One other thing is that the higher income earners in America will resist with all their being universal health care – because they can afford private and they’d pay the highest towards “subsidizing” lower income earners. Add to them private health providers (who are the providers now, only for profit) and I think Michael Moore might find pushing water uphill is a lot easier!

I honestly don’t know where I stand on this issue and I would really like to see this film

i’ve refused to see his other films because i don’t like being preached at. but i’m unsure/uneducated about this, so it’d be interesting to see where he stands.

@thebritgirl –

Quite a bit of taxation.

no doubt. i have trouble thinking of his solution as realistic, because that sort of taxation never goes over well. my #1 puts the burden on SMB’s (with the assumption that there will be credits down the road, supported by another tax, to be sure).

and as for #2, you’re right. in his defense, i think mr. moore knows he’s calling for a regime sea change. while in the current state regulation would almost certainly equal corruption, in the current state, socialism would be nearly impossible.

2.If they co-existed alongside properly publicly funded health options I think they can co-exist.
3. The thought of the meddling government being able to redirect monies into the hands of their cronies (which they will) isn’t a comforting thought. Not sure it’s possible to regulate profits in a society like America, they’d become moribund, sorry Socialist – like France.But they could insist on having more of their profits being directed into research…
1. – yours – You’d need to have (1) above for this to work…but I agree this is a very good idea …