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

Oh yeah he's doing just that. hmm

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

Well said Dr.

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

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

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

This is why the electoral college needs to be done away with. It's archaic and antiquated, and no longer needed. Some people stupidly say it prevents more popular states from having more of a say than the smaller states but that's bullshit. 1 person = 1 vote. The way it's setup right now is 1 person's vote in a rural state = 3 votes in a more populated state.

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

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

Hey! No fighting in my name! ;)

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

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

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

Sweeeeeet!


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


now. can anybody mail me some percs? ;)

:cool: I think Y's gotcha there, Bruce.

Well stated.

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

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


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

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

We, on the other hand, see tax money as insurance for the whole population i.e. the individual citizen. The funds are there for us when we need it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that the whole idea with democratic, political policies? :f187: