RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
read more of todays top articles

Moore writes: "Now that the individual mandate is officially here, let me begin with an admission: Obamacare is awful."

Portrait, Michael Moore, 04/03/09. (photo: Ann-Christine Poujoulat/Getty Images)
Portrait, Michael Moore, 04/03/09. (photo: Ann-Christine Poujoulat/Getty Images)


The Obamacare We Deserve

By Michael Moore, The New York Times

01 January 13

 

ODAY marks the beginning of health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act's new insurance exchanges, for which two million Americans have signed up. Now that the individual mandate is officially here, let me begin with an admission: Obamacare is awful.

That is the dirty little secret many liberals have avoided saying out loud for fear of aiding the president's enemies, at a time when the ideal of universal health care needed all the support it could get. Unfortunately, this meant that instead of blaming companies like Novartis, which charges leukemia patients $90,000 annually for the drug Gleevec, or health insurance chief executives like Stephen Hemsley of UnitedHealth Group, who made nearly $102 million in 2009, for the sky-high price of American health care, the president's Democratic supporters bought into the myth that it was all those people going to get free colonoscopies and chemotherapy for the fun of it.

I believe Obamacare's rocky start - clueless planning, a lousy website, insurance companies raising rates, and the president's telling people they could keep their coverage when, in fact, not all could - is a result of one fatal flaw: The Affordable Care Act is a pro-insurance-industry plan implemented by a president who knew in his heart that a single-payer, Medicare-for-all model was the true way to go. When right-wing critics "expose" the fact that President Obama endorsed a single-payer system before 2004, they're actually telling the truth.

go to original article

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+80 # universlman 2014-01-01 10:33
Flood insurance is a single-payer system that benefits mostly waterfront home and business owners. Waterfront property belongs mostly to the wealthy.

Why is single-payer only blocked when it would reduce risks for everyone?
 
 
+88 # Barbara K 2014-01-01 11:19
We could have gotten the single pay plan or all Medicare one, but it was blocked in the Senate (I watched the entire legislating and votes, etc. on the ACA as it was being formed). So it was decided that we could go this route just to get it, and it can be changed when there are enough Dems to make it Medicare for all. It was a battle all the way to get what we did get. The Rs filibustered every single thing, the 2 ladies from Maine were the only Rs that voted FOR anything in the ACA. We need more Dems to get it improved on. It was a shame that Senators Kennedy and Byrd became ill early on and couldn't be there to help with it all the way thru. There was a thunderous round of applause when the final vote came up and they were pushed in in wheel chairs to vote for the ACA. As Kennedy said in the beginning "We will take half a loaf and come back for the rest later". We are waiting for a lot of Dems so they can go back for the rest. It really hurt when Kennedy was replaced with an R, no more super majority in the Senate. Glad he is gone now, and trying to move to New Hampshire to run for the Senate there. Hope the voters there stop him. He knows he cannot beat Elizabeth Warren. As for me, I'm hoping for Medicare for all. It isn't free, we pay for it, but it is cheaper, and we also need a supplement for what it doesn't cover.

..
 
 
+19 # Charles3000 2014-01-01 12:15
I hear you, Barbara. That is a great report on the trek to getting the ACA passed but I disagree with you on "Medicare for All". I like "VA Health Care for All" much better.
 
 
+12 # TCinLA 2014-01-01 14:01
Yes, my "government paid, bureaucrat-run" VA health care is so vastly superior to what my wife gets the runaround for with damn Medicare - you couldn't drag me into Medicare with a team of horses. And it only cost a year in Hell. :-)
 
 
+18 # Malcolm 2014-01-01 19:07
Interesting. Medicare must vary in different areas. I've been on Medicare for 3 1/2 years, and it feels SO good to not worry about my health costs anymore! And everything about it-doctors, nurses, hospital, pharmacy-operat e like well tuned machines.

I honestly can't suggest a single change!

Medicare has saved me well over $100,000, so far.
 
 
+12 # Holy Cow 2014-01-01 15:39
Problem(s), and then some, with VA Health Care, Charles3000: My brother, a 100% disabled vet, has had to get much needed surgeries (one with cancer involved) in the last few years done privately, do to the VA's docs and dentists being unwilling and/or unable to do those much needed surgeries. Comments from docs, dentists, pharmacists, et. al.: "My hands are tied.", "This is not practicing medicine." etc..

And, then there are the serious problems and delays of vets getting meaningful disability ratings, many of whom, unlike my brother, have no way to pay for private docs/healthcare . Very good healthcare for all solution:

HEALTHCARE NOT WARFARE!
 
 
0 # Failed Republican 2014-01-05 11:35
Warfare will be necessary to rid Congress of obstructionist republicans. Only then will true healthcare benefits evolve.
 
 
+4 # karester 2014-01-02 01:11
@charles3000, I am glad you are receiving satisfactory healthcare from the VA. I live in Lexington, KY where we have a large VA hospital adjacent to the University of Kentucky Medical Center. They are connected by a tunnel and share personnel and technology. I know several vets who have given up their free VA insurance and opted to pay the Medicare premiums and co-pays.

It is a shame that the ACA Congress passed was a watered-down version. What's even sadder is the huge numbers of progressives who have jumped ship, before Jan. 1, 2014. I think we owe it to the most unfortunate among us, to adopt it (flaws and all) and keep working to make it better.
 
 
+49 # pappajohn15@Gmail.com 2014-01-01 11:22
Not about risks, it's about profit.

Insurance companies, drug companies, for-profit hospitals, etc., all get 10 million to 30 million new customers paid for and compelled to enroll, by the government. These institutions and their employees (Congress, Obama, both parties) are willing to run out the clock, as the tobacco companies are doing, for as long as there is a buck to be made.

Single payer is the only way to go, and Mike goes on to say that lowering (gradually?) the eligibility age for our single payer system (Medicare) would solve both Medicare's and ObamaCare's problems. It would back us into single-payer.

This is a doable thing, I would think. Might be my new cause!
 
 
0 # Rain17 2014-01-04 17:03
Single-payer right now is politically a nonstarter. If single-payer is ever to become a reality American attitudes toward government are going to have to significantly change.
 
 
+1 # Failed Republican 2014-01-05 11:37
Yes, we have an extremely unknowledgeable electorate fed GOP lies on a daily basis.
 
 
+8 # Alexis Fecteau 2014-01-01 12:14
Because it reduces risk and costs for the 99%. You know better...
 
 
+14 # Holy Cow 2014-01-01 13:00
Think the answer to your 'why' question is included in St. Michael the Irish devil's excellent article, when he brings up Obama's o.k.ing of single payer in 2004, then jumping on board the Obamacare Caca, kinda like Obama's stating he was going to veto the 2012 NDAA with it's article that quashes beyond belief fundamental, key rights (i.e. not to be arrested, no charges, no trial/due process, indefinite detention), then undercover signing it on New Year's Eve while in Hawaii. The answer to the 'why' appears he's scared off and/or bought off.

Single payer is blocked because the greedy villainaires in the insurance industry would not get near the $$$$$$$ they must have to comfortably keep in place their greed and power over all addiction, just as other 1% villainaires demanded Obama's support and again got it in '12 and now in the '14 NDAA.

The Obamacare fiasco should shake us all, and get us asking many questions before any more knee jerk voting for pols. in any party.
 
 
+3 # BKnowswhitt 2014-01-01 17:19
Single payer is blocked because some 9% of the economy is health care as privatised today. That knocks that right out of the park and destroys that segment of the economy. No one can get elected without big pharma and other healthcare related campaign contributions. That's why Obama did not fight it more .. this will ultimately fail once the other side gets in office and ultimately down the road some time ... Single Payer means Government Run and subsidized or in the case of USA .. private contracts will be bid out and won to run that system should it ever get in place .. It's all based on economics lobbyists and our corruptible electoral system .. gee why did Rome Fail?!!!!
 
 
+3 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2014-01-01 19:07
Here is another question for you. First, the military/indust rial complex which "manufactured" the new Iraqi Constitution included Article 31. What is Article 31? Article 31 guarantees every Iraqi citizen Universal Health Care under a SINGLE payer system. Why is it that the U.S. did not create such a plan for U.S. citzens? Insurance co. dollar muscle, lobby power. Corrupt bought-out politicians. Scare tactics by right wing media to misinform the gullible. Agreat Universal Law: "people are where they are because that is where really want to be. Whether they want to admit it or not." When the people wake up, stick together, change happens.
 
 
0 # rayb-baby 2014-01-03 15:02
When the people wake up????????? Most of the people when they're awake are too busy watching Honey Boo Boo, Duck Dynasty, football and are watching corporate controlled media that doe the best they can to keep the public un-informed.
 
 
-1 # rayb-baby 2014-01-03 14:53
Flood insurance is not single payer, you still have to pay into it. What the government does do is treat all natural disasters pretty much the same, like tornadoes, earthquakes, etc. They'll help to rebuild, but you never get the recovery that insurance will provide. But the rich certainly do have an un-balanced advantage as they're building on beaches they shouldn't be allowed to, to begin with. All the dunes get flattened and put more people at risk.
 
 
-27 # cordleycoit 2014-01-01 10:54
Is Mike buying into the NYT pay to play plan?
 
 
+14 # DurangoKid 2014-01-01 11:29
As much as I like the single payer idea, it has a systemic flaw that no one seems to be talking about. It will almost certainly require an increase in taxes as health insurance premiums are phased out. Someone somewhere still pays. If we look at the history of taxation over the last 60 years, the pattern has been to shift the burden of taxes away from the rich and corporations to the poor and middle class workers. I can't help but think that the classes of people who pay for single payer will have to fork over a larger fraction of their income and if the pattern persists it will not be the rich and the corporations. Regressive taxation notwithstanding , we'll probably be getting a better deal just by stopping the skimming of premiums into corporate coffers. Medicare for all would have a 3% overhead vs. the 25% overhead that is the basis of insurance company profits. Also, bulk buying by a single entity could force prices lower by forcing suppliers to compete. The danger as always is from the unscrupulous who in the name of free markets will attempt to game the system by overcharging or selling substandard products. But, nothing's perfect and what we have now is a racket.
 
 
+45 # brux 2014-01-01 12:06
> It will almost certainly require an increase in taxes as health insurance premiums are phased out. Someone somewhere still pays.

Master of the bleeding' obvious. Yes, taxes increase, premiums go away.

The subtext is that the people have to demand that the rich pay their share of taxes. Even more important than health care.
 
 
+10 # reiverpacific 2014-01-01 18:43
Quoting brux:
> It will almost certainly require an increase in taxes as health insurance premiums are phased out. Someone somewhere still pays.

Master of the bleeding' obvious. Yes, taxes increase, premiums go away.

The subtext is that the people have to demand that the rich pay their share of taxes. Even more important than health care.


On the other hand, if you look at your private health insurance premium (if you are lucky enough to have one) as a deduction from a paycheck or an expense if self employed (or "self-exploited " as I call it here), it's a pretty significant chunk and carries deductibles and co-pays, and separate premiums if you want Dental, Vision, Mental or alternative coverage if you can even get it, a small tax to cover ALL of that with no deductibles or co-pays, puts it in a whole different light -and also covers everybody including people who are locked out of the disgusting non-sytem still in force over much of these fragmented states through unemployment bad luck or simply exclusivity of who can't afford it.
Of course there are a lot of reactionaries here who trumpet "Why should I pay for these out-of-work bums?" -until they themselves lose their job or get bankrupted by insufficient coverage. Shines a whole different light on life, I can tell you from bitter experience.
 
 
+3 # propsguy 2014-01-01 23:35
yes, someone always pays but at least they won't pay for some desk jockey to run off with $109 million in a year

your "subtext" interpretation is total bullshit. i'd happily pay for health insurance if it wasn't all about ungodly and unearned profits

here's a truthier truth- the rich demand that the poor keep subsidizing them

you tell me what anyone does to "earn" $109 million a year. cure any cancers lately?
 
 
+2 # coberly 2014-01-01 12:51
Durango

as long as you are looking for something for nothing, the bad guys will beat you. that's their game.

on the other hand the people CAN pay for their own health care... once they make up their minds it's worth it to them... and by making it "single payer" they can have something to say about lowering costs.

fact is, we make more money that our grandparents did. if we have to pay a larger PER CENT of that money for the health care we need to live longer and healthier lives, then that's what money is for. but if you insist the rich pay for your health care so you can spend "your" money in Las Vegas you will get the health care plan you deserve.
 
 
+24 # DurangoKid 2014-01-01 13:11
My point is FAIR taxation to pay for healthcare. Fair as in taxing profits more and labor less. Kind of like it was in the 1950's with the high marginal rates reserved for the high rollers. Now we have lower real wages, higher taxes, and less prosperity. Where did it all go?
 
 
+8 # Regina 2014-01-01 17:22
Coberly: Yes we make more money than our grandparents did, but their money went megamiles further. I can remember milk at 10 cents a quart and bread at 10 cent a loaf, green veggies at 6 cents a pound, and postage at 2 cents a letter, etc. The crackpot right wants 1930s wages in the 2010s. And St. Michelle Bachmann tells us that those who do not work shall not eat -- the problem is that people who DO work can't eat on what that work pays them, today, in 2014.
 
 
+8 # Malcolm 2014-01-01 19:14
Can anyone explain why health care costs have increased SO MUCH more than the inflation rate. In 1965, I spent 93 days in hospital (bad accident). The private room cost only $22.50/day. $22.50/day won't get you a coat hanger in today's hospitals!
 
 
+2 # DurangoKid 2014-01-01 22:12
There are several reasons
1. Inflation. Prices go up because the value of money declines as banks keep lending more to pay off old loans and interest. Wages on the other hand always trail inflation. Thus your buying power always declines.
2. Big Pharma passes the cost of money along to the customers.
3. The corporate medical system always demands profits that stay ahead of inflation.
4. Corporations demand growth in profits. Old treatments are replaced with new treatments. Constant research comes up with new treatments for diseases that were previously difficult to treat.
5. Profit margins for drugs and medical equipment are very large. In some cases 60%. Also medical equipment is manufactured according to high standards. Almost like spacecraft and you know how expensive that is.
6. Insurance companies demand high profits. And they pass their costs onto their customers with no real regard as long as they keep selling insurance.
7. Patent law allows pharma to operate as monopolies until the patent runs out.
8. Corporations have ruined the American diet with sugar and other processed food like substances. Diabetes alone will break Medicare by 2026.
9. People are living longer and expect to live longer. 60% of medical costs are for the last 60 days of life.

Did I leave anything out? Oh, yeah.
10. Greed.
 
 
+2 # DurangoKid 2014-01-01 22:31
And expect it to get worse. Conventional oil production peaked around 2006. The era of cheap oil is over. Unconventional oil production will peak and decline in the next decade or two. Then the cost of energy will really take off.

Then there's the problem of oil producing regions consuming more of their own oil rather than exporting it. The export market for oil could decline twice as fast as oil production itself.

As an aside, consider Egypt. They will stop exporting oil in a few years. Already food and fuel prices have caused the fall of their president. Imagine how bad it will be in 10 years when they don't export any oil at all. What will they trade for food let alone medicine? Other countries will follow Egypt.

Our medical system is very complex and complexity requires energy to maintain. Add to that all the advances in medical science and all the cures it makes possible. More and more layers of complexity are required to maintain these advancements. And complexity requires energy.

Unfortunately, the replacements for oil are not growing fast enough to make up the difference between demand and post-peak production. That means per capita energy consumption will decline, possibly forever.

Oil is not just an energy source, it's a very important feedstock for all kinds of medical equipment and drugs. Think of all the plastic items that are routinely single use and then thrown away.
 
 
0 # Malcolm 2014-01-02 08:23
Thanks-very comprehensive!
 
 
0 # jono1412 2014-01-05 07:03
I would add our expectations have increased. While the big expense is in wound care, diabetic complication, cancer, etc. the spigots have definitely turned on for cash outlay as more and more of us aging want procedures once done only on young athletes and pain is managed by 3 $1000 injections rather than patience and common sense.
 
 
+38 # brux 2014-01-01 11:58
I agree, screw ObamaCare. I have been trying to find something positive in this BS boondoggle for the health-industri al-complex, but face it, the US runs on sick people.

For example, the cheapest plans give you a high-deductable , and a high-co-pay, so what happens is poor people might go to the doctor and pay that $40. Then what happens is the doctor spends that 6 minutes with them or whatever it is, and then gives them a prescription and tells them to come back in a week or two ... to pay another $40 and goes around and around like that. There is no motivation to actually do anything or cure people, just keep giving them the runaround until they get tired and go away or run out of $40 wads of cash.

Doctors these days are miserable, they hate their jobs being micromanaged and trained to do the wrong thing for people ... but what else can they be trained for when the entire country runs on making people sick? Our food is toxic, our land and air is getting more and more toxic. Our products from China are toxic. The stuff we put in our minds, constant violence and junk on TV is also toxic ... hah, health care is a pipe dream until we decide to get serious about what life is, and what health is.
 
 
-51 # brux 2014-01-01 12:08
One thing though, Michael Moore is not to the one to talk about health care either ... here is a guy who has a lot of money and power, and has chosen to be a sickly obese slob. If MM cared about health and health care he would use it and do something about his own health. As a spokesperson for the Progressive cause this guy is an embarrassment in terms of the management of his own life.
 
 
-41 # brux 2014-01-01 12:54
Come on people ... look at the person Michael Moore is, he is not doing the right thing for himself ... think about why that is ... he clearly has issues and is mentally messed up to be such a lard-ass even when he is wildly successful. If he believed in what he was doing he would be charged up and eager to be healthy and look good to represent the people he purports to care about ... why is he obese and sickly ... he is almost 60 years old and has life threatening obesity - he is not going to be around long if he does not do something about his health.
 
 
+6 # Saberoff 2014-01-01 13:38
F*ck off!
Help me out here: Is it that some people just like being adverse - for the sake of it; They like pissing everyone off all the time?

Now I wish I could go back and change my thumbs-up regarding your "screw ObamaCare" post: change it to a negative-thumbs-down.

What a goofy post this is (Moore is too fat to talk about health-care(?)
 
 
-26 # brux 2014-01-01 15:01
The problem with you and other progressives is that you are so overly-emotiona l. That's why you are always being used and never get anything done.

The gist is that who is Michael Moore to lead people when he cannot even manage his own health care and life?
 
 
+7 # Regina 2014-01-01 17:26
So, Brux, are you a sylph, glamorous, gorgeous, and a stunning success because of your stunning looks???
 
 
0 # brux 2014-01-04 14:25
Sylph .... I am not female, can't you tell from my picture? I'm a gargoyle silly.
 
 
+6 # BKnowswhitt 2014-01-01 17:26
M Moore has made all his movies and dough off the sick society we live in that is so gamed by the idiots since Reaganomics. Reaganomics on Steroids caused all of this not Michael Moore. Over Privatisation & Degregulation without representation - that is most of it helps no one 'cept them. I'm a progressive and that means progress. It could be something from the socalled right or socalled left .. you obviously don't get that ...
 
 
+7 # lark3650 2014-01-02 10:46
What do you know about anything? My mother was about 50 lbs overweight all her life. Everyone and his brother used to tell her she should lose weight and get healthy. My mother passed away at the age of 101. She was on no medication. She had attended exercise class, which she did 3 days a week, and attended a class the week before she died. She out-lived all the friends and relatives that told her she had to lose weight to get healthy. What she had going for her that none of the others did is that she never took a flu shot, she ate everything but in moderation and she exercised....bu t more importantly, she had a wonderful attitude about life and enjoyed herself, and that is worth more than any pill you can prescribe.

I am not a dem or a rep...I don't believe either of those parties have the best interest of the people at heart. They just want to keep people fighting amongst themselves while they manipulate them and support what they really represent....th e almighty dollar. Greed is the destroyer of man and it is destroying this country.
 
 
-2 # brux 2014-01-04 14:27
So you must think that to live a long time you have to be fat ... so, are you 50 pounds overweight thinking it will extend your life? I bet not. I bet you do not really think that. If your story is true, your Mom was lucky, and had good genes. Good for her, most people do not. I doubt Michael Moore ever exercises, he sure has zero muscle tone.

Did your Mom have a triple chin?
 
 
0 # lark3650 2014-01-06 08:05
What I do know is that name calling never served anyone. What Michael Moore has done is tried to be a voice for the people. What have you done for your fellowmen?
 
 
0 # reiverpacific 2014-01-02 13:38
Quoting brux:
The problem with you and other progressives is that you are so overly-emotional. That's why you are always being used and never get anything done.

The gist is that who is Michael Moore to lead people when he cannot even manage his own health care and life?


Better emotional than a cold, calculating taker and systematic people-and-syst em wrecker.
I guess you are like Iago "I will wear my heart on my sleeve for daws to peck on", whilst plotting a good man's downfall.
M.M. seems to be a pretty happy and certainly accomplished dude to me and seems to be hewing to his working class roots in appearance. Who the fuck cares how he dresses -and how d'you know what he eats?
Ever heard of "handsome is as handsome does"?
Prefer the immaculately turned-out Koch Bro's or Wall Street, Corporate/gover nment 'suits', or "the "Fixed" news expensively turned-out liars and blonde-bimbos, do you?!
 
 
-2 # brux 2014-01-04 22:45
> Prefer the immaculately turned-out Koch Bro's or Wall Street, Corporate/gover nment 'suits'

Haha ... so it's OK when you stereotype Wall St. types, but when I call attention the unflattering image of Michael Moore the Leftist icon it's calculating. You really have no answer at all do you.
 
 
0 # reiverpacific 2014-01-06 12:50
Quoting brux:
> Prefer the immaculately turned-out Koch Bro's or Wall Street, Corporate/gover nment 'suits'

Haha ... so it's OK when you stereotype Wall St. types, but when I call attention the unflattering image of Michael Moore the Leftist icon it's calculating. You really have no answer at all do you.


It's almost hopeless to answer you vainglorious posturing but it's YOU who are doing the "stereotyping"; I was just giving some prime examples.
M.M. has put his life on the line and had to hire a security guard of Navy Seals after "Farenheit 9-11" was released.
I actually don't entirely agree with him on the subject matter in this article, although I'm a local advocate and leader for Universal health Care in Oregon but I still admire the man and his courage. I also met him backstage about five years ago after an inspiring and at times hilarious address in portland, Oregon and he's the sort of guy I'd love to have gone for a beer with but he was swamped by admirers.
Better a bit of a paunch and a sense of humor that a hate-monger in Armani.
BTW, I'm a bit overweight myself; it keeps me warm in winter with my daily intake o' Scotch. I also never eat junk food, cook and eat VERY well, cull, recycle and waste almost nothing. That's one of the solutions to health, not a bunch of "diet supplements', and slimmer's meals, all carefully chemically pumped, prettily packaged and heavily marketed.
Have a problem with that too?
What's YOUR activist record BTW?
 
 
-1 # jono1412 2014-01-05 07:10
I actually agree that MM should lose weight. But his health is not indicative of the accuracy of his assessments of the system.

And along your lines I have long thought that Chris Christie's best move in running for President would be to announce his diet as a metaphor for reducing government spending and make it a point in each speech and appearance. If he loses weight he would be hard to get off the front page.

But until he does I guess you will not be supporting him.
 
 
+18 # TCinLA 2014-01-01 14:04
Thanks for the first idiot posts of 2014, Brux.
 
 
-16 # brux 2014-01-01 15:04
Make a New's Year's resolution and think instead of letting your overly-emotiona l knee-jerk responses drive your life. I have a point, you can agree or disagree, but you are so hot-headed and passive all you can do is try to insult me. Notice I said "try" ... I know about people like you, I see you posting here day after day instead of thinking or getting a life or doing something. You think posting insults to people who provoke your emotions is being a real activist ... whoopee!
 
 
-1 # brux 2014-01-04 14:23
Someone (you) looking for an idiotic post must be an idiot (you) ... but since you are an idiot, you cannot even figure out what an idiotic post is, so thanks for the thanks, but you don't know what you are saying or doing anyway, you must go elsewhere to find the idiocy that appeals do much to you.
 
 
0 # reiverpacific 2014-01-06 12:52
Quoting brux:
Someone (you) looking for an idiotic post must be an idiot (you) ... but since you are an idiot, you cannot even figure out what an idiotic post is, so thanks for the thanks, but you don't know what you are saying or doing anyway, you must go elsewhere to find the idiocy that appeals do much to you.


What an arrogant, blinkered, seemingly humorless prick you are, judging by you posts at least!
You must be a whole lot of fun to be around.
 
 
+11 # jmcg 2014-01-01 14:35
Are you his doctor? Do you know what health issues, if any, he has?

Let me respectfully suggest that unless you are a licensed physician who has actually examined and attended to Mr. Moore that you keep your questionable medical opinions to yourself.
 
 
-17 # brux 2014-01-01 15:05
Whatever ... if Michael Moore has an actual doctor he ought to fire him and get a new one.
 
 
+3 # jmcg 2014-01-01 16:37
Please refer to your previous post in response to TCinLA. Glass houses.
 
 
+16 # gertie 2014-01-01 16:26
Could some of these same arguments be used to describe Mr. Limbaugh? Obesity? Check! Poor health? Check! Lot of money and power? Check! Spokesperson? Check! And finally, "an embarrassment in terms of the management of his own life?" Double check!
 
 
+3 # Saberoff 2014-01-01 20:50
Ya, and how 'bout fat-ass Rush!
 
 
0 # Saberoff 2014-01-01 20:56
Sorry. You already referred to fat-ass Rush, above.
 
 
+7 # Malcolm 2014-01-01 19:18
Your ad hominem attacks on Moore are totally of topic. Btw, how's your blood pressure today? You might want to be careful not to damage YOUR health-hatred is not healthy, physically OR mentally.
 
 
+6 # tabonsell 2014-01-01 20:34
Has anyone ever shown that Michael Moore's weight has harmed his overall health?

Many physicians and researchers are coming to the realization that weight does not have to be a negative to one's health.Many skinny people are in poor health while many heavy people are doing just fine.

In my case I put on a lot of weight (60-70 pounds) after quitting smoking and as a former linebacker I have gotten along just fine. In my last physical at the VA, my attending physician told me, "what ever you are doing, just keep doing it."

Maybe Michael is just keeping doing it just fine.
 
 
-1 # brux 2014-01-04 14:19
> Many physicians and researchers are coming to the realization that weight does not have to be a negative to one's health.

Really .... who? More likely a lot more physicians are saying that the guidelines we have set up for fat, cholesterol, blood sugar are way too high and we have to reevaluate what levels of these things cause premature disease and death.

I'll bet you get really pissed off at the Republicans when they deny the scientific literature on Global Warming, but here you are making up scientific data on being fat.
 
 
0 # noitall 2014-01-02 13:42
Can't do any better than aping the ape, brux. Let's have a look at your fat ass.
 
 
-1 # brux 2014-01-04 14:20
Ha ... you would want to see my ass ... no thanks. But I will say I don't have a quadruple, triple or double chin, and I mostly eat vegetarian and vegan. I am doing something, I get 2 hours of exercise almost every day. If Michael Moore did that think about how many people he would influence and how many people would look up to him a lot more. You are so busy trying to attack me ... I'm guessing you have a motivation for that.
 
 
+4 # SusanT136 2014-01-02 00:29
Quoting brux:
One thing though, Michael Moore is not the one to talk about health care either ... here is a guy who has a lot of money and power, and has chosen to be a sickly obese slob...As a spokesperson for the Progressive cause this guy is an embarrassment in terms of the management of his own life.


Your criticism implies that one must be "perfect" before speaking out on any issue. MM certainly has the flaw that he is significantly overweight. So what? In reading his articles and seeing his movie about healthcare, I personally believe him to be much more knowledgable than say, thin Fox "newsmodel" Megan Kelly.

If we have to wait for "perfect" people to be spokespersons for important causes, it will be a long wait.
 
 
-1 # brux 2014-01-04 14:16
> Your criticism implies that one must be "perfect" before speaking out on any issue.

Not really ... maybe to you it does, that was not my intention.

Moore made "Roger and Me" in 1989, he has had pretty large success, and he has not really done anything. He's made a lot of money, can do what he wants ... what he wants is to be fat and sickly and risk his health. I'm just saying why is that?

I don't need him to be perfect, I would like him to be an example and a role model for others though.

You don't have to do it, just try, and maybe if you are lucky you can show some improvement and lead people. That is what America needs. Certainly Michael Moore "needs" to lose weight so he does not get type-2 diabetes and heart disease and die.

Do you want him to die? Your silly comment would be like me saying "so, I guess you want Michael Moore to die?"
 
 
0 # Cassandra2012 2014-01-02 13:19
Tacky post!
 
 
0 # reiverpacific 2014-01-02 13:30
Quoting brux:
One thing though, Michael Moore is not to the one to talk about health care either ... here is a guy who has a lot of money and power, and has chosen to be a sickly obese slob. If MM cared about health and health care he would use it and do something about his own health. As a spokesperson for the Progressive cause this guy is an embarrassment in terms of the management of his own life.


"Judge not lest you yourself be judged"!
I suppose you prefer the Robert Redford model (nothing wrong with that either) as a "cute" example of progressive right-livelyhood.
Tut-tut: we can't all be Brat Pitt lookalikes.
 
 
-1 # brux 2014-01-04 14:11
Because you disagree with me, or I disagree with you about some statement does not give you the right to assume you know anything else about me. How silly is that? This is part of what I'm talking about, why are all the people who cannot think straight part of some fundamentalist type group, either the far right and the unthinking "ditto heads" or the far left who think Michael Moore can do no wrong?

I agree and like a lot of what Moore has said, but words are words, and he gets paid a lot of money for bringing these feelings out in people. What does he believe himself, or what does he do? I don't know.

I do know that despite all the left writers and talkers there is no headway being made into the closed minded right-wingers, and no action being brought about by the left either. In other words the status quo is simply people like Moore on one side and Limbaugh on the other making money off everyone else who just sit and watch.
 
 
+7 # Susan1989 2014-01-01 12:18
In order to have single payer work, education of doctors will have to be subsidized by the government. Young people will not be willing to go into deep debt if they will be earning far less. I have frends who are docotrs who complain that they can no longer cover their costs...and that they need full time employees to keep up with the paperwork.
 
 
+6 # Malcolm 2014-01-01 19:22
I too have doctor friends, but they drive ultra expensive cars, and all own AT LEAST two homes.
 
 
+1 # mjc 2014-01-02 13:09
Absolutely, Susan1989. Our entire "middle class culture" which places doctors as next to God would have to be re-drawn to remove the iconic DOCTOR from that status. Doctors themselves are also very willing to tell you, the patient, how wonderful they are, as well. And then there are the insurance companies and the drug companies....
 
 
+33 # Susan1989 2014-01-01 12:20
I will add tha the concept of having health care connected to employment is a ridiculous system. It not only discourages employers from hiring, but also creates a situation where employees feel chained to jobs they hate...
 
 
+1 # Malcolm 2014-01-01 19:23
I agree.
 
 
+16 # 2wmcg2 2014-01-01 12:49
Michael Moore is gutsy and has intellectual integrity. I agree with his argument; but where do we go from there.
 
 
-23 # brux 2014-01-01 15:09
Yep, Moore is amazingly gutsy ... and he needs a huge obese stomach to hold all his guts ... he'll probably die pretty soon from a heart problem from being so gutsy/obese.
 
 
+4 # jmcg 2014-01-01 16:39
Please refer to your response to TCinLA. Again, I say Glass Houses.
 
 
+3 # Byronator 2014-01-01 23:27
How old are you, brux? I mean, seriously. Are you over 18? C'mon, fess up.
 
 
+5 # propsguy 2014-01-02 00:08
are you saying that people who don't measure up to your ideal of health have no right to any opinions?

please say something constructive or go away
 
 
-1 # brux 2014-01-04 14:06
> are you saying that people who don't measure up to your ideal of health have no right to any opinions?

No, if you want to know what I'm saying - read it.

I do think that Moore's continued obesity says something about him. I cannot judge what that is, but I think it bears consideration.

To ignore that people judge other people by their looks is foolish, or to attack me for being human is foolish. I am trying not to be negatively influenced by Mike's weight, but his health is a big deal, should be a bigger deal to him, yet he cannot get control of his eating and health.

What does that mean about how how thinks and behaves?
 
 
+24 # Sweet Pea 2014-01-01 13:01
So-what you are basically saying is that this country is so corrupt and inefficient that it is unable to provide healthcare for its citizens-- like other developed nations can. I'm afraid that we have been lied to for many years. We are one of the few advanced nations without it
 
 
+1 # Cassandra2012 2014-01-02 13:22
Advanced?
 
 
+15 # reiverpacific 2014-01-01 13:04
Actually, I'm finding that ACA is working well in states -at least in Oregon and California which have accepted the funds and have worked hard at making it function with their own staff and volunteers straightening out the appalling boondoggles (mostly at the hands of "consultant" hi-tech firms -I even suspect some sabotage there).
Of course Universal Coverage is the ultimate goal -anything else in NOT a system. I'm tired of repeating it but I'm an area leader of HCAO (Health Care for All Oregon) Oregon to push such a measure through state government; of course opposed by the same deep-pocketed suspects but gathering plenty support in spite of them.
But can you IMAGINE the howls and "over-my-dead-b ody" reactionary attack-dog surge of bile, fantasy horror-story fabrication and sabotage tactics from the right and it's press pundits when and if NATIONAL Single Payer ever makes it "on to the table"???!! Hell, they'll be dragging all the deformed, crippled and immobile out of the woodwork to blame it on "Socialist" medical care; I really wouldn't put it past them!
BTW, here's something to set y'r teeth on edge; apparently, the Chinese universal healthcare system doesn't extend into the rural hinterlands. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-25211346
It's a bit like here at present, innit!? A wonder that the looney right hasn't trotted this one out yet as anti-government care propaganda (but then they can't see beyond their own ever-lengthenin g wooden nose ends, can they).
 
 
+6 # h5mind 2014-01-01 13:50
To gauge the success of any large, expensive government program- particularly one as fraught with controversy as Obamacare- it's important to have the most credible data. It makes sense to ask the doctors, none of whom seem to feature in stories on the ACA roll out.

When we do hear from the medical profession at all, it's to report doctors' dissatisfaction with the new law, to the point where many are either refusing insurance carte blanch, or leaving the field altogether.

Finally, we need a better understanding of what sort of coverage and pricing folks are finding on the healthcare exchanges, compared to their pre-ACA plans. After the 2 month fiasco of the administration "not knowing" how many even signed up, it's safe to say we need independent verification of such data.

It's important to remember legislation like this didn't just materialize out of rainbows and good intentions. It was authored by the insurance industry for its own particular benefit, as was 'Romney care' upon which it was modeled.
 
 
+26 # goodsensecynic 2014-01-01 14:04
As a Canadian, who enjoys universal, publicly funded health insurance, the entire health care debate in the USA astonishes me. Why anyone, apart from the profiteers, would want costly, inefficient, inequitable health care is beyond me; yet, Americans are mindlessly split on the issue. Paying twice as much for half the health care is, to me, insanity.

That said, I've also been perplexed by Mr. Obama.

Is he a vaguely progressive pragmatist without the wit or the will to get results? Or, is he a tool of the right-wing who's been put into office with orders to fail, thereby disillusioning and marginalizing what passes for the "left" in the USA?

Obama's "drone diplomacy," poor domestic and global environment record, endorsement of the absurd "war on drugs," maintenance of a punitive criminal justice system, refusal to hold Wall Street accountable for the collapse of 2008, approval of domestic spying, etc., all point to him being a right-wing plant. Yet, he speaks so rationally and seemingly sincerely that I dislike thinking ill of him.

So, kudos to Michael Moore. He's relieved me of the burden of worrying about Obama's motives in enabling the Obamacare mess. Moore's simple statement: "Obamacare can’t be fixed by its namesake" lets me move on, leaving the dilemma to the historians and hoping, for America's sake, that the Vermont model works and becomes the template for the republic.

Good luck with that, and good luck to Bernie Sanders as well.
 
 
+15 # geraldom 2014-01-01 14:54
I happen to be Jewish. This country is made up of many different religions, not just Christianity even though it is the largest religious group in the country. For the most part, the Christian religion is the only religion in this country that is against a woman's right to choose.

Our founding fathers purposely made sure in our Constitution that no religious organization controls our government, no matter how large it is. We all know what that is, don't we? "Separation of church and state."

The Christian groups have for the longest time attempted to take over our nation, our government, and under the Bush administration they gained a lot of control. Besides influencing our government at both the national and state levels in passing laws that should not have been passed, they are now being subsidized by our government in their proselytizing efforts to convert non-Christians into their faith with taxpayer money, your tax dollars and my tax dollars being directed to Christian parochial schools and to push their faith even in public school events.

The following article came out today:

http://news.yahoo.com/justice-delays-health-law-39-birth-control-mandate-031614323.html

One of Obama's own supreme court selections, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, has just blocked that part of Barack Obama's new health care law that mandates that all businesses provide health insurance that includes birth control coverage. We're not even talking abortion here. This is prevention.
 
 
+11 # brux 2014-01-01 15:11
Christians in American are synonymous with idiots. They are not even particularly moral, just stupid.
 
 
+7 # geraldom 2014-01-01 20:40
Quoting brux:
Christians in American are synonymous with idiots. They are not even particularly moral, just stupid.


I fully agree with you that Christians in America are synonymous with idiots and are not particularly moral and act stupid, but you forgot to mention that they just happen to be the biggest hypocrites and bigots in the world, and do you know why? As I've already indicated, I happen to be Jewish but not very religious. And I'm in no way a Christian as a member of an organized religion would be, but I feel that I’m more Christian than many Christians in this country because I supported much of what Jesus said in terms of how people should treat their fellow human beings.

Jesus would have been against these illegal U.S. wars of aggression which have caused the untold and innumerable deaths of innocent people and havoc throughout the world, and yet many churches and their members in the U.S. have done very little (or nothing) to stop this slaughter of human beings by the U.S. government for greed and power.

Jesus may or not have approved or tolerated gay people or gay marriage, but he wouldn’t have done anything to try to stop them. Christians in the U.S. do not follow Jesus’ teachings of love and tolerance for their fellow man. One of Jesus' greatest teachings that U.S. Christians should but do not follow is when Mary Magdalene was about to be stoned and Jesus said that those who are without sin should throw the first stone.
 
 
-1 # noitall 2014-01-02 13:45
Quoting brux:
Christians in American are synonymous with idiots. They are not even particularly moral, just stupid.

Quoting brux:
Yep, Moore is amazingly gutsy ... and he needs a huge obese stomach to hold all his guts ... he'll probably die pretty soon from a heart problem from being so gutsy/obese.

Get off it brux. Have nothing more than what you've learned one must look like, then shut TFU!
 
 
+6 # LisaH 2014-01-01 15:47
My husband and I are very excited to have health insurance today. And my husband was able to leave a job that was making him miserable, because he didn't have to stay for the insurance. And I didn't have to leave a job that I love in order to get health insurance. Until today, I could not obtain private insurance due to MS.

Obamacare isn't perfect, but it is a HUGE step for this country - one I never thought I'd see. So, while I respect Mr Moore a great deal, I just can't agree with his anger today.

Michael, let's figure out how to make it better in the years ahead, and at least for today, rejoice that millions of people have access to health care who had nothing yesterday.
 
 
+5 # btraven 2014-01-01 16:29
A British friend of mine in an interesting article pointed out that England has about 45 people shot in a year that ambulances, paid for by their universal health plan have to take to hospitals for free surgery while the U.S. has over 30,000 shot each year and have to be scooped up and taken to a hospital at a minimum cost of close to $300,000,000+ including surgery. You read the interesting comparison he made in 'the contrary perspective.com blog.
Michael Moore is right . We were again flummoxed by the Obama crowd. They have done nothing on guns and turned us over to the insurance companies for our health.
 
 
+7 # BKnowswhitt 2014-01-01 17:38
Moore does not say in my view that Obama 'flumoxed us' he's just saying it's the present reality. His role is to criticize. Joe Lieberman is the 'independant' who lost his seat as a Dem after supporting Bush Cheney and their illegal and lying to go to war in Iraq .. then he ran as an Independant and won his seat anyway in '04. Then he sided with Bush a lot and he was the 60th vote to either vote for The Public Option or Vote Against it. Funded by the insurance industry all his life in Hartford .. 'Jumpin Joe' showed his loyalty to those who put him in office .. as it was not the people .. research this folks .. may lightening strike me dead if i'm wrong .. and i know for a fact this all to be true .. max baucus care .. it's what the finance committee came up with .. then the Dems were allowed to vote on it and they tried to institute the Public Option . making it all into Medicare and Insurance Companies to compete with Medicare Rates ...
 
 
+4 # geraldom 2014-01-01 19:17
BKnowswhitt, it seems to me that you're implying in your comment that Obama needed 60 votes to pass the Affordable Care Act (or AKA Obamacare). If that is what you're implying, then you are in grave error.

The Senate Democrats used reconciliation to pass the ACA or else it would not have passed. They only needed 51 votes, a simple majority of the Senate to pass it. This is why I am so pissed off at Obama among so many other reasons for betraying the people who gave him the presidency in 2008.

At the least, Obama could've easily included the public option in the Bill and it probably would've still passed. At the most, he could've skipped the ACA and the public option altogether and could've possibly pass a single-payer healthcare system where the govt covers healthcare for everyone in the United States, but it was Obama's personal choice to submit this Rube Goldberg system of healthcare with no public option at all.

There are several parts to healthcare coverage:

o The monthly premium
o The deductible
o The Co-payment
o The Coinsurance

It seems that people who sign up for the ACA are responsible for all of the above. I hear of people signing up for the ACA who are paying high premiums each month and who have high deductibles of which they cannot afford. I don't know if there is Coinsurance where the insurance company only pays 80% of the bill, and then there are the co-payments which even people on Medicare have to pay.
 
 
0 # BKnowswhitt 2014-01-02 19:02
Sorry i try to get it all in sometimes too brief. The 60th vote would have given the majority vote to add the public option to Max Baucus Care. They need that to stop any filibuster. Joe Lieberman was that 60th vote had he gone with it. Instead he voted with the insurance industry who put him in office .. thereby halting the public option. the public option would have allowed a dump into medicare as one of your sign up options. that would have gotten us on the way to real single payer ... it almost happened .. maybe the 'Supreme' Court would have struck it down later .. but it almost came to fore ..
 
 
0 # BKnowswhitt 2014-01-02 19:06
One thing Harold. As president Obama could have lobbied for that. In reality he has no effect on the bill except to sign it later. The ACA was created by 7 members of the finance committee not even Congress. After it came out of the finance committee it in the form it was using private insurance required to purchase by all did the Dem Majority get to work with it .. that's how corrupt our system is .. Obama had nothing to do with the bill ultimately ..
 
 
+1 # LeeMG 2014-01-02 05:44
Michael Moore is wrong about Obama's support of single payer. He has often stated an "all of the above" approach that props up the health insurers. He only supported the concept of universal health care in that context.
 
 
0 # BKnowswhitt 2014-01-02 19:10
Michael Moore is correct on saying that Obama supported a single payer system prior to 2004. He did that like he said a lot more campaigning in 2008 that he did not deliver on: Guantanamo, War mentality, etc etc .. reigning in wall street .. that's why i call Obama 'The Great Compromiser' .. he was a bit challenged to begin with as they would have labeled him an angry black man, a socialist etc etc .. presidents get in and by and large rule from the center .. mostly ..
 
 
0 # Futilitarian 2014-01-02 15:15
Where's #penn?
 
 
+1 # heraldmage 2014-01-03 04:38
What's made ACA bad is mandatory insurance without competition from a nonprofit insurer. Insurance companies are out to destroy ACA because it cuts into profits. Without an alternative to profit driven insurance system insurers are offering plans with significantly higher premiums, deductible & co pay with less coverage to make up for the projected losses due to the 80% & new coverage rules.
What we need is to introduce competition into the mix by including Medicare Parts A&B as options. Means tested premiums deductible are set by Congress the co-pay is 20%. The increased premium pool with 0% profits would allow Congress to reduce the co-pays, premiums, deductible & add new services, like real drug coverage not the discount that's called Part D, dental & eye coverage.
Adding Medicare as a coverage option would force the insurance companies to reduce premiums, deductibles & offer better plans to compete as they do with the Medicare Part C Advantage Plans. While Part C may be good for seniors it hurts Part B. Insurance companies are allowed to deny coverage to high risk & the chronically ill protecting their profits but removing low risk pateint from the Part B premium pool.
The Part C law should be changed to incorporate ACA changes. Since Congress allows insurance companies’ access to seniors, Medicare should have access to the insurance companies' low risk customers.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN