Michael Moore's "Sicko" is hot internet news

[ima_nerd]

So government shouldn't fund education either? That is an interesting point of view.

That's just plain nonsense. You might as well say when taxpayers become liable for children's education all of your behaviour comes under the government's control. There is absolutely no connection between funding of healthcare and government control. And if you have a free healthcare system you don't have to use it - as with education, you can pay to go private if you want.

No, they shouldn't. Why should I have to pay for someone else using a service I'm not? If you want to be nice and pay for some random kid's schooling, you could donate money to a private school (in the world where public schools don't exist). The fact is that our public schools are way behind and the private sector is doing a much better job of it. I shouldn't be forced to pay for some crap system that I'm not even using.

During the New Hampshire Republican debate one of the questions was about how prescription drugs are cheaper in other countries. Well, duh, an American buying drugs somewhere like Canada or France is just stealing from the citizens of those countries. When I get sick, I'll buy drugs. I don't want to pay for hypochondriac-crazy-cat-lady down the street thinking she's sick every time she sneezes.

Of course, I'm a crazy Libertarian and those in favor of nationalized healthcare are likely more liberal in their leanings. I guess I'm just a cold-hearted SOB.

[Flymo]

No, they shouldn't. Why should I have to pay for someone else using a service I'm not? If you want to be nice and pay for some random kid's schooling, you could donate money to a private school (in the world where public schools don't exist). The fact is that our public schools are way behind and the private sector is doing a much better job of it. I shouldn't be forced to pay for some crap system that I'm not even using.

During the New Hampshire Republican debate one of the questions was about how prescription drugs are cheaper in other countries. Well, duh, an American buying drugs somewhere like Canada or France is just stealing from the citizens of those countries. When I get sick, I'll buy drugs. I don't want to pay for hypochondriac-crazy-cat-lady down the street thinking she's sick every time she sneezes.

Of course, I'm a crazy Libertarian and those in favor of nationalized healthcare are likely more liberal in their leanings. I guess I'm just a cold-hearted SOB.

Well, I suppose there would be a kind of pleasing symmetry if the US spent more per head than any other Western nation on (private) education but had the worst literacy rate; after all, it currently spends more per head on healthcare but has the worst infant mortality.

[eppie]

No, they shouldn't. Why should I have to pay for someone else using a service I'm not? If you want to be nice and pay for some random kid's schooling, you could donate money to a private school (in the world where public schools don't exist). The fact is that our public schools are way behind and the private sector is doing a much better job of it. I shouldn't be forced to pay for some crap system that I'm not even using.

You are looking at a different problem here. If your schools are crap, do something about it but don't blame the fact that they are public. Our schools in Holland have always been public, often parents once in a while need to pay some school trip, but for the rest it is free. And the schools have always been very good. We actually go to far as to subsidize special schools as well (christian, muslim etc.) although I have serious problems that from my money people are indoctrinated by religion, but the point is that there is enough freedom in teaching....it is just public.

During the New Hampshire Republican debate one of the questions was about how prescription drugs are cheaper in other countries. Well, duh, an American buying drugs somewhere like Canada or France is just stealing from the citizens of those countries. When I get sick, I'll buy drugs. I don't want to pay for hypochondriac-crazy-cat-lady down the street thinking she's sick every time she sneezes.

Of course, I'm a crazy Libertarian and those in favor of nationalized healthcare are likely more liberal in their leanings. I guess I'm just a cold-hearted SOB.

The drug price is made by the pharmaceutical companies right? So mostly it is the patents that you pay for.

[Swiss Mercenary]

It is important that there be a significant amount of incentive for research, because with less research there is going to be less innovation and worse treatment of patients, from diagnosis to cure.

Considering that the biggest holy grail for commercial medical research is finding a drug that 'cures' the symptoms, (Not to mention accountability to shareholders -> Pushing a drug that's less effective then what others already made out on the market -> Not performing or reporting on proper scientific studies (Conducting only the ones required for certification)), commercial medical research is, in my mind a terrible endeavour.

Leave research to scientists - ones that aren't accountable to shareholders.

The incentive for most researchers in the U.S. lies within the monetary gain, and while many who put up the capital for research may be doing it for altruistic reasons, at the end of the day, money is in the back of their mind.

Indeed. Why would you want to spend your life doing research at a university for 80,000$/year, actually trying to come up with drugs that cure people, when you could be getting paid 200,000$/year by a medical company that's not interested with the effectiveness, safety, or oversaturation of the market, as long as it doesn't cut down into their bottom line.

Consider how much money is say, spent on drug advertising - that's money that's not going towards finding new drugs. It's going down the drain.

And the solution to that problem isn't privatising medical research. It's the other way around.

Also, in a government regulated system, research is the most likely area to be cut - there is no other place for budget shortfalls to hit. You can't cut salaries more (then there would be no doctors), the machinery used for testing can't be cut out, and the drugs that are already known must be perscribed and paid for, and so research is where there are problems.

So, instead of paying for something where we'd be getting our money's worth, it's preferable to pay our pill tax to drug companies, who'll spend half of it on marketing, and the other on outrageous (Compared to the public sector) salaries.

I'm not saying that a doctor's worth only 80,000... But When there exists such a gap in salaries, funding, etc, it's no surprise that private companies have monopolised the industry.

As for my second point - my knowledge of the universal systems is fairly limited, but my understanding is that in many cases there is a significant wait between when paper work is filed and when doctors are seen, unless it is an urgent-care situation. An example of the problems with this would arise for someone my age, 19, who is suddenly having health problems. They make an appointment for the doctor, and 6 months later they're seen, in the meantime a disease has progressed in such a fashion that a more complicated, painful, or problematic approach to treatment must be taken. I, as a patient, have lost because of the system.

It's never taken me more then a week between scheduling an appointment, and showing up for one. Now, I've only been to a few specialists, and not some extremely obscure ones, but so far, I've been content with the speed of the process. The results, not so much, but that's what you get for going to doctors. I do hear horror stories about people having to wait 6 months for non-life-threatening operations, but it hasn't been my experience, so far.

And for the record, if you want to see waste, just look at the US medical system. Much more money is wasted per dollar spent on curing people in it, compared to various NHS services throughout Europe or Canada.

[kandrathe]

Well, I suppose there would be a kind of pleasing symmetry if the US spent more per head than any other Western nation on (private) education but had the worst literacy rate; after all, it currently spends more per head on healthcare but has the worst infant mortality.

The education problem is pretty easy to diagnose. The curse of low expectations, zero accountability, and parental apathy.

It isn't for lack of trying that the infants die. CDC - Infant mortality in the US

The US rate is declining consistently, but remains higher than European nations due to a number of factors. We have a higher rate of teen pregnancy, a higher rate of pregnant mothers who use drugs, including cigarettes, and our poor mothers do not practice prenatal care, even though it is free. We also suffer from a high rate of immigration, which continues to put pressure on all social systems, including schools, medical, and other government services. For example, a close friend of mine is an administrator in a large public city school where they are forced to try to accomodate non-english speaking children from 60 nations around the world. My guess is that Sweden is not so fortunate.

[LochnarITB]

The drug price is made by the pharmaceutical companies right? So mostly it is the patents that you pay for.

Second point first - If it was the patents (in reality, research) that were being paid for, then that would be spread equally to the purchase of the drug anywhere. A pill sold in Canada took the same research and ran through the same machines to come into being as the one for sale in the US. The cost should be the same.

As to the drug price. The drug price is set by the insurance company in a couple ways. First, the insurance company negotiates what it will pay for everything, medication and procedures. Providers work backwards from there to determine what they charge. When you see a "retail" on the prescription or on the statement the doctor sends you, that is nothing more than a suggestion. It gives a number that the provider can give to say "see this is what you would have paid without insurance". In reality, the provider takes what they are allowed, the insurance covers its share and then there is an "adjustment" to make everything work out for the coverage.

The insurance company also has a formulary. This determines at what level they will cover various drugs. One tier will be covered to a greater extent than another. One tier might be all the generic drugs. The next might be the very common, inexpensive ones. Another might be the cutting edge, new to the market, expensive ones that will be covered at less of a percentage. Aware doctors think of their patients pocketbooks and tend to prescribe lower tiers. The insurance companies encourage the drug companies to reduce the wholesale cost with the carrot that they can fall to a lower tier and get prescribed more often.

Medical providers have a very real cost of their product or service, but it is only a marginal determinant of what is charged. In reality, they charge as much as the insurance companies allow them to charge. I have worked for an insurance administrator and seen how it works from that side. I have also explained to many providers how they screwed up what they were doing that was wrong in how they billed me for my all too many medical needs. I am far more familiar with this than I would like to be.

[kandrathe]

So government shouldn't fund education either? That is an interesting point of view.

Education is worthy of promoting, but the way in which the government has been involved here is abysmal. But there is a rub between liberty and social benevolence. We should hold parents accountable for the education of their offspring. We gloat at how the Soviet Union disolved itself in a morass of inefficiency and corruption, and yet are blind to the very thing happening directly before us.

I don't understand this insurance point, which your previous post said stopped doctors working for MN Care if I undestood it correctly. Surely if a doctor is in private practice they may get sued for malpractice and need insurance, but if they work for a government organisation it is the organisation that would get sued and so they don't need insurance? That's how it works here anyway.

Health care workers are directly responsible for their own insurance, which makes obstetricians and anesthesiologists almost impossible to fill positions. HMO's dictate all the prices they are willing to pay for medicines, or procedures in clinics, and hospitals. But some States, like mine, dictate in law what illnesses and procedures the HMO's must cover. I believe this results in the over diagnosis and over medication for vague illnesses like depression or attention deficit disorder.

[Flymo]

Education is worthy of promoting, but the way in which the government has been involved here is abysmal. But there is a rub between liberty and social benevolence. We should hold parents accountable for the education of their offspring.

Interesting - I always thought education was something the US had got right. If I've understood correctly how it works, your child goes to the same local high school as all your neighbour's children which means (provided you live in a good neightbourhood) the school should be OK. In my country after elementary school you can apply to go to any secondary (high) school, which sounds good in theory but in practice often means you can't get your child into a good school because they are the most popular ones and your child might not meet the criteria for getting in, which are usually based on how close you live to them. I had to rent a second house next to a school for a year to get my daughter into it - although we had 3 decent schools close to home we dodn't live quite near enough to any of them and would have been given an awful school miles away becase (since no-one wanted to go to it) it had an infinitely big catchment area.

[Hammerskjold]

>O really?? Well I'm an ignorant dutch moron, slightly mentally handicapped and I really thought nobody in Toronto locks their doors, because as an ignorant moron everything I see on TV is true for me, and doesn't make me think a single bit.

Now now, let's not bring your nationality in here since that's of no relevance. Your self professed ignorance and mental deficiencies has nothing to do with the flag you salute to. And besides I know some very nice Dutch people, so I certainly won't hold you or any other self proclaimed moron to be the yardstick of a whole nation.

[Flymo]

It isn't for lack of trying that the infants die. CDC - Infant mortality in the US

The US rate is declining consistently, but remains higher than European nations due to a number of factors. We have a higher rate of teen pregnancy, a higher rate of pregnant mothers who use drugs, including cigarettes, and our poor mothers do not practice prenatal care, even though it is free. We also suffer from a high rate of immigration, which continues to put pressure on all social systems, including schools, medical, and other government services. For example, a close friend of mine is an administrator in a large public city school where they are forced to try to accomodate non-english speaking children from 60 nations around the world. My guess is that Sweden is not so fortunate.

The point about teenage births is a valid one, but the real issue behind infant mortality is that while it is the poor that need healthcare the most in the US the vast majority of health spending is on the rich. Compare the US and UK - health spending in the US $4.5k per person, infant mortality 0.5%. Health spending in the UK $1.7k per person, infant mortality 0.3%. Teenage births are indeed higher in the US, but the UK has the highest rate in Europe. I don't know about cigarette and drug use but suspect they are similar. Accurate immigration figures aren't available for either country but I'm willing to bet immigration is higher in the UK. I haven't seen Sicko but I'm told it showed a British hospital with an empty waiting room - that's something I've never seen. The reality is that waiting rooms are full of migrant workers from Eastern Europe, because as non-residents they don't have family doctors and that's the only place they can get healthcare.

Oh, and at my daughter's London elementary school there were a total of 79 first languages other than English amongst the pupils : )

[[wcip]Angel]

A comment from the sideline:

The youtube-clip containing Moore's admission that he was OK with people downloading his movie is old, and when the reporter asks about "the movie", it's not Sicko he's referring to, but most likely Bowling for Columbine or one of his other earlier works.

Although Michael is entitled to have and express his own opinions, I find it a bit irresponsible of him to practically invite people to pirate his movie. Unless Michael is the sole architect behind the funding, pre-production, writing, directing ,producing, editing, scoring, casting, starring and promoting of the film (and all the other facets of movie-making), he's not the only one depending on the economic turnout of 'his' pictures. There's a lot of other people who contributed to his movies who may NOT be ok with their movie being pirated. Shouldn't Michael check with them before inviting theft?

This is not an anti-pirating post. I'm not entirely innocent of the crime myself, I'm just saying that Michael really shouldn't have OK'd the copying of this movie(s) without checking with every single person involved with the production of that movie.

[ima_nerd]

You are looking at a different problem here. If your schools are crap, do something about it but don't blame the fact that they are public. Our schools in Holland have always been public, often parents once in a while need to pay some school trip, but for the rest it is free. And the schools have always been very good. We actually go to far as to subsidize special schools as well (christian, muslim etc.) although I have serious problems that from my money people are indoctrinated by religion, but the point is that there is enough freedom in teaching....it is just public.

My idea of doing something is to get rid of public schools. If parents get to choose where to send their children, there will be competition and nothing inspires improvement like money. If your school has bad test grades you don't get students and as a result, no money.

[the Langolier]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bN6I5mBGjEk *profanity*

If you haven't seen the movie, that is Moore.

[Swiss Mercenary]

there will be competition and nothing inspires improvement like money.

If so, the US should have the best medical system in the world. :rolleyes:

As for test grades, what a way to encourage teaching to the test, as opposed to... Education.

And lastly, cycle of poverty mean anything to you?

[--Pete]

Hi,

If so, the US should have the best medical system in the world. :rolleyes:

Which it does. Not from the standpoint of fairness (whatever the hell that means) or of cost, but of technique and technology. Which is why the powerful and wealthy come to the USA for their major medical needs.

As for test grades, what a way to encourage teaching to the test, as opposed to... Education.

Another of those stupid, simple, incorrect statements. If the tests are of the 'fill in the blanks, match the columns, true/false' then you are correct. If the tests are essay tests and can cover any part of the subject, then all the subject has to be learned and understood in preperation for the test -- which comes as close to 'education' as I can think of. In addition, I challenge you to name a better way than tests to determine if a student has learned anyhing -- and don't give me 'teacher's evaluation' crap: I've pissed off enough teachers in my life that if I had had to depend on their evaluations instead of my abilities, I'd not have a high school diploma, much less a Ph.D.

And lastly, cycle of poverty mean anything to you?

Yeah, it means that the offspring of people who cannot be bothered to put out an effort will most likely not bother either. Given the vast number of immigrants (my parents among them) who came to the US with neither money, language, nor education and yet still managed to make a good life for themselves and their offspring, anyone playing the 'I'm poor because I come from a poor background' card is, in my opinion, looking for an excuse for their own shortcomings.

--Pete

[Doc]

Given the vast number of immigrants (my parents among them) who came to the US with neither money, language, nor education and yet still managed to make a good life for themselves and their offspring, anyone playing the 'I'm poor because I come from a poor background' card is, in my opinion, looking for an excuse for their own shortcomings.

--Pete

We agree. I could say more, but people would visciously attack me like last time this was brought up.

I will say that people stay poor because they choose to keep making bad choices. Nobody has to be poor. Yes, it is a choice.

That said, it is possible to live a comfortable stable existence with very little money but very few people choose to live that way. Most would rather live beyond their means and subject themselves to being a debt slave.

If you are sick of being 'poor' then calculate how much you spend at Starbucks in a week or how much you spend on fast food. Take that money and INVEST INVEST INVEST.

And on a completely different subject, Pete, I am sure you have heard that most of our best doctors are going to South East Asia and the great big tourist hospitals there. Basically 5 star hotels with the best doctors in the world working there. More and more people are skipping out on the high cost of US medicine and going to a place where the dollar buys more care. Interesting stuff!

[Hammerskjold]

>I have seen Fahrenheit and bowling...it didn't change my mind, as I said, I didn't see new facts (which as you say were lies) I don't understand this criticism.


Here's my criticism in very simple terms. The following is the key paragraph for me, taken from this link. It's near the end of his letter.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/...Date=2007-05-17


"But no, I'm the one who now has to hire lawyers and sneak my documentary out of the country just so people can see a friggin' movie. I mean, it's just a movie! What on earth could I have placed on celluloid that would require such a nonsensical action against me? "


This is more than just a case of semantics to me, on one hand Moore calls his work a documentary. Right on the other, he says it's just a movie. So which is it, a fictional movie? SLAP! A documentary? SLAP! Is it just a movie?! SLAP! Is it a documentary?! SLAP!

It's BOTH! It's a movie AND a documentary...sob sob sob.

Forget it 'friend' Eppie, it's Chinatown.



You think I disagree with his conclusions, so therefore I have an axe to grind. You think I perhaps see the 2 columbine shooters as a demonic spawn, or maybe a case of spontaneous satanic possession out to harm the innocents?

Guess again, 'friend'. I think the issues in Moore's work deserves all the scrutiny and attention, and honest dialogue and action because they -are- important issues. So what's the point of mentioning that Walmart selling the bullets, and bringing up Lockheed Martin? Oh yeah, Lockheed Martin builds those awful missiles used in wars so therefore it's probably karmic payback that the shooting happened in a town where there's a Lockheed Martin facility. And Walmart, well come on they're just plain eeeeeveill.

Say, where was the serious question regarding the parents relationship to the 2 teens? Where was the serious questions on whether or not there was bullying and abuse that drove the 2 students into using violence as their only and final way out? Where was the questions on the mental state of the two shooters? Nah, it's just a movie. Let's just show how doddering and very possibly racist Chuck Heston is. And how much of a vulture the NRA is. After all this is a documentary.

And what the hell was the point of showing Paul Wolfowitz combing his hair with his own saliva, to elicit the numerous EEEEWWW! I heard in the theatres? People like Wolfowitz is contemptible enough to me without that clip. But hey, it's just a movie so no one should take it too seriously right?

What's next, let's demonstrate Bush as an inept leader by showing how comical he looks and acts physically? Yeeesh, let's just break out the phrenology calipers then, and show why Dick Cheney is naturally predisposed to shooting someone in the face with a shotgun, because Cheney has the brain pan measurements of a criminal.


I cringed at that scene in Fahrenheit where the interviewed mother of a dead soldier was openly weeping at the gates of the white house.

You want to know why? Because I did not see Moore waving the camera off, or even offering the woman a hug. All I saw was someone making a decision to keep the camera rolling, for what exactly? To show the terrible human price the war, or almost any war in history (just or not) is taking? I honestly doubt that at this point. If anything I see it more as someone filming a car wreck, and hoping to cash in when they send the tape to 'Most Extreme: CAUGHT ON TAPE!'.

That's what I find distasteful, 'friend' Eppie. It sure looked like Moore was turning that excruciating moment into something 'entertaining'. Hey it's just a movie right? The woman was probably only acting one hell of a performance. She should be given an Oscar for best actress. And if it's a documentary, well it's simply a case of cinema verite' right?

The issues Moore uses (and at this point I mean that literally, seems to me like he's using these issues the same way a pimp uses 'street meats' to earn some green) in his work is too damn important to be flouted off as 'just a movie'. If you're going to call your work a documentary, have the integrity and balls to back it up. And not alternatively hide under the 'it's just a movie' shield when some things don't add up.

The issues used in Moore's work deserves more than that.


ps.


Dear Eppie, feel free to call people like me pro-American idiot Bush fanatics and whatever, since I obviously disagree with Moore's -methods-, I therefore MUST be an unwavering supporter of King George the Second and state made propaganda right? If you're not with me, you're against me right? I gotta say 'friend' Eppie, I think you're far too hard on yourself. I doubt a real moron possess the type of mental atheletics needed for that kind of spectacular leap to conclusions. I mean, you wrote a gem like this, worthy of a fortune cookie, while on your high horse to boot! Bravo!

>These comments on Moore's work were stated here by others in threads about bowling or 911. IT IS A DOCUMENTARY for gods sake, if you are not agreeing with him? Fine, say so, but don't come up again with this blaming Moore for doing some nice cutting and pasting. I mean I guess instead of watching the movie you will now read some 800 page report on the matter right?


>The whole difference with Moore and state propaganda is that Moore hopes to change something while state propaganda tries to keep people quiet.
So 90% of people don't have problems with being lied to by the Bush government but they start jumping when Moore makes a movie. Again fine with me, but than just be honest and say that you don't like the conclusions he makes in his movies.

pps. I really like your comment on 'the 800 page report'. That is such an astute (asstoot?) observation on someone you don't even know. But you are absolutely correct. Reading is like, so hard. Easier to just watch the movie. Oh I mean the documentary.

[Baylan]

Considering that the biggest holy grail for commercial medical research is finding a drug that 'cures' the symptoms, (Not to mention accountability to shareholders -> Pushing a drug that's less effective then what others already made out on the market -> Not performing or reporting on proper scientific studies (Conducting only the ones required for certification)), commercial medical research is, in my mind a terrible endeavour.

Leave research to scientists - ones that aren't accountable to shareholders.

I'm not really following your logic here, but this is my take on what I understand - I think the biggest holy grail for commercial medical research is a drug that cures either heart disease or cancer reliably. No matter if you cure the symptoms of cancer, if you still have cancer, you're going to die sooner than you would earlier.

Indeed. Why would you want to spend your life doing research at a university for 80,000$/year, actually trying to come up with drugs that cure people, when you could be getting paid 200,000$/year by a medical company that's not interested with the effectiveness, safety, or oversaturation of the market, as long as it doesn't cut down into their bottom line.

For the same reason that if/when I go into my chosen career (law), I hope to be a prosecutor and eventually a judge, both of which are not the most profitable of law positions - because I believe that it is the right way to use my talents. It is undeniable, however, that there are people in the world who are obsessed with money. And while there may be a huge disparity of income for those doing research at universities versus pharmaceutical companies, the overall level of income for researchers in the U.S. is higher (I can't find exact statistics, but this is my understanding).

Also, whoever manages to find a drug that can vaccinate HIV, or cure heart disease/cancer is going to make a killing, and in my eyes, they should.

Consider how much money is say, spent on drug advertising - that's money that's not going towards finding new drugs. It's going down the drain.

And the solution to that problem isn't privatising medical research. It's the other way around.
So, instead of paying for something where we'd be getting our money's worth, it's preferable to pay our pill tax to drug companies, who'll spend half of it on marketing, and the other on outrageous (Compared to the public sector) salaries.


I'm not saying that a doctor's worth only 80,000... But When there exists such a gap in salaries, funding, etc, it's no surprise that private companies have monopolised the industry.

It's never taken me more then a week between scheduling an appointment, and showing up for one. Now, I've only been to a few specialists, and not some extremely obscure ones, but so far, I've been content with the speed of the process. The results, not so much, but that's what you get for going to doctors. I do hear horror stories about people having to wait 6 months for non-life-threatening operations, but it hasn't been my experience, so far.

Which is why I feel it is important for the government to step in and regulate, or at least offer health insurance at a cheap rate for those of low incomes - help out those that need it, but those that already have sufficient coverage should not have to deal with the drawbacks of a universal system, either. In the same vein, keeping at least a portion of the sector private allows for the best and the brightest to head toward that profession. I, for one, would rather have an American doctor than a Canadian doctor.

And just because you personally have never seen the disadvantages of the universal system personally doesn't mean that they're invisible. There are real problems to every system, and none are easily resolved.

And for the record, if you want to see waste, just look at the US medical system. Much more money is wasted per dollar spent on curing people in it, compared to various NHS services throughout Europe or Canada.

Our system is in need of reform, but I think that our system is better set up to deal with the problems of the 21st century than a universalist system. Anyone who believes that universal health care is the easy and correct answer is looking through rose tinted glasses, just like someone who believes that one political party can cure all the ills in the world.

-Baylan

[Jester]

If you are sick of being 'poor' then calculate how much you spend at Starbucks in a week or how much you spend on fast food. Take that money and INVEST INVEST INVEST.

Are you proposing that the problem of poverty in the United States is a result of the poorest spending their investment money on Starbucks?

Somehow, I doubt it.

-Jester

[Xukuth]

We agree. I could say more, but people would visciously attack me like last time this was brought up.

I will say that people stay poor because they choose to keep making bad choices. Nobody has to be poor. Yes, it is a choice.

That said, it is possible to live a comfortable stable existence with very little money but very few people choose to live that way. Most would rather live beyond their means and subject themselves to being a debt slave.

If you are sick of being 'poor' then calculate how much you spend at Starbucks in a week or how much you spend on fast food. Take that money and INVEST INVEST INVEST.

Yeah, because people who work 2 full time jobs at minimum wage but still don't make enough money to do anything but live in an efficiency eating peanut butter sandwiches (6'2", 135 lb and getting lighter is where my uncle was at before he got married) are spending all of their money at Starbucks and McDonald's.