree in Economics... or even Journalism 101. More like Sensationalism 429... which will certainly limit his appeal to the rarefied regions of the coastal blue states. Please pander more to the audience, mister organ grinder...

Dance Monkey Dance. It is only the well-being of your grandchildren at stake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Apparently Moore doesn't have a degree in Economics... or even Journalism 101. More like Sensationalism 429... which will certainly limit his appeal to the rarefied regions of the coastal blue states. Please pander more to the audience, mister organ grinder...

Are you kidding? This is the audience you idiot! They were in and around my region several times last summer. I promise you that there won't be a rep in the area that doesn't go see this.

1)You better know what's in it, because you're gonna get an earful from your staff, docs and patients.

2)I can't wait to see who I might know does something stupid on camera!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Apparently Moore doesn't have a degree in Economics... or even Journalism 101. More like Sensationalism 429... which will certainly limit his appeal to the rarefied regions of the coastal blue states. Please pander more to the audience, mister organ grinder...

Strange how people like yourself said the same things about Watergate, Abramoff, and Bush's war for no known cause in Iraq. "Everything is just fine with the pharma industry, medicine in general, neocon politics, American business, and life in America. Its' just those damn liberals who screw everthing up."
Time to look in the mirror, guys...but watch out for all those blemishes that you're going to see.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Strange how people like yourself said the same things about Watergate, Abramoff, and Bush's war for no known cause in Iraq. "Everything is just fine with the pharma industry, medicine in general, neocon politics, American business, and life in America. Its' just those damn liberals who screw everthing up."
Time to look in the mirror, guys...but watch out for all those blemishes that you're going to see.

Apparently Moore has his crony monitoring this board.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Apparently Moore has his crony monitoring this board.

No, but Bush & Cheney have their cronies watching, monitoring, and tapping, this board and everything else in America. We libs don't have to operate that way. We actually believe in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Oh, you don't know what they are...look it up in Google.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

No, but Bush & Cheney have their cronies watching, monitoring, and tapping, this board and everything else in America. We libs don't have to operate that way. We actually believe in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Oh, you don't know what they are...look it up in Google.

Do you mean you believe in continuing to alter the Constitution until we sacrificie every shred of freedom we have in order to promote equality?

As far as Moore goes, of course this jackass is going to promote his own liberal agenda. Has he ever taken an unbiased, journalistic view of anything? If he's lucky, maybe big pharma will go away--I wonder how good a healthcare system with no medication would be. Last I saw, he hasn't forked over a dime to help a single one of these people who tries to "protect" from the system. He expects someone to sacrifice their own well-being to promote the well-bing of others, as long as it isn't him who makes the sacrifice. Don't pretend to even think this film will do a single thing to help the healthcare crisis in America--it will only make it worse.

Guarantee there's going to be more truth in this film than propaganda.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Guarantee there's going to be more truth in this film than propaganda.

As long as you interpret the word "truth" very loosely--kind of like your kingpin interpreted "sexual relations"

3.000 lay-offs for you WASP AstraSatanicans!

That should really make you "Sicko"!!!!

Borat

Originally Posted by Anonymous

3.000 lay-offs for you WASP AstraSatanicans!

That should really make you "Sicko"!!!!

Borat

OP here- former Area manager, national manager, blah blah blah, lots of backgrond in pharmaceuticals .....there is a reason that the feds, Michael Moore and the public in general are getting more militant....the system is breaking down...driven by greed. Come on....look at what a rep does, look at what demands the offices, hospitals, etc... make. Think about the benefits and salaries....not worth the R.O.I.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Do you mean you believe in continuing to alter the Constitution until we sacrificie every shred of freedom we have in order to promote equality?

As far as Moore goes, of course this jackass is going to promote his own liberal agenda. Has he ever taken an unbiased, journalistic view of anything? If he's lucky, maybe big pharma will go away--I wonder how good a healthcare system with no medication would be. Last I saw, he hasn't forked over a dime to help a single one of these people who tries to "protect" from the system. He expects someone to sacrifice their own well-being to promote the well-bing of others, as long as it isn't him who makes the sacrifice. Don't pretend to even think this film will do a single thing to help the healthcare crisis in America--it will only make it worse.

I assume that you object to a "liberal" agenda becauase it might cost something from your pocket to help a fellow American who can't afford to get his sick child to a doctor, or to help a senior in need of a bed to die in. If so, you probably think our health care system is pretty perfect, despite 47.5 million Americans that have no health insurance at all, and that includes over 12 million children. Strange, but all of those heathens in the rest of the westernized world think differently, and still have thriving economies. And, believe it or not, they have the same great drugs to use that we have despite your strange ideas of an America without drugs (?). Pharma has cheated and stolen from America for quite a few years now and must expect change. America is slow to awake (Moore will accelerate the process), but awake they have, and pharma will have to answer for their selfishness.
Your idea of making the healthcare in America is bilking the public and making more and more money. You're blind to the real needs and desires of the American public, and that is your mis-fortune, and thankfully, not mine...or Michael Moore's.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

I assume that you object to a "liberal" agenda becauase it might cost something from your pocket to help a fellow American who can't afford to get his sick child to a doctor, or to help a senior in need of a bed to die in. If so, you probably think our health care system is pretty perfect, despite 47.5 million Americans that have no health insurance at all, and that includes over 12 million children. Strange, but all of those heathens in the rest of the westernized world think differently, and still have thriving economies. And, believe it or not, they have the same great drugs to use that we have despite your strange ideas of an America without drugs (?). Pharma has cheated and stolen from America for quite a few years now and must expect change. America is slow to awake (Moore will accelerate the process), but awake they have, and pharma will have to answer for their selfishness.
Your idea of making the healthcare in America is bilking the public and making more and more money. You're blind to the real needs and desires of the American public, and that is your mis-fortune, and thankfully, not mine...or Michael Moore's.

I have no problem donating my money to help others. However the last thing we need is to further expand our welfare system that suckles individuals along and provides no incentive for them to leave the system. I'm sure you want to increase taxes in order to develop yet another government plan that is horribly ineffcient and easy for individuals to cheat. If the healthcare system is so vastly important to the well-being of our citizens, then why not begin by re-allocating the current Federal budget to reflect the priorities. Penalizing the very companies who provide these life-saving medications doesn't seem to be the appropriate manner to motivate them to keep providing the service they provide--if my dog bites my hand every time I feed him, I'll just quit feeding him. The problem is not the companies, it is the system in which we operate. If you believe a film By Moore that targets something other than the true root cause will do anything but make people hate the wrong entity, then you are kidding yourself.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

I have no problem donating my money to help others. However the last thing we need is to further expand our welfare system that suckles individuals along and provides no incentive for them to leave the system. I'm sure you want to increase taxes in order to develop yet another government plan that is horribly ineffcient and easy for individuals to cheat. If the healthcare system is so vastly important to the well-being of our citizens, then why not begin by re-allocating the current Federal budget to reflect the priorities. Penalizing the very companies who provide these life-saving medications doesn't seem to be the appropriate manner to motivate them to keep providing the service they provide--if my dog bites my hand every time I feed him, I'll just quit feeding him. The problem is not the companies, it is the system in which we operate. If you believe a film By Moore that targets something other than the true root cause will do anything but make people hate the wrong entity, then you are kidding yourself.

No, America gets better value spending $850 billion (so far) in Iraq, without any possible benefit in the end, including a probable 5,000 dead Americans and countless disabled and mangled before it's over. Better to kill and die, and spend our treasure for nothing than to give our own people the same medical care that every other modern government gives theirs. Shame on you and those who believe as you do. You are un-American if you are not willing to help your own brothers and sisters. You disgust me!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

No, America gets better value spending $850 billion (so far) in Iraq, without any possible benefit in the end, including a probable 5,000 dead Americans and countless disabled and mangled before it's over. Better to kill and die, and spend our treasure for nothing than to give our own people the same medical care that every other modern government gives theirs. Shame on you and those who believe as you do. You are un-American if you are not willing to help your own brothers and sisters. You disgust me!

So which is it--do you care about people or not? In one breath you say we should provide universal health coverage to all. In another breath, you advocate the murder and slaughtering of millions in Iraq b/c it costs too much money to be over there. Are you a racist? Is human life precious only if it is American life?

Also, did you read what was written? I never said we shouldn't provide health coverage, I simply said that targeting pharma companies is not the appropriate place to point your finger. Focus on the problem--pharmaceuticals account for less than 10% of annual expenditures on health care. Is that 10% really the issue, or is it the system? The government taking more of the American's peoples' money to throw into a welfare system that is broken is not the answer. Maybe you want to give more of your money to a system like that, but I don't.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

So which is it--do you care about people or not? In one breath you say we should provide universal health coverage to all. In another breath, you advocate the murder and slaughtering of millions in Iraq b/c it costs too much money to be over there. Are you a racist? Is human life precious only if it is American life?

Also, did you read what was written? I never said we shouldn't provide health coverage, I simply said that targeting pharma companies is not the appropriate place to point your finger. Focus on the problem--pharmaceuticals account for less than 10% of annual expenditures on health care. Is that 10% really the issue, or is it the system? The government taking more of the American's peoples' money to throw into a welfare system that is broken is not the answer. Maybe you want to give more of your money to a system like that, but I don't.

That slaughter in Iraq has existed for 1,200 years, only the reign of Saddam quelled it to one side dominating the other. America has now evened the score and both sides are killing each other by the hundreds, daily. All we are doing now is putting our own troops between the Sunnis and the Shia and getting them killed as well. There is no stopping a religious civil war, and everyone (except you and our idiot president, it seems) knows that. Compassion has nothing to do with it. America must remove its' troops right now, and you are a moron for making such a comparison. Obviously you would rather give your money to the Iraqi's that are killing our troops than to the needy and sick people of America. You said just that in your above message, I repeat...you are truly a moron!

Dance monkey dance... the pretty little girl wants to give you some change. Oh, no, its Hillary and she wants to put you through the organ grinder!!! Abandon ship and forget about your kids and grandchildren having a better chance of living longer and better lives than you. Thanks to Michael Moore...

Originally Posted by Anonymous

No, but Bush & Cheney have their cronies watching, monitoring, and tapping, this board and everything else in America. We libs don't have to operate that way. We actually believe in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Oh, you don't know what they are...look it up in Google.

Well Michael, We conservatives have our high school diplomas. You can google that under G.E.D.

Is that if it wasn't for the pharmaceutical industry and our healthcare system, that fat slob wouldn't live to see 50. He is the poster child for why the US pharmaceutical industry is so profitable. No personal responsiblity or accountability for taking care of your own health & body.

Too many Americans want to eat like pigs, clog their arteries with fatty foods, and then bitch and moan about drug prices and lack of free healthcare. The Democratic party and ambulance chasers like John Edwards epitomize the problem too many Americans have. Take little to no responsibility for your own actions and taking care of your own body and health. Expect somebody else to do if for you and take care of you.

Think about how fewer drugs for cholesterol, diabetes, acid reflux, hypertension, etc., etc. people would need to take if they just exercised and watched what they eat a little bit better... to say nothing of the cost savings to the system in general. Think Michael Moore will discuss this or the other end of the healthcare coin (hospitals, insurance companies, etc.) in his "documentary." I think we all know the answer to that question... and I was naive enough to think a docmentary was supposed to show both sides of a story and let the viewer decide.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Dance Monkey Dance. It is only the well-being of your grandchildren at stake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, I'm sure they're looking forward to the next omerprazole isomer or, better yet, a Crestor/Viagra combo. "Life Inspiring Ideas"

Originally Posted by Anonymous

That slaughter in Iraq has existed for 1,200 years, only the reign of Saddam quelled it to one side dominating the other. America has now evened the score and both sides are killing each other by the hundreds, daily. All we are doing now is putting our own troops between the Sunnis and the Shia and getting them killed as well. There is no stopping a religious civil war, and everyone (except you and our idiot president, it seems) knows that. Compassion has nothing to do with it. America must remove its' troops right now, and you are a moron for making such a comparison. Obviously you would rather give your money to the Iraqi's that are killing our troops than to the needy and sick people of America. You said just that in your above message, I repeat...you are truly a moron!

Yeah, Sadaam killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people during his reign--it just wasn't broadcast into your living room every night, so, in your mind, it wasn't happening. Who's the moron? Ask the people of Iraq if they want us to remove our troops today. Ask 98% of Congress if we should remove our troops today. You're not very smart. Unfortunately, I'm sure you vote.

As far as healthcare goes, go ahead and target the pharma companies--make drugs FREE for all. All you've done is reduced the cost of healthcare by 9%. Did that fix the problem? Does that make it affordable for all? I'm sure in your little world of taxation and ineffeciency that seems like a bang-em-up result. As for me, I'd rather fix the problem that start trying to bandage the symptoms with more taxpayer money.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Yeah, Sadaam killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people during his reign--it just wasn't broadcast into your living room every night, so, in your mind, it wasn't happening. Who's the moron? Ask the people of Iraq if they want us to remove our troops today. Ask 98% of Congress if we should remove our troops today. You're not very smart. Unfortunately, I'm sure you vote.

As far as healthcare goes, go ahead and target the pharma companies--make drugs FREE for all. All you've done is reduced the cost of healthcare by 9%. Did that fix the problem? Does that make it affordable for all? I'm sure in your little world of taxation and ineffeciency that seems like a bang-em-up result. As for me, I'd rather fix the problem that start trying to bandage the symptoms with more taxpayer money.

To answer your first question,
Yes - almost all non-government polls have shown overwhelmingly that the people of Iraq want us out as soon as possible, including the present Shia administration. If anything, the feeling in Iraq is that the U.S. presence just increases tensions and creates more opportunity for terror. In the midst of all of this, our troops are a convenient target for both sides. Since there is no up-side for us, and there is now a true civil war there, nothing good can possibly come of anything as things are now. Whether we are here or not, the problems will continue. Why allow more Americans to die for nothing.

Re: healthcare in America,
Drugs will never be free, they will be paid for by a nationalized system that will pay just as your private plan pays today. That plan will be funded by our taxes and/or some out-of pocket supplements. Just as in all of the nationalized plan countries the drug companies will still thrive. But, there will be a new emphasis on research over marketing due to the necessity of dealing with less me-too drugs and creating more break-throughs. No pharma has yet been forced out of business in all of the plan countries. Yes, there are probably fewer people employed by those companies, and justly so.
The cost of America's present medical system is already twice that - per capita - than any other country in the world, and the state of our country's health is dismal in comparison. It is not a matter of what we can afford, but more of what we can't afford. And that is why we must have a nationalized medical system, right now.

This is what Michael Moore does in his spare time:

http://thewillpower.org/

Originally Posted by Anonymous

This is what Michael Moore does in his spare time:

http://thewillpower.org/

This is disgusting with thought of Michael Moore doing that! But I must say otherwise I like it!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

To answer your first question,
Yes - almost all non-government polls have shown overwhelmingly that the people of Iraq want us out as soon as possible, including the present Shia administration. If anything, the feeling in Iraq is that the U.S. presence just increases tensions and creates more opportunity for terror. In the midst of all of this, our troops are a convenient target for both sides. Since there is no up-side for us, and there is now a true civil war there, nothing good can possibly come of anything as things are now. Whether we are here or not, the problems will continue. Why allow more Americans to die for nothing.

Re: healthcare in America,
Drugs will never be free, they will be paid for by a nationalized system that will pay just as your private plan pays today. That plan will be funded by our taxes and/or some out-of pocket supplements. Just as in all of the nationalized plan countries the drug companies will still thrive. But, there will be a new emphasis on research over marketing due to the necessity of dealing with less me-too drugs and creating more break-throughs. No pharma has yet been forced out of business in all of the plan countries. Yes, there are probably fewer people employed by those companies, and justly so.
The cost of America's present medical system is already twice that - per capita - than any other country in the world, and the state of our country's health is dismal in comparison. It is not a matter of what we can afford, but more of what we can't afford. And that is why we must have a nationalized medical system, right now.

More taxes, fewer jobs, and more governmental control. Sounds like an AWESOME plan you have there.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

More taxes, fewer jobs, and more governmental control. Sounds like an AWESOME plan you have there.

You are forgetting the massive amount of public and private money already going into our present medical system. There is little doubt that a nationalized system, in both the short and long run will cost less than our present-millionaire creating system. At worst, the system, even at the startup, will be more efficient and supply better medicine to all Americans.
There will probably be less need for the huge amount of reps now employed by big pharma, which has to be expected, and as anyone in the over-bloated industry already knows, is already happening. Considering the educational backgrounds and experience of those that will lose their positions, there should be no major problem for them to find their way in other fields in our thriving economy.
As far as government control is concerned, that is not a bad thing considering what pay-as-you-go medicine has done to the American economy - virtually broken it, with no compassion or pity for those that can't afford it, and costing you, the consumer, more than double that of any other country in the world...and it's still asking for more!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

You are forgetting the massive amount of public and private money already going into our present medical system. There is little doubt that a nationalized system, in both the short and long run will cost less than our present-millionaire creating system. At worst, the system, even at the startup, will be more efficient and supply better medicine to all Americans.
There will probably be less need for the huge amount of reps now employed by big pharma, which has to be expected, and as anyone in the over-bloated industry already knows, is already happening. Considering the educational backgrounds and experience of those that will lose their positions, there should be no major problem for them to find their way in other fields in our thriving economy.
As far as government control is concerned, that is not a bad thing considering what pay-as-you-go medicine has done to the American economy - virtually broken it, with no compassion or pity for those that can't afford it, and costing you, the consumer, more than double that of any other country in the world...and it's still asking for more!

It sounds fine, in therory. However, the government has never taken control of ANY program from the private sector and made it run more efficiently and less expensively. By definition, if you let anything other than the market dictate the price of healthcare and the price of pharmaceuticals, then you are going to make the market less efficient (see price cielings and monopolies in your Econ 101 book). I agree that healthcare is a HUGE problem--the working poor have it the worst--they make too much money to qualify for Meidcaid, but too little to afford decent health coverage. It just encourages people to get fired and go on welfare/Medicaid. However, the healthcare industry makes up a gigantic portion of our nation's economy. To hand that over to the government, who, by definition, will run it less efficiently than the market can, will have major ramifications to our economy, and mean lower paying government jobs and more unemployment. Add to that a monumental tax increase to pay for the currently uninsured health coverage--I've been to Denmark (a socialized healthcare country)--the amount of your pay taken in taxes (income, property, sales, etc) is staggering. There has to be a better way than taking more of the taxpayer's money to run what will be a red-tape filled, huge, ineffecient beast of a haelthcare system.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

You are forgetting the massive amount of public and private money already going into our present medical system. There is little doubt that a nationalized system, in both the short and long run will cost less than our present-millionaire creating system. At worst, the system, even at the startup, will be more efficient and supply better medicine to all Americans.
There will probably be less need for the huge amount of reps now employed by big pharma, which has to be expected, and as anyone in the over-bloated industry already knows, is already happening. Considering the educational backgrounds and experience of those that will lose their positions, there should be no major problem for them to find their way in other fields in our thriving economy.
As far as government control is concerned, that is not a bad thing considering what pay-as-you-go medicine has done to the American economy - virtually broken it, with no compassion or pity for those that can't afford it, and costing you, the consumer, more than double that of any other country in the world...and it's still asking for more!

You've obviously never taken a real economics course in your life. Even ones taught in former Soviet block countries would discredit your assertions, at a bare minimum. Put down your Das Kapital (english translation of course, because you are obviously someone who stayed away from hard science, math, or a real social science) and pick up an Econ 101 book for pete's sake. Jackass.

that the government can run healthcare or industry more efficiently then the market or private sector never took Econ. 101, thinks Karl Marx was a genius, or has chosen to bury their head in the sand and ignore history.

I love the assertion that foreign drug companies have thrived under the socialized healthcare systems and price controls their countries have instituted. Again, do your homework. Even European pharma. companies derive the majority of their revenues from the US market. We are in essence subsidizing the rest of the world's drug and R & D costs because their governments have made the choice to tell them what they can & can't charge. Wide spread regulation of markets by government is a recipe for economic disaster.

Also, taxes will also go through the roof so you better be getting a lot of freebies because you won't have any money left to pay for anything other than your house & food for your family. If property taxes also skyrocket, you may not even have enough left for that.

If the US also goes this direction, innovation wordwide will diminish substantially as will the quality of care in our country over time. That is the economic reality of socialism & regulated markets. Take away the incentive to better yourself because everyone gets the same regardless of their contribution or effort and what do you have? Inefficiency and laziness. Why spend $$ trying to develop new and innovative therapies if the government is going to tell you how much you can charge or how much you can make? There is little incentive in this scenario. It's really quite simple. Why don't you get it?

Originally Posted by Anonymous

that the government can run healthcare or industry more efficiently then the market or private sector never took Econ. 101, thinks Karl Marx was a genius, or has chosen to bury their head in the sand and ignore history.

I love the assertion that foreign drug companies have thrived under the socialized healthcare systems and price controls their countries have instituted. Again, do your homework. Even European pharma. companies derive the majority of their revenues from the US market. We are in essence subsidizing the rest of the world's drug and R & D costs because their governments have made the choice to tell them what they can & can't charge. Wide spread regulation of markets by government is a recipe for economic disaster.

Also, taxes will also go through the roof so you better be getting a lot of freebies because you won't have any money left to pay for anything other than your house & food for your family. If property taxes also skyrocket, you may not even have enough left for that.

If the US also goes this direction, innovation wordwide will diminish substantially as will the quality of care in our country over time. That is the economic reality of socialism & regulated markets. Take away the incentive to better yourself because everyone gets the same regardless of their contribution or effort and what do you have? Inefficiency and laziness. Why spend $$ trying to develop new and innovative therapies if the government is going to tell you how much you can charge or how much you can make? There is little incentive in this scenario. It's really quite simple. Why don't you get it?

Typical trash neo-con slogans. You are right about the American market subsidizing the European drug companies with American dollars...and that is one of the major reasons that we need a nationalized plan...we are paying at least double what drugs in the rest of the free world cost. We are producing the excess profits that pay for the rest of the worlds drug usage. Setting up our own plan would cut those profits to a reasonable level for our own population - obviously.
But, you address your comments only to the pharma industry, and overlook the rest of medical delivery in America. You leave out our collusive insurance costs that subsidize the corrupt billing and overbilling in our hospital system and Medicare, you leave out the incredible incomes that many sub-specialists earn in our system, not to mention the insurance companies themselves that charge rates far beyond the means of a large segment of America, including 47 million people with 12 million of those children. Also, condider the profits within all of the above industries...that is not free enterprise, it is organized thievery. Get rid of the corruption and the costs automatically go down.
It is not a question of if we will have a nationalized industry, it is rather a question of how soon the our present system implodes our economy. Whether you approve or not, it is coming. How efficient it will be is another question. But, with good people running the system, and careful guidance and enough study of the foreign, successful systems already in place, the prospects for success look good. Needless to say, the PMA and the AMA are not looking foward to any change at all to the system as it is now. They've been the sugar daddys for too many years now. That is about to end!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Typical trash neo-con slogans. You are right about the American market subsidizing the European drug companies with American dollars...and that is one of the major reasons that we need a nationalized plan...we are paying at least double what drugs in the rest of the free world cost. We are producing the excess profits that pay for the rest of the worlds drug usage. Setting up our own plan would cut those profits to a reasonable level for our own population - obviously.
But, you address your comments only to the pharma industry, and overlook the rest of medical delivery in America. You leave out our collusive insurance costs that subsidize the corrupt billing and overbilling in our hospital system and Medicare, you leave out the incredible incomes that many sub-specialists earn in our system, not to mention the insurance companies themselves that charge rates far beyond the means of a large segment of America, including 47 million people with 12 million of those children. Also, condider the profits within all of the above industries...that is not free enterprise, it is organized thievery. Get rid of the corruption and the costs automatically go down.
It is not a question of if we will have a nationalized industry, it is rather a question of how soon the our present system implodes our economy. Whether you approve or not, it is coming. How efficient it will be is another question. But, with good people running the system, and careful guidance and enough study of the foreign, successful systems already in place, the prospects for success look good. Needless to say, the PMA and the AMA are not looking foward to any change at all to the system as it is now. They've been the sugar daddys for too many years now. That is about to end!

Oh, yes, you are so right. Remove the profit motive and the system will improve dramatically --when I think of all of the innovation, advancement, and scientific groundbreaking that has occurred without money to fund it and "for the good of mankind," the age of discovery that is ahead of us seems limitless. I think we should pilot this in Eastern Europe...oh, wait. We already did. It was called Socialism. Grab a clue, jackass. The definition of insanity: doing something the same way, over and over again, and expecting a different result.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Oh, yes, you are so right. Remove the profit motive and the system will improve dramatically --when I think of all of the innovation, advancement, and scientific groundbreaking that has occurred without money to fund it and "for the good of mankind," the age of discovery that is ahead of us seems limitless. I think we should pilot this in Eastern Europe...oh, wait. We already did. It was called Socialism. Grab a clue, jackass. The definition of insanity: doing something the same way, over and over again, and expecting a different result.

Don't waste your time. Michael Moore and his mindless, socialist moron hordes will never understand your point, because they lack the common sense and critical thinking necessary to grasp it.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Oh, yes, you are so right. Remove the profit motive and the system will improve dramatically --when I think of all of the innovation, advancement, and scientific groundbreaking that has occurred without money to fund it and "for the good of mankind," the age of discovery that is ahead of us seems limitless. I think we should pilot this in Eastern Europe...oh, wait. We already did. It was called Socialism. Grab a clue, jackass. The definition of insanity: doing something the same way, over and over again, and expecting a different result.

No one has ever suggested removing the profit motive from the pharma industry, but rather cutting out the incredible marketing expenses, the duplication of services, the unnecessry profit making precedures alone will save billions over the long haul. Combined with contracting for standardized drugs on a over-all basis (doing away with near-exact product duplication), and centralization, a natonalized system is our only choice if we are to save our economy.
The AMA and the PMA would like you to believe that a nationalized system is equivilant to charity. It is not, medicine in Europe and contemporary Asia is still profitable to the pharma industry as well as those working in it. It is only in the minds of those that know no better and have only been exposed to negative and false propaganda that the word "socialism" is the simple, and incorrect answer to everything. It is not socialism, it is simply a cheaper and better way to get better medical delivery to all Americans at a price they can afford. It will eventually make fewer people rich, but a great many people healthier.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

No one has ever suggested removing the profit motive from the pharma industry, but rather cutting out the incredible marketing expenses, the duplication of services, the unnecessry profit making precedures alone will save billions over the long haul. Combined with contracting for standardized drugs on a over-all basis (doing away with near-exact product duplication), and centralization, a natonalized system is our only choice if we are to save our economy.
The AMA and the PMA would like you to believe that a nationalized system is equivilant to charity. It is not, medicine in Europe and contemporary Asia is still profitable to the pharma industry as well as those working in it. It is only in the minds of those that know no better and have only been exposed to negative and false propaganda that the word "socialism" is the simple, and incorrect answer to everything. It is not socialism, it is simply a cheaper and better way to get better medical delivery to all Americans at a price they can afford. It will eventually make fewer people rich, but a great many people healthier.

Again, who profits from this system? Profit drives innovation. You knock the idea of "me too" drugs, but as you may know from selling drugs, every chemical combination has a different effect in the human body--some patients respond, some don't. That's why you have more than one drug in a therapeutic class--to ensure that something works for everyone. Under your system, it's either the drug the government provides or it's tough luck. Pharmaceuticals may be cheaper in countries like Canada, but Canadians are lining up in the U.S. to get important medical procedures done--their system breeds inefficiencies.

At it's core, your plan is this: fewer jobs, lower paying jobs, less drug choices, less incentive for innovation, more government red tape, and higher taxes. At it's core, your plan sucks.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

No one has ever suggested removing the profit motive from the pharma industry, but rather cutting out the incredible marketing expenses, the duplication of services, the unnecessry profit making precedures alone will save billions over the long haul. Combined with contracting for standardized drugs on a over-all basis (doing away with near-exact product duplication), and centralization, a natonalized system is our only choice if we are to save our economy.
The AMA and the PMA would like you to believe that a nationalized system is equivilant to charity. It is not, medicine in Europe and contemporary Asia is still profitable to the pharma industry as well as those working in it. It is only in the minds of those that know no better and have only been exposed to negative and false propaganda that the word "socialism" is the simple, and incorrect answer to everything. It is not socialism, it is simply a cheaper and better way to get better medical delivery to all Americans at a price they can afford. It will eventually make fewer people rich, but a great many people healthier.

Wow. Not only do you not understand simple economics (though seemingly are more than willing to try to debate politics--the refuge of a true intellect...) you seem also to have little grasp of pharmacology or medicine. To talk about "near exact product duplication" you try to talk about supposed "me-too" products, which the other poster correctly asserts are much more different than you would propose (hmmm... why might someone not respond to sertraline but would to fluoxetine--two "me-too" SSRI's, or why might someone on lovastatin benefit more from a therapeutically equivalent dose of simvastatin? My family is damn glad to have that choice.) Maybe you are not as ignorant as you would appear, and sought to talk about generics (all products I just mentioned are), but your thesis then falls apart. Given your thesis-antithesis-synthesis education on Marx, perhaps you would understand that this opportunity is already taken--once products go generic, competition ensues, and eventually at the manufacturer level, prices should approach marginal cost at (sorry, if I'm already talking over your head here) wholesale. Perhaps you should go after them damn greedy pharmacies instead? Perhaps we should just nationalize them! Is AARP not doing a good enough job convincing its millions of members that for the most part generics (e.g. products with a relative broad therapeutic index) are just as good as the brand name? What about the PBMs? Jackass! Just remember in your world, your child or grandchild won't get to benefit from a medication that otherwise would have existed. And I'm not just talking minor improvements, I'm talking new life-changing treatments. Shoot for average, and you might just hit it. I'm aiming high.

You can quote Adam Smith, Marx, the PMA, and the AMA...It's of no importence. The economy of America can no longer afford our present system...It's really that simple. No one cares any more if they get Nexium or Prilosec, and fewer believe that the high fees and drug prices are justified, what they what they want is good care at a reasonable price - like the rest of the free world is getting. At this time, America is not getting the best possible care for all of its' people at any price. Proper Insurance is beyond the means of most Americans, many of whom have to sacrifice their life styles just to afford any insurance at all, and one sixth of America has no insurance at all. Every other country in the free world has all of their population insured. No other modernized country in the world has an infant death rate as high as Americas', or a life expectancy as short.
There are no theories or hypotheses in any books that can cure this problem, it is more a matter of changing to a system that will treat everyone, improve the livlihood of its' people, and be of the highest possible quality...and it must be affordable. Our present system is not affordable, and in simplest terms, a change is mandated, and there are successful models throughout the world...despite what the AMA and the PMA state. And we all know where they are coming from -their pocketbooks!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

You can quote Adam Smith, Marx, the PMA, and the AMA...It's of no importence. The economy of America can no longer afford our present system...It's really that simple. No one cares any more if they get Nexium or Prilosec, and fewer believe that the high fees and drug prices are justified, what they what they want is good care at a reasonable price - like the rest of the free world is getting. At this time, America is not getting the best possible care for all of its' people at any price. Proper Insurance is beyond the means of most Americans, many of whom have to sacrifice their life styles just to afford any insurance at all, and one sixth of America has no insurance at all. Every other country in the free world has all of their population insured. No other modernized country in the world has an infant death rate as high as Americas', or a life expectancy as short.
There are no theories or hypotheses in any books that can cure this problem, it is more a matter of changing to a system that will treat everyone, improve the livlihood of its' people, and be of the highest possible quality...and it must be affordable. Our present system is not affordable, and in simplest terms, a change is mandated, and there are successful models throughout the world...despite what the AMA and the PMA state. And we all know where they are coming from -their pocketbooks!

It'd be a shame if "many ... have to sacrifice their life styles just to afford any insurance at all". I'm sure that includes smoking cessation (gee those cigs are cheap) to avoid COPD, giving up excessive drinking (both to save their liver and perhaps get treated for their underlying anxiety and depression), eating less fast food, and getting their fat asses off the couch to stave off Type II diabetes, CV disease, and a meriad of other maladies. That's what's causing most issues in healthcare today, not pharma companies searching for new breakthrough medications for cancer, MS, avian flu, macular degereration, etc. Better hope your kids don't get it, because there may be no better medications tomorrow than today. Gee you're dumb. I can't wait to enjoy paying for your ideologic intellectually and physically lazy ass to get fat and cost all of society more.

The emphasis should be on health, not healthcare. We wouldn't be in this mess if people would quit smoking, lose 20 lbs and exercise much more often.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

You can quote Adam Smith, Marx, the PMA, and the AMA...It's of no importence. The economy of America can no longer afford our present system...It's really that simple. No one cares any more if they get Nexium or Prilosec, and fewer believe that the high fees and drug prices are justified, what they what they want is good care at a reasonable price - like the rest of the free world is getting. At this time, America is not getting the best possible care for all of its' people at any price. Proper Insurance is beyond the means of most Americans, many of whom have to sacrifice their life styles just to afford any insurance at all, and one sixth of America has no insurance at all. Every other country in the free world has all of their population insured. No other modernized country in the world has an infant death rate as high as Americas', or a life expectancy as short.
There are no theories or hypotheses in any books that can cure this problem, it is more a matter of changing to a system that will treat everyone, improve the livlihood of its' people, and be of the highest possible quality...and it must be affordable. Our present system is not affordable, and in simplest terms, a change is mandated, and there are successful models throughout the world...despite what the AMA and the PMA state. And we all know where they are coming from -their pocketbooks!

Higher taxes, more government control, lower paying jobs, more unemployment--I'm confused. How are these things better for our economy? Never, never, never does anything that the free market controls bankrupt a national economy. Dust off your Econ 101 book and look at the law of supply and demand--the price for healthcare and pharmaceuticals are not set by the companies that provide these products/services, they are set by the market. It is not an arguable point, it is a fact. Also a fact: government control (price cieling/floors, limiting entry into the market, etc) are ineffecient. By definition, government control will COST MORE and PROVIDE LESS (that's what ineffeiciency means).

Citing the infant mortality rate and life expectancy doesn't mean we provide poorer healthcare than these other countries--it simply mean we have a lifestyle that breed early death. We are fat--when fat people have babies, they are more likely to have complications during pregnancy that result in stillborn children. We have uncontrolled diabetes in this country (because we are FAT)--hyperglycemia makes infant mortality higher and life expectancy shorter. We have heart disease, high cholesterol, etc, etc, etc--all lifestyle induced, all affecting our lifespan and the health of our children. Don't blame the healthcare system, blame our lifestyle. Do people flock to Andorra, Israel, New Zealand, or Guam for life-saving surgeries? All those countries have a longer life expectancy than the U.S., but that doesn't mean their healthcare system is better and more innovative. Your argument is weak and lacks ANY support at all--either economically or medically. Go back and try again.

First of all, considering that the cost of medical delivery in the U.S. right now is double that, per capita of any other country in the world, we can immediately dismiss your sloganized argument concerning the efficiency of our system versus any nationalized country in the world except, possibly Canada). Next, you maintain that the American lifestyle creates our primary heath problems. That's just another reason for nationalized care, which will use the proper medical education directly to the population through government sources, not as now. Plus the fact that with all Americans being covered, the 47 million people now not covered will have a direct source to make the "right" choices, and to be treated early enough to make a difference. And lets face reality, the infant death rate and America's poor life expectancy is not primarily due to our "stress factors", but much more so to simply poor, or no medical care.
But again, I revert back to the primary reason for a change, and that is that our costs have risen above our ability to pay for the system we now have...while the rest of the world does not seem to have that problem...considering that their economies, taxes and all, are now surpassing ours...as is their standards of living.
Your arguments, in the light of reality, make no sense any more. And most of America now agrees with me...not you! Turn off Fox and see for yourself.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

First of all, considering that the cost of medical delivery in the U.S. right now is double that, per capita of any other country in the world, we can immediately dismiss your sloganized argument concerning the efficiency of our system versus any nationalized country in the world except, possibly Canada). Next, you maintain that the American lifestyle creates our primary heath problems. That's just another reason for nationalized care, which will use the proper medical education directly to the population through government sources, not as now. Plus the fact that with all Americans being covered, the 47 million people now not covered will have a direct source to make the "right" choices, and to be treated early enough to make a difference. And lets face reality, the infant death rate and America's poor life expectancy is not primarily due to our "stress factors", but much more so to simply poor, or no medical care.
But again, I revert back to the primary reason for a change, and that is that our costs have risen above our ability to pay for the system we now have...while the rest of the world does not seem to have that problem...considering that their economies, taxes and all, are now surpassing ours...as is their standards of living.
Your arguments, in the light of reality, make no sense any more. And most of America now agrees with me...not you! Turn off Fox and see for yourself.

Who new that I'd find out that capitalism was a bust on Cafe Pharma? So, the government can manage the healthcare market cheaper and better than private competition. Hell, we should hand over the U.S. auto industry as well--they could certainly use the help. Wow, this is great. Pretty soon, healthcare will be run as efficiently as the US Post Office or maybe even the Department of Motor Vehicles. Should be exciting!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

First of all, considering that the cost of medical delivery in the U.S. right now is double that, per capita of any other country in the world, we can immediately dismiss your sloganized argument concerning the efficiency of our system versus any nationalized country in the world except, possibly Canada). Next, you maintain that the American lifestyle creates our primary heath problems. That's just another reason for nationalized care, which will use the proper medical education directly to the population through government sources, not as now. Plus the fact that with all Americans being covered, the 47 million people now not covered will have a direct source to make the "right" choices, and to be treated early enough to make a difference. And lets face reality, the infant death rate and America's poor life expectancy is not primarily due to our "stress factors", but much more so to simply poor, or no medical care.
But again, I revert back to the primary reason for a change, and that is that our costs have risen above our ability to pay for the system we now have...while the rest of the world does not seem to have that problem...considering that their economies, taxes and all, are now surpassing ours...as is their standards of living.
Your arguments, in the light of reality, make no sense any more. And most of America now agrees with me...not you! Turn off Fox and see for yourself.

First of all, you still don't understand what economic efficiency means. If something other than the market controls the cost of healthcare, you will have what is known as DEAD WEIGHT LOSS--look that term up. A small bit of education may help you formulate your argument better.

Secondly, government provided education is the key to fixing the American lifestyle? Do Americans know that being fat is bad for their health? Do they know that smoking causes cancer? We are a lazy and selfish society--we know the health probelms our lifestyle causes, but we do nothing to fix them. More government education does not fix the problem.

Third, look at some of the countries that rank ahead of the US in terms of infant mortality rate--Iceland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Aruba, Cuba--which of those countries are you running to when you get cancer? By your argument, they have a better healthcare system than we do. Go get lifesaving surgery at your local Slovenian hospital--I'd be curious to hear how that goes.

Next, why doesn't the government control all industries if they can do it cheaper and more effectively. Because they can't (see the former Soviet Union). All the government can do is ensure 100% of people get coverage. Although that is a nice idea, the costs would be astronomical--the only way the government could hope to keep them down would be by lower reimbursement to physicians, fewer options on your medical plan, fewer medicine choices, etc, etc, etc. What about the people that can afford healthcare? Do they have to accept care that is substandard to what they have now just so more people can have crappy coverage?

Last, how do you determine that the current system is bankrupting our economy? Did the Federal Reserve Bank close, and I didn't hear about it? Is unempoyment at an all-time high b/c employers can't afford to provide health insurance to their employess? Your argument is a little too "slippery slope" to have even a shred of validity to it.

Again, what you want it this--higher taxes, fewer jobs, more government red tape, & lower salaries. That sounds great for our economy!

Dudes, can't you both just call each other "dickhead" and be done with this already? Jesus H. Christ!!!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Dudes, can't you both just call each other "dickhead" and be done with this already? Jesus H. Christ!!!

You're right! I'm the one who is defending a nationalized system, and I should already know that most AZ people are totally opposed to any threat to their jobs, and truly do believe the drivle that they are bombarded with from the industry and their customers. I also know two things for sure:

1) America will soon have a nationalized medical/drug plan, and
2) America has no choice, if for no other reason than we can't afford not to have one (it's as simple as that)

See 'ya. Pointless discussion ended!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Dudes, can't you both just call each other "dickhead" and be done with this already? Jesus H. Christ!!!

Actually, I'll just call YOU dickhead and be done with it. AHHHHHH, that feels much, much better!

Originally Posted by Anonymous

You're right! I'm the one who is defending a nationalized system, and I should already know that most AZ people are totally opposed to any threat to their jobs, and truly do believe the drivle that they are bombarded with from the industry and their customers. I also know two things for sure:

1) America will soon have a nationalized medical/drug plan, and
2) America has no choice, if for no other reason than we can't afford not to have one (it's as simple as that)

See 'ya. Pointless discussion ended!

1) Keep smokin' what you're smokin, dude
2) You're stupid

Originally Posted by Anonymous

You're right! I'm the one who is defending a nationalized system, and I should already know that most AZ people are totally opposed to any threat to their jobs, and truly do believe the drivle that they are bombarded with from the industry and their customers. I also know two things for sure:

1) America will soon have a nationalized medical/drug plan, and
2) America has no choice, if for no other reason than we can't afford not to have one (it's as simple as that)

See 'ya. Pointless discussion ended!

"America has no choice" pretty much sums up your position. I think that says it all Herr Komarad...

I think we need more Pods!! 2 in each territory should do the trick. Who cares if johnny can't get his asthma meds
The company pays my car insurance now, not my Dad and I'm only 23 and make 80 grand!!! Go big pharma!!!!! WEEEEEEEEEE

Originally Posted by Anonymous

I think we need more Pods!! 2 in each territory should do the trick. Who cares if johnny can't get his asthma meds
The company pays my car insurance now, not my Dad and I'm only 23 and make 80 grand!!! Go big pharma!!!!! WEEEEEEEEEE

Not for long, Chuckie!