On Monday, the DVD of his film SICKo was released. On Tuesday, a special election referendum proposal (Measure 50) that would have extended health care to all children -- the state tax on a pack of cigarettes would have risen from $1.18 to $2.02, causing Oregon’s cigarette tax to climb from 16th to a tie for third highest nationally to pay for it -- failed.
If passed, the tax increase would have raised close to $150 million in its first year and a half, state budget officials estimated, which would have insured close to 117,000 low- and middle-income children who do not have health insurance.
But that did not deter Moore, who questioned the Oregon proposal himself:
The political activist filmaker now with support from groups like PNHP (Physisans for National Health Care) and the California Nurses Association, Moore wants to know why all the leading Democrats for President are "speechless about Health Care reform."
While Moore is known as a political activist, taking the Dems to task seems to show he does not want politics, he wants governing. Remember the difference. Being better than the Republicans on Health Care is not good enough, Moore says. I found this week -- election week -- interesting and it left me wondering on health care, immigration, the war on iraq, social security -- the list goes on -- can our government get any bold plans done anymore?
Remember (well, in the history books) when JFK said we would go to the moon and we did by the end of the decade? Do you have faith in our government to pass any bold initiatives anymore.
Any bold ideas? Post 'em here. You couldn't do much worse than what most of us think of our current law makers and policy enforcers/
10 comments:
If a democrat is elected President in 2008 and if they ran their campaign with a universal health care plan...then I think that there will be enough pressure on them that they will actually get some health care plan made. It is possible that they will some how use Republicans as an excuse not to pass anything. But if there's a Democratic majority in Congress (which I think is highly likely) and the president's a democrat, then that would be kind of hard to do.
As for Michael Moore, he'll help add to the pressure but alone his documentary wouldn't get anything done.
Once again, I should point out the problems of a government-run healthcare system. Such a system means more government spending when our debt is over $8 trillion, people lining up to see state-assigned doctors instead of doctors of their choice, and more bureaucratic red tape. The Europeans have a very serious problem with trying to get their universal state-provided systems to work. Universal healthcare is a good idea, but we need to find a way to provide it without ruining our economy, such as privatization.
Privatization is a horrible idea because corporations are a bunch of greedy !#@!@ and so will only end up making the system worse - it is counterproductive to have greedy CEOs attempt to provide a service for the people, THEY DONT CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE!!!! Government run healthcare is the answer - a choice in what type of coverage should be provided, but everyone should have that choice. And as for the deficit, if the government would not spend as much in pork and maybe would lower their salaries and give them to the national budget (as true servants of the people should), then the budget would not be such a problem; better management is required.
In a country like America, where business has become an intricate part of government and society, a completly state-run universal heathcare system is not practical nor will it be functional. I think that a pratial state-run and private health coverage system should be put in place. Its true that coporations only care about profits, as portrayed in Sicko, but to completely bypass an already existing system is rediculous. I think that the government should put in place financial assistance as well as standards for insurance companies to deal with their clients. To completely uproot this private health insurance system will create many problems in the future.
As for Garrett's comment about Europe having trouble with their system, they have a very efficient and cost-effective plan set in place to deal with the problems of universal healthcare. To use one or two problems and magnify them indefinately and apply them to America is not accurate because every country is different. America is a corporate country so a combination of state and private run healthcare is the ideal solution for this nation.
Since other people are commenting about whether or not they want a universal health care system and how that should work, I guess I will too.
I agree that it would be ridiculous to try to do away with our current privatized system of health insurance. I do think, however, that some rules need to be imposed upon it to ensure fairness. Medicare and state programs should be kept. Also, I think that a national health care plan should be offered (in addition to this private system) to anyone who wishes to take it. There should be guaranteed eligibility and sufficient benefits (including preventative care). I also like the idea that I heard elsewhere about how employers (who can afford to - small employers should be exempt) should make a contribution to their employees health care OR have to make a contribution to the national health care plan.
The bottom line is that I think everyone has the right to quality health care. And I think that it is possible for everyone in this country to have quality health care if we really dedicate ourselves to this problem instead of simply dismissing it because it might require crossing a lot of red tape and a lot of math and clever ideas to come up with the money.
I find it ironic that Oregon would rather allow smokers who are hurting their health and other peoples' health to keep their current cigarette tax over the benefit of adding over 150 million dollars to healthcare for children. i'm at a loss for words. Why is it ok to let the poison industry flourish and not help kids stay healthy? Why do schools have anti drug programs anyway? The government is clearly teaching them the opposite.
I think its funny, how we, students who really don't have to worry about access to health care, are so easy to comment on whether or not everyone should have it. There is no question about it, everyone deserves healthcare. No one chooses to be born into a family that forces them to endure substandard living conditions. It's easy for people like us, who take the fact that if something happens to us we have so many resources that can save our lives, to take for granted the importance of healthcare. I don't care what the legalities are--the core fact is that health care must be given to all people--we better find a way to do this fast.
I would agree that it is ridiculous to reject the proposal. It seems like a win-win situation for everyone except smokers and tobacco companies. It will save millions in future healthcare as people stop smoking so much and will fund healthcare for children currently. I don't understand why this proposal wouldn't be passed.
In addition, I think it is completely unfair for the tobacco industry to spend so much on cmapaigning. While no laws are technically broken, it seems corrupt. Law makers cannot compete with $12 million on a single state referendum campaign.
I agree with most the comments here. Whether or not it be universal healthcare, our healthcare system is in great need of improvement. It is wrong that in a country so advanced as our own, children are without quality heathcare. While Garrett makes a good point about the cost, I think it is something we as a country just need to deal with. Current healthcare is unacceptable. I agree with Sreeharsha who said that healthcare should be private and state-run. I think the Oregon bill was a great idea. It seemed like a bill with real potential to pass (whereas a bill proposing universal healthcare would never be realistically passed currently).
To answer the question at the end of the blog, I have lost a lot of faith in the govrenment ever passing bold initiatives. It seems like everyone is too concerned about politics and not concerned enough about helping the people.
Also getting back to the last question, I also have little faith in the government being able to pass such initiatives for the same reasons Jean lists. I would like to add the American people to that. If JFK made his moon speech today, everyone would be whining about how hard and risky it is. What happened to our willingness to sacrifice?
America has lost its democratic system. our government's interests are tied up completely in making economic profit and achieving financial security, rather than running a country and protecting its individual's rights. robert heinlein made a good point when he stated: "Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost" in starship troopers. Universal health care is an important necessity that americans are missing. especially under bush, the rich are getting richer and the poor are being ignored by the government. as a result, thousands of people are dying from not being able to pay for health care. there's no way that we could get to the moon unless it was multi-billion dollar rider to another bill that was vital to the country. my bold idea is a separation of businesses and government, minimizing lobbyists in pursuit of solely economic gains.
Post a Comment