digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Obama Calls for Universal Health Care

hosted.ap.org — Seeking to add heft to his presidential bid, Democrat Barack Obama is offering a sweeping plan that would require every American to have health coverage and calls on government, businesses and consumers to share the costs of the program.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • aceg1357, on 10/11/2007, -159/+253I've said it again and again. If Americans who want everything their way right away are fine with rationed healthcare, go for it. Just don't complain about it later because once a government program starts, it NEVER ends.

    If waiting 6-12 months for a surgery that isn't life threatening but is very painful and inconvenient is OK with you, vote for this man.

    If you don't mind if the doctors don't do that extra cancer test on your mom. Later, you come to find out she has cancer and the test could have informed the doctors six months earlier, enough time for her to have a fighting chance, but they didn't perform the test. And she dies, vote for this man.

    These are just a few stories of Canadian friends of mine. Of course every system has positives and negatives. And the current system has its negatives as well. But the American public shouldn't think that universal healthcare is utopia.
    • AhmedF, on 10/11/2007, -101/+220I'm Canadian. I don't know what Canadians you deal with, but while the system is far from perfect, it is great. It is a safety net for the poor who can't afford costly insurance.

      Don't you find it odd that most first-world nations all have healthcare? They must all be socialist/communist bastards eh.
    • chrisgeleven, on 10/11/2007, -69/+144My opinion has always been that health care is essential right for everyone.

      Reason?

      If you aren't in good health and can't get the health care you need, you won't be working anymore. Preventative care (the type of health care coverage many people need the most) helps prevent health issues or at least detect them early on (when there is a greater chance of stopping them). Since so many Americans do not have basic health coverage, they go to the hospital in only dire circumstances, when the costs do spiral out of control and eventually end up being paid by taxpayers since this person can't work anymore and has to go on disability.

      Imagine how much money we would save if just simple preventative coverage is available to everyone at low or no cost?

      Without having even basic health coverage to make sure as many people as possible work and contribute to the economy, billions (if not trillions) are being thrown away in the economy. All the lives that have been lost that could have been saved (or all the people who cannot work anymore because they became too sick) if that cancer test was run sooner (instead of when the person stumbles into the ER), or if their diabetes were caught sooner, etc.

      In the long run, universal health care lowers the costs for everyone. Especially if the administrative overhead is dramatically lowered. It is disgusting how much it costs to just process a claim. We spend more $$$ on healthcare per capita then anyone, yet have horrible health coverage. The private industry has failed us.
    • screamthenrun, on 10/11/2007, -50/+44and now were on the path to subsidizing everything...

      there are a few states that also want to provide breakfast for EVERY student EVERY day... when will people gain some responsibility and stop relying on the government to provide for them--
      i'm not denying that our health care system has problems, but placing it under government control will only make it worse because eventually congress will forget about it and it will go down the drain...
      *cough* social security *cough*
      have the government place regulations on health care-- don't have them run it
    • hbweb500, on 10/11/2007, -60/+149If you must call this socialist, then I am sure that public education, transport, road maintenance, etc. is "socialist" as well. Do you just need to apply a harsh label to things you disagree with, or can you not come up with a good argument?

      I would say that a good majority of the people I have spoken with from Canada and other countries with federal health care like the system.

      "If waiting 6-12 months for a surgery that isn't life threatening but is very painful and inconvenient is OK with you, vote for this man."

      Couldn't you, uhh, just go to a private physician if you, god forbid, couldn't wait to have surgery?
    • ScornForSega, on 10/11/2007, -62/+143"If waiting 6-12 months for a surgery that isn't life threatening but is very painful and inconvenient is OK with you, vote for this man."

      Considering the current option of not being able to afford the surgery at all, I'll take a 6-12 month wait.

      Look, the U.S. system is broken. We'll happily spend nearly half a trillion dollars a year on making sure we've got the best bombs to drop on brown people, but the idea of spending under 1/5th of that on trying to give our citizens lives worth living is a ***** outrage.

      We're backwards and really need to look at how some other countries manage to pull of simple things like universal healthcare, paying off their nat'l debt, etc, etc.
    • jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -44/+48@AhmedF

      The Canadian health care system may have given YOU good treatment, but not everyone:
      "Call it the hip that changed health-care history. When George Zeliotis of Quebec was told in 1997 that he would have to wait a year for a replacement for his painful, arthritic hip, he did what every Canadian who's been put on a waiting list does: He got mad. He got even madder when he learned it was AGAINST THE LAW to pay for a replacement privately. But instead of heading south to a hospital in Boston or Cleveland, as many Canadians already do, he teamed up to file a lawsuit with Jacques Chaoulli, a Montreal doctor." (emphasis added)
      http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006813

      That is a bit old and he did win his case. Your system may (or may not) have improved some since then, but fact that it happened at all shows how little the system actually cares for the patient. ILLEGAL to pay for your own care? You Canucks have a strange definition of "great".
    • conmulligan, on 10/11/2007, -43/+48@aceg1357

      It's plainly obvious that universal healthcare is much better than no healthcare at all, a situation in which the majority of working-class families find themselves.

      If the system doesn't work for you, and you don't want to spend 6-12 months on a waiting list, get private insurance.

      Government should be there to provide for the people; it seems completely illogical to me that it should invest heavily in cops, the justice system, national security, etc. when a poor and broken health service is much more dangerous.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -50/+85Stop with the "socialism" crap already. A single payer system is not at all socialist. My co-op apartment building is more socialist than any government run program. Socialism requires open democracy and community ownership. Just give that tired old rhetoric a rest.

      Obama isn't even calling for a single payer system. He's just trying to plug the holes that leave 30-40M people uninsured. And we do pay for it anyway, @tyrannysucks. People don't just lay down and die when they get sick. It's much cheaper to pay for it up front, especially on routine and preventive treatments.

      Covering everyone is in everyone's interests. Your healthcare prices already include the costs of treating the uninsured, and with baby boomers getting old, it's only going to go up.

      I personally don't think Obama goes far enough. Single Payer is much more efficient than 30 regional private companies sucking profits and adding bureaucracies when one simple system will do. All I want is a fund that I can pay into and get money out of for health needs, sharing the risk, giving me choice, but covering everyone. It's not that hard to do.

      And the only reason we don't is because insurance and drug companies fight dirty, and convince gullible people like aceg and tyrannysucks that change is somehow going to hurt them, when those companies are only looking out for themselves.
    • R34C7, on 10/11/2007, -26/+47The first reaction to nationalized health care will be the elimination of healthcare benefits for the majority of employees throughout the US. Now those middle-class workers will be left with increased taxes that are required for such a program and government benefits. I don't know how many of you have been through a government sponsored program lately, but I would not leave a routine doctor's visit up to this government.

      At an early age I became one of the most prevalent statistics in the United States, I was a teenage father. Luckily the government had a program to aid me in making it through school that would pay for day care until I and my girlfriend graduated. Confidence in government restored, we were - after receiving 6 months of aid - informed of the fact that we were no longer able to receive our funding because they had recently received documentation that I had entered college. In addition to cutting off our aid we were back charged for the six months of financial aid that we had received ($7200) of which we of course did not have. In the end, other teenage mothers received the brunt of the backlash when the department eliminated the majority of benefit recipients based on their massive list of requirements for aid. In refusal to allow these expenses to pass through to the excessively poor teenage mothers that filled the school (it was a special purpose school) the high school was left with a bill from the government that they would not disclose to us but I estimate at hundreds of thousands of dollars.

      I will never see the government control my health care because I know how the United States government runs its programs.
    • doubledoh, on 10/11/2007, -33/+21@AhmedF

      "Don't you find it odd that most first-world nations all have healthcare? They must all be socialist/communist bastards eh."

      Yes.
    • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -28/+47"They must all be socialist/communist bastards eh."

      - Well Universal Health Care is socialist. The USA is socialist, too, just less so than you guys. Not only do other first world countries tend to have higher taxes and less stable economies, but they don't have the military budget that we do. I'm not saying that our healthcare system is perfect, we already have too much government control in our healthcare system as it is. Socialism is not the best answer... and it's not constitutional. I'm perfectly happy letting each state do what they please... it is, after all, the American way.
    • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -19/+33@EntropyMan

      What incentive does a single payer system have to innovate, cut costs, provide top quality service, etc? Why is there such a drive towards collectivising everything??
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -21/+35@jcm: "What incentive does a single payer system have to innovate, cut costs, provide top quality service, etc? Why is there such a drive towards collectivising everything??"

      What incentive does the current system have to do any of those things? And don't say profits, because healthcare is not like normal commodities. What insurance companies have shown is that they're perfectly happy with their internal inefficiencies, as long as the cost cutting and reductions in service can be passed on to subscribers, who will, if they have the money, pay anything to stay alive, or die trying to get their insurance companies to cover necessary treatment.

      But let's answer your question affirmatively too. First, Innovation is driven by technology companies, not insurance companies. As long as those technology companies can make a profit, they will innovate. Single payer doesn't limit them or eliminate the free market, except that it provides some collective bargaining power for, say, drug prices. Emphasis on the word bargaining -- there is no government mandated pricing, but simply more leverage due to the size of the buying pool, the same Wal*mart lowers its prices.

      Cost cutting is a policy decision of the insurance company. Single payer is simply more efficient because of economies of scale, and so its overhead per subscriber can actually be lower than smaller for-profit companies. Plus, costs will be cut in terms of processes, not patient care.

      And finally providing top quality service -- this is a function of doctors and hospitals, who would also remain private. The key thing there is being able to pay doctors a fair wage. But I'd also personally love to add some doctor shopping to the list -- I don't want to pay a doctor unless I agree to accept their services, like any plumber or mechanic. That would go a long way to getting rid of the ones who do crappy work and reward the best. Right now, I have to wait 3 months to see a doctor for the first time (e.g., for a 2nd opinion) and they charge me even if they're clueless or wrong. Those are the kinds of reforms that will work on that front.

      Oh, on the collectivisation, I'm quite libertartian, but even I see what economies of scale dictate that some things need to be pooled to work. Not everyone wants to participate in such pools, and I'm not big on forcing people, unless they're able to obtain the benefits without paying in. So in the case of healthcare, I'd be fine if people could opt out and pay their own way, as long as there was no barrier to making an ultra-efficient single payer system.

      And finally, if you don't know what socialism is, please stop using the word. It's very well defined. Just go to Wikipedia. But it only makes you look dumb to keep using it incorrectly.
    • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -19/+50@chrisgeleven,

      Your argument makes one fatal assumption. You assume that the purpose of government is to optimize society. You want to use government to avoid waste and maximize prosperity. The problem with this is that you are sacrificing liberty. And contrary to your assumption, the true purpose of government is to guarantee that our lives are free from exactly the sort of interference socialized medicine represents. The point is to guarantee that we are allowed to do that which are are capable of and elect to do. Providing health care imposes costs and regulations involuntarily on the populace and thus damages liberty.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -29/+42@WhiteRaven, sick and dying people are not free. People who can't switch jobs because of fear of losing insurance are not free. Even people with jobs are not free to choose their insurance, and are not so free to choose their doctor (considering networks and 3 month waiting lists) or to shop around for the best deals in their own care.

      There is no "free market" in health care, period. It's a rigged system, a corrupt system, and one that is dying under its own monstrous weight. We can only improve the level of freedom people experience, by giving people the means to relax about health-care and have one less thing to worry about.
    • JigoroKano, on 10/11/2007, -12/+17@WhiteRaven

      There is no true purpose to government. Government is a construct. His opinion on how government should be is his opinion and your opinion on how government should be is your opinion.

      Only when we agree upon the role of government, do we leave the realm of opinion and enter into the realm of truth.
    • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -11/+32@EntropyMan

      From the wikipedia
      "Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or worker ownership of the means of production."

      That sounds like context that I'm using it in. Do you know what socialism is?
    • jimsterbell, on 10/11/2007, -27/+33Its kind of funny that America seems to be the most patriotic nation on the planet, yet some of its people complain when they have to contribute towards a fellow country mans health.
      Patriotic till the wallet has to come out?
    • donwilson2, on 10/11/2007, -18/+11Welcome to a capitalist nation, bitches! First universal health care, then what?
    • thatsmyaibo, on 10/11/2007, -11/+21@jim

      The problem is that a lot of Americans (and illegal immigrants) decide to leach off the government. Right now those of us that have high premiums are paying taxes so people who are uninsured are taken care of. Some of us are tired of paying through the nose for things that are supporting illegal families. It isn't a matter of generosity. I am all for universal health care ideals, but in some countries it doesn't work as well as others. We have a lot of other problems that need to be taken care of first and we are much larger than most European countries that support this system.

      Here in California however, governor Arnold is making it so there is cheap health care for everyone and insurance companies can't turn people down for health reasons.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -13/+10@jcm: what part of that definition of socialism relates to having a single payer system, or expanding the federal health care system to cover the uninsured?

      Insurance companies are not a means of production. They're a service -- a bureaucracy. If we were talking about publicly owned drug companies, I might agree. But this isn't that. Secondly, the community has no say in the policies of a single payer system. To us, it's much like a corporation. With our present system of government, we don't have enough control over these supposed community assets to qualify as even representative control. It's like trying to claim the Fed is socialist. A single payer system would practically be an independent entity.

      BTW, you should probably look at the section on "Contemporary Socialism" for a better reflection of modern realities.
    • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -16/+53@EntropyMan
      "sick and dying people are not free."

      You are wrong. Obviously you have been deluded into accepting the modern "progressive" definition of freedom that has absolutely nothing to do with actual self determination. Freedom includes the freedom to fail and the freedom to starve and the freedom to die. Surrendering liberty in the interest of having your needs cared for certainly appeals to many people but it is just disgusting to claim that such a sacrifice of individuality is a form of freedom. By redefining the terms, the modern liberal movement has effectively brainwashed you. Congratulations on your successful assimilation of doublespeak. You now believe that allowing others to control your life is the path to freedom.

      "People who can't switch jobs because of fear of losing insurance are not free."

      It's hard to believe that your rational mind has really atrophied to this extent. Let me spell this out for you... recognizing the likely outcome of a of a given path, deciding it's undesirable and thus choosing not to follow it is the *definition* of freedom. You do understand that freedom is necessarily bounded by physical law and also the free will of other people, right? Freedom is the ability to choose your own response to a given situation. The fact that ALL situations by their nature limit your choices and dictate effects does not invalidate the concept of freedom, it merely defines it. On the other hand, when congress pass laws and levy taxes, they are using FORCE to *dictate* my actions. I no longer have any choice.

      "There is no "free market" in health care, period. It's a rigged system, a corrupt system, and one that is dying under its own monstrous weight."

      Explain this absurd statement. How is it rigged or corrupt? I will say that there is a central failure in our current system.. the tendency to provide health coverage through the employer camouflages the cost and so hampers the individuals ability to seek the deal they desire. So yeah, you're right, the free market is not being allowed to work as well as it could. The way to address this is for people to actually buy their coverage themselves, directly, with the money they *earn* themselves and if they can't afford it then they simply do without. I guarantee you that a metaphorical "Wal-Mart" will step in to provide basic care cheaply. Of course, Obama's proposal will quickly remove ALL market influences.

      There are only two possible outcomes to publicly funded medical care. Either the expenses will spiral astronomically in the absence of actual market forces or the government will institute price controls that will drive people out of the industry and result in poor care and zero innovation. It is STUPID.
    • madmanz123, on 10/11/2007, -17/+6Or you could not be able to afford any health care under our current system and ... well.. die...

      Brilliant!
    • rhawk301, on 10/11/2007, -12/+22I'm really sorry, but this is a crock of crap. I had a brief period of time where I had to apply for Medical in California. They took care of me, and provided good benefits. We even had our child paid for being born, pre/post-natal care everything. It wasn't universal or something, but there are already programs in place for this.

      I don't see why we need a change. Everyone who needs health care simply needs to get off their butts and walk into a government office and apply for health care, and it comes. I think what everyone wants is to have universal health care where you never see bills, or paperwork, or have to register with a specific network. God forbid you have to do a little work to get health care.

      I truly believe that when people are given things for free, without having to do anything, they will simply be herded like cattle and become complacent. They will not appreciate anything they are given.

      Our current health care system as run by the states could certainly be upgraded and even made better, but I would hope that would change over time. Having a Federal system in place would eliminate the states from providing this service, this creating much larger government again. We do NOT want to have large government, we can limited government. Large and complex governments with holes with lobbyists and fascist dictator-like powers which prey on the average person only leads to tyranny.
    • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -10/+33@JigoroKano

      "Only when we agree upon the role of government, do we leave the realm of opinion and enter into the realm of truth."

      That statement is absolute *****. It is a logical impossibility for an opinion to become truth. You are royally confuses as to what the hell truth is. Unanimous agreement does not produce truth, it only produces agreement.

      And by the way, *my* opinion happens to have the backing of the Constitution of the United States. The intended, documented purpose of the federal government in the United States is to protect liberty. Obama's proposal is blatantly unconstitutional. The government does not have the authority to buy health insurance for anyone. Of course, it doesn't have the authority to regulate narcotics or pay out Social security either. Unfortunately, when people get confused about the meaning of words like truth and freedom, simple directives like "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people" can also be screwed up.
    • Hananda, on 10/11/2007, -9/+25@jimsterbell

      And what is unpatriotic about feeling that the individual should have some personal responsibility?

      It's really not the concern of the taxpayer if an individual makes poor life decisions, leading to cancer, diabetes, etc, or that the individual didn't put away enough for the inevitability of medical issues in old age.

    • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -16/+42@jimsterbell

      The *reason* people in America are patriotic is due to the fact that our nation is based on *liberty*. Confiscating the wealth of some to pay for the medical care of others is a contradiction of liberty. So yeah, we patriotic Americans think it's a very stupid idea. Oh, and it also happens to be unconstitutional. Silly us, favoring liberty over tyranny.
    • kethraal, on 10/11/2007, -8/+47"Or you could not be able to afford any health care under our current system and ... well.. die..."

      Right... this is why the US has one of the highest rates of death due to preventable disease.

      Oops. Actually, no... no it doesn't. It's got phenomenally low rates of preventable death.

      I _LIVE_ in a country with socialised medicine (UK). It sucks. There are long wait lists for even small-town doctors, long waiting lists for procedures, long delays before tests come back, etc.

      Yes... technically, anyone can recieve treatment. The problem is, getting to the front of the queue where you can recieve treatment takes bloody ages.

      But that's not the real problem with socialised medicine. The real problem is, it makes every taxpayer pay for one individuals poor choices. Every smoker dying of emphysema takes money from EVERYONE -- not just the person responsible for his poor health (i.e. him.)

      Also, who said it's not a socialist principle? That's silly -- of _course_ it is. It requires all citizens to pay into a central fund which is then redistributed, and used to pay for a service that is made, free for the taking, available to all citizens, regardless of the amount they contributed. That's the bloody definition of a socialist system.

      Answer this: if socialised medicine is such a phenomenal idea, then why is it that anyone here who can afford private (non NHS) care uses that instead?
    • JigoroKano, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5@WhiteRaven

      I'm sorry but you are wrong again and you seem to be a very confused person.

      The "true purpose of government" as you think you know is your idealistic opinion.
      Assuming we agree upon the role of government, even just for the sake of argument, then we can move from the realm of opinion into the realm of truth. No, our agreement upon opinion is not what is the truth. The truth is "what we have to do to achieve the goals we set out". That truth is bound by nothing more than an assumption of realism and not opinion.

      And your opinion of the "true purpose of government" being found in the constitution, bible, or what other document you want to reference doesn't make it less of an opinion and more of a truth. If it is the law, then it is what we as a nation have democratically agreed to. It is a shared interest, but not a truth. And unlike truths, interests may change in time.
    • DrOBoogie, on 10/11/2007, -7/+29How can any of you even debate whether SOCIALIZED medicine is socialistic? What the hell else is it? If you support it, then don't delude yourself into thinking it isn't socialistic by its very nature. The very fact that it some of you don't want to admit what it really is means you should take another look at what it is and if it's really what you want or not.
    • betacmag4u, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5@aceg1357
      ----- "If waiting 6-12 months for a surgery that isn't life threatening but is very painful and inconvenient is OK with you, vote for this man."
      ....actually it would be great because as one of the 45 million Americans right now without health care my option is to be in pain ....forever. So 6 months or forever ....hmmm I will take the 6 months. And for what I anticipate will be your rebuttal I have 2 jobs and worked 54 hours last week.
      ------"If you don't mind if the doctors don't do that extra cancer test...."
      sounds like an HMO ....so little would change ....it wont be a Utopia but if you dont have insurance it will be better.
    • mike17032, on 10/11/2007, -9/+33"It's plainly obvious that universal healthcare is much better than no healthcare at all, a situation in which the majority of working-class families find themselves."

      *****. Who do you think is going to pay the massive cost? Its going to be in new taxes, and you can bet your ass that the working man will be the ones hit the hardest.

      People think that because the government pays for it, its free.
    • mike17032, on 10/11/2007, -4/+29"Imagine how much money we would save if just simple preventative coverage is available to everyone at low or no cost?"

      To bad it doesnt work that way. Far more gets wasted on people going in for minor things they wouldnt have if it had cost them money.
    • Zique, on 10/11/2007, -12/+11@kethraal
      If socialized health care is such a bad idea, then why does almost every country with socialized health care have higher average life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate, and get consistently ranked above US in health care studies by pretty much every organization making those studies?
    • samurailynn, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6Yeah, having to wait for health care would be much worse than just not being able to get it in the first place. I know someone who recently became an independent contractor, and has been unable to get health care because he was on anti-depressants. Even though he's applied for health care that doesn't fully cover prescriptions, they still refuse him. Everything else about his health is fine. Of course, if he gets pneumonia, or breaks a leg, or something like that, he'll be screwed - and this is even though he can afford health care.

      Oh, and by the way... just try finding a doctor that will see you if you don't have health insurance and you make more than $15,000 per year. It pretty much doesn't happen.

      In this country, the only way you're getting health care is if you work for a company that provides insurance, you're someone who has never seen a doctor in the past, or you're living in poverty, in which case there are clinics and government programs to help you. I feel bad for people who are living in poverty, but you're going to have a hard time paying for prescriptions and such if you're making $15,001 per year too.
    • smartass007, on 10/11/2007, -11/+15NEWSFLASH

      ...a presidential candidate is offering ear candy for votes.

      even if he were president, this idea would be used as toilet paper by a completely bought and paid for u.s. congress and flushed down the toilet.

      don't vote for the status quo duopoly. vote third party.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -14/+13Man, this "socialist" argument is getting old. I'll try to give some examples to clear this up.

      The military -- the government collects our taxes and spends the monies to defend us. Is this socialist? No. There is little to no community control. And even though it is technically "our" property, try driving off with a tank and see what happens. (that's a joke).

      The USPS -- financially independent from the federal government, but yet public property. Is this socialist? No. Because it is not a wealth re-distribution scheme at all. It's a business that happens to be publicly owned. Not a good model for how to run health care, btw. I only mention it to show that government bureaucracy != socialism.

      Fannie Mae -- an actual private company, chartered by the government in 1938 for a specific purpose (lending for homes). Receives its own revenues and acts like any normal company, but is regulated too. Not socialist.

      Single Payer Health Insurance -- can easily be funded through premiums, not taxes, for most people & subscriber companies. It is much like a private insurance company (think Blue Shield) but national, not regional, and not for-profit. It would have directors and executives like any private company and it better be at least as accountable. However, it might not have much direct control by our elected representatives to keep it from being a political hot potato. No community representation, no taxes, no public ownership = not socialist AT ALL. And that's not even mentioning that the doctors and hospitals are still private.

      The only time it becomes even remotely socialist is if we merge this with something like Medicaid/Medicare, which does take in some taxes and redistribute through services. But for 85% of Americans, that's not the reality. We'd just pay our premiums. And Congress would [hopefully] have no control over specific treatment policies.

      Does that make more sense? And can we please stop using the term Socialist incorrectly? I'm way over my personal quota for comments today! :)


      @WhiteRaven, I asked you a perfectly reasonable question about the constitution earlier and you conveniently forgot to respond. So look for someone else to answer your BS.
    • whiskeysquared, on 10/11/2007, -9/+16In my opinion, universal health care is a bad idea, much like most government programs. As stated before, once the United States institutes a program like this, it will be subject to all the bureaucracy that condemns all other federal welfare programs. Why not institute legislation to cap healthcare costs, trim fat off of government spending, dissolve federal programs, eliminate federal welfare and then go back to a monetary system that means something? People would have the money to pay, hospitals wouldn't suffer because they're essentially at the service of the government (which runs everything into the ground), and in the end people would pay for quality healthcare - at an affordable rate.

      While I haven't lived in a country with this program, I have been in the military, where we're covered under one of the worst insurance providers ever, Tricare. We don't pay, but the hospitals and services provided are substandard. I would rather be paid more so that I could pay out of pocket for a better medical plan with access to modern facilities.

      If it also falls the way of the military, I would be cautious of substandard providers as well. In the military, if a provider makes an error and injures you, you have no recourse in the way of malpractice. The provider is known as an agent of the government and military personnel are forbidden to sue. Malpractice claims are often unneeded, but some are legitimate. Many times, providers become accustomed to living without the worry of malpractice claims and aren't as thorough or as professional as they should be. This sort of thing breeds apathy and if this is a policy of universal healthcare, I would caution everyone against it. I would also encourage you all to read the libertarian platform and ponder the results of their visions.
    • orp2000, on 10/11/2007, -8/+8And for every one of those bad stories coming out of Canada there are 100 from the US regarding people who didn't get the test they needed because their HMO didn't think it was required. Or people who are told to wait because a procedure isn't necessary "yet."

      Nobody is saying Universal Healthcare is "utopia," but there are enough systems out there that are working, albeit imperfectly, that we can learn from, and improve on, that we should certainly endeavor in this direction. There is no reason that insurance companies should be taking such a huge piece of the healthcare dollar pie. There is very little chance that a government system could be less efficient than the current system, with so much money taken out for marketing and profit by insurance companies.
    • slicedoranges, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4Thanks for proving me wrong that digg is all about flavors of the month as far as presidential candidates go. I was expecting another Ron Paul article.
    • LocalDocal, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5@jimsterbell (#6927193)

      You know, that's a fairly annoying habit to have. The "assume everyone has the same opinion" habit, I mean.

      No, really. The first problem I see is that you assert that people claim America is the most patriotic country in the world. Alright, who claims this? I consider myself fairly patriotic, but I certainly never claim this. I usually don't see any pro-America conservatives claim this either. Well, in all honesty, I have seen SOME people claim this. It usually goes along this line: "Americans are the most NATIONALISTIC people around; they don't care about anyone else!"

      In other words, it's usually by someone who is not actually American themselves and, as you can see, is not necessarily fond of Americans.

      Secondly, and more obvious in fact, this is Digg. When has Digg ever been consider a patriotic website? No, wait, I will get digged down for that. Let me rephrase it: When has Digg ever been consider nationalistic? In almost every single political article you look up, the number of criticizers will outnumber the defenders by a huge amount, regardless of the subject matter. So yes, you're posing your sarcastic question in an inappropriate place.

      I have a better idea. Instead of lumping an entire group together, why not just criticize the individual?
    • Aggaman, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3Well, the universal health care plan has one benefit: we can have enough mental institutions to keep all the libertarians in. I'd even vote for the communists if they made it a policy plank to make libertarianism a felony.

      How can anyone believe that clueless, fanatical crap?

      Yet every year in my freshman class, there are more members of the cult (and they are always failing: much like the people who think that quoting from the Bible ensures truth).
    • jimsterbell, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@ Local Docal

      "The first problem I see is that you assert that people claim America is the most patriotic country in the world."

      Asserted? so by saying 'seems to be the most patriotic' is stating fact now? Its simply my own experience i was commenting on. But if you want a source to backup my opinion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism#Patriotism_by_country (i know its wikipedia and therefore void as a credible source but...meh)

      "In other words, it's usually by someone who is not actually American themselves and, as you can see, is not necessarily fond of Americans."

      You're right, I'm not American. But i have visited America many times and i love the place, i wouldn't choose to live there but most of the people seem really friendly and welcoming (because of my British accent perhaps?) until you talk about politics and it seems to bring out the worst in everyone, example - This thread.

    • lordmike, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5"If Americans who want everything their way right away are fine with rationed healthcare, go for it."

      You obviously aren't part of an HMO...

      Medicare has much less "rationing" than private care...

      Your statement is pure FUD!
    • NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7Sorry, but if we have to pay for road work, and law enforcement's paychecks, and all those other things taxes pay for... That DON'T effect the civilian's life directly...
      How come we can't pay a small tax that gives everyone healthcare??? This is one of those things, that should have always existed... not something we're considering to put into place... -_-

      Why the heck do so many people see that as socialism... and why do they see it as a bad thing???

      We are the only industrial, modern country... that Doesn't have a universal health care!!!... Does no one see that as a tragedy for our civilians?

      Just because some of you out there... are greedy with your money, and can afford your own healthcare or are healthy enough not to need it... doesn't mean we shouldn't switch to a universal health care.

      Think about it... if everyone pays a small tax for health care... it would be a LOT cheaper for EVERYONE to be insured! that means Everyone would be paying less than they are now for healthcare... and the people that are poor, which is a lot of us, would actually be able to have healthcare!!!

      Another small extra tax would be a small price for somethign this important... And it's no more socialist, than what we already have in this god forsaken country... Get your heads out of your conservative asses people!
    • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6@EntropyMan
      "jcm: what part of that definition of socialism relates to having a single payer system, or expanding the federal health care system to cover the uninsured? "
      - I believe Obama's calling for giving subsidies on a sliding scale based on need. It seems that he wants to pay for this by letting the Bush "tax cuts for the wealthy" expire, and bringing back capital gains taxes. Explain to me how that is not redistribution of wealth.

      "Insurance companies are not a means of production. They're a service -- a bureaucracy. If we were talking about publicly owned drug companies, I might agree. But this isn't that. Secondly, the community has no say in the policies of a single payer system. To us, it's much like a corporation. With our present system of government, we don't have enough control over these supposed community assets to qualify as even representative control. It's like trying to claim the Fed is socialist. A single payer system would practically be an independent entity. "
      - I guess we have different definitions of "socialist" here... but one thing I'm going to argue with you is that a single payer system is like a corporation. It is to a point, but it's also a government monopoly. Do you really trust the government to do a better job than a free market? Look at our Universities, for example. It's more of a free market system than any other large country's in the world -- and it's by far the best. Meanwhile, our locally controlled monopolies on K-12 education is pretty damn mediocre despite the fact that we spend so much on it. I do think that schools are important and something every child should have access to, and that means I support government schools. I also support giving the child the option to go to a private school using a voucher for the same amount of money it'd take to send the child to public school. Should we do the same for healthcare? I'm pretty sure that we have public schools because more for economic reasons than for actual children's wellbeing. While you can make the argument that a healthy workforce is more productive, am I not right to think that universal health care drains our economy more than it helps?

      The principles that guide me towards less government control in this are my complete distrust of government control and my worries about taking profits away from private industry. Innovative drugs cost a lot of money... will the companies be able to afford to take the risks they take today when they aren't making all that much money off Americans anymore? This really isn't as much of a black & white issue to me as it seems, though I obviously lean strongly towards less regulation, fewer lawyers, and less reliance on the insurance industry. This issue pretty damn complex and not something that should be decided based upon who has the most compelling soundbites. Setting aside my aversion to giving the government more control, do you honestly think the dimwits in Congress and the empty suit that will be in the White House in 2008 would do a decent job here? Even with Obama's proposal for a comparatively (to Europe) lean Massachusetts like system, I can see it being a complete mess that does more harm than good.

      "BTW, you should probably look at the section on "Contemporary Socialism" for a better reflection of modern realities."
      - All I get from that section is a look into the mindset of a typical Democrat.
    • Shaggy63, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7As long as we have private and public health care then i'm voting for the guy. Kind of like schools. Public schools are fine, but if you can afford a private school then go for it.

      It should be the same way for health care. Public health care would be ok. You may have to wait a month to get in for a headache or something that keeps coming up. But if your puking blood you get in right away.

      With private, all things should stay the same as they are. I call my private doctor and get in when I need to.

      Wait a damn minute, don't we already have free clinics all over the place.. I know people that go to a free clinic cause they can't afford health insurance. How is this any different?
    • lordmike, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5"But that's not the real problem with socialised medicine. The real problem is, it makes every taxpayer pay for one individuals poor choices. Every smoker dying of emphysema takes money from EVERYONE -- not just the person responsible for his poor health (i.e. him.)"

      So, I guess that 10 year old with brain cancer just was a victim of poor choices... It's his fault that he has brain cancer.

      Or my college professor who was a vegetarian and ran 23 miles a day got a stroke at the age of 44... Gee, he shouldn't have been so healthy! It's his fault that got sick!

      Why are the sick always blamed for their illnesses? 99% of the time, it's not their fault at all.

      Thanks,

      Mike
    • sneakywombat, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8@aceg1357:

      You're exactly right. I've spent hundreds of hours working in ERs across the US and Canada - the level of care in a nationalized system vs a "free" system is enormous. Imagine the worst HMO system ever concieved - then make it twice as bad, under fund it, under staff it and double the workload, and you've got a nationalized system.

      You can achieve health care coverage with a little initiative and work - a national system is not the answer, a simple job is.
    • mrraven200, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Whiteravewn the fact that you hold the "freedom" to own 8 SUVs and 5 houses higher than suffering or life and death is why "they" hate us.

      It's the arrogant self centered pricks stupid.

      And BTW I actually respect neo-Libertarians like Ron Paul on civil liberties and opposing the war but the propertyarian aspect of lasez affaire/Libertarian philosophy is cruel, short sighted, and ultimately will be our down fall either through poor people exploding in rage and burning it all down as they are told their suffering and death is worth less than another mini mansion, or through eco system collapse from exponentially increasing over consumption. There is only so long an exponential curve can go upward before we get a carrying capacity crash.
    • jamessavik, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Good bye Obama. It was nice knowing you.

      By championing Universal Health care, you have declared war on the pharmaceutical industry, insurance industry, corporations running chains of hospitals, doctors, lawyers, nurses, hundreds of specialists, dozens of unions- in short EVERYONE that is profiting from the status quo. It works out to be almost 1/3 of the economy and you call to nationalize THAT!?

      The last time somebody called for universal health care, and was serious about it, the congress turned over at the next election cycle.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9@NikoKun: LOL a small tax!

      Seriously that's too funny. We have universal health care in Quebec and it takes 48% of the provincial budget. The hospitals are dirty with infectious bacterias, understaffed, the employees are overworked, the government wastes billions in bureaucracy.

      Universal health care sounds good, but it's one of those things that just SOUND good. Americans can't afford this kind of mistake.
    • torched, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7Why do you guys want to help poor people? Don't you realize we can use the blood of poor people to fuel our escalades and h2's?
    • lordmike, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4"Universal health care sounds good, but it's one of those things that just SOUND good. Americans can't afford this kind of mistake."

      Interesting, my friend with Lupus in BC gets to see her rheummy twice a week... even Bill Gates can't do that here (schedule conflicts, you know.. there are actually long waits in the US for specialist care, despite what people claim).

      So, bad care in Canada seems to be the exception not the norm.
    • blitzman, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7Anyone who wants government run health care should take a good hard look at our government run schools - you know, the ones that graduate people who can't read the diploma, etc.

      Also, one should recall the recent scandal at government run Walter Reed hospital where they take care of our wounded vets, or should I say, discard our vets.

      Do you really want to be locked in to such a system?
    • lordmike, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5"but I would not leave a routine doctor's visit up to this government."

      My parents seem very happy with Medicare... never had any problems.
    • MixMastaKooz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@kethraal

      I'm about to call shenanigans on your UK-ness, but I'm holding off...but I want to know, how long have you lived away from the UK? Your comment history seems to indicate you're here in the US.... I don't know many brits who are as intimately knowledgeable of TSA rules as you....
    • christianw, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6@aceg..

      the 37 industrialized countries whose healthcare is better than ours disagree with you
    • JerodSlay, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Talk about riding on the heels of Siko
    • stelriah, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1haha, the "cancer test". just like a breathalyzer only no one gets it on to the way for!!!!!!!
    • themonkman, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5I'd gone without healthcare for a very long time, but I have to sadly disagree with Gov't ran universal healthcare. The last thing this country needs is a huge bureaucracy that determines our health. I'm really sorry that poor people don't have healthcare...but guess what? I had to work hard, study, and find a good job that entitled me to such things. Even McDonalds has a employee healthcare plan. Giving healthcare to people for free will not only hurt the market of good doctors out there (who I guarantee none of them want to be run by Uncle Sam), but will also create another broken system ran by people who probably shouldn't even be in office that will cause a lot of people to get poor or substandard treatment to which they will likely have little recourse to protest against. I'm sure part of signing up for Universal Healthcare will be a nice piece of paper waiving your right to sue for malpractice. That would be the only way I could see them keeping the costs down. So, if a doctor messes you up, too bad. Some people, believe it or not, do better when they don't have a doctor using them as a guinea pig. There have been several times that I've received a doctors treatment that ended up harming me far more than it would've if I'd just not gone at all. You will see a flood of low quality doctors into this new bureaucracy who will milk the system for all it's worth while providing as little service to the patient as humanly possible.

      In America, we pride ourselves on a certain amount of independence. We are all responsible for our own health, our mental well-being, and happiness. If you want Uncle Sam holding your hand from cradle to grave, you have some serious issues and should really rethink your life. Some people's sense of entitlement is utterly sickening. Work hard, and you get healthcare. Don't work hard, or don't work at all...no healthcare for you. I'm sorry. I'm not paying for someone else's lack of responsibility. What's next? Gov't ran Universal Car Insurance? *****, you wouldn't be able to get your car back from repairs for at least a year.
    • KingWrecked, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2kethraal

      "I _LIVE_ in a country with socialised medicine (UK). It sucks. There are long wait lists for even small-town doctors, long waiting lists for procedures, long delays before tests come back, etc."

      The problems with the NHS aren't so much down to the principal as they are the execution and health has suffered in the same way as education in so much as it has become more important for politicians to show an improvement in the NHS than it has to make that improvement happen. Admittedly, more money has been poured in to the NHS than ever before but when you reach a point where the clinical staff in some departments are outnumbered by the beancounters whose job it is to show how big an improvement has occurred you know your up sheet creek.

      "Yes... technically, anyone can recieve treatment. The problem is, getting to the front of the queue where you can recieve treatment takes bloody ages."

      No, getting to the front of the queue of is not the problem. Making sure their is no queue is the problem and so long as the emphasis is on beancounting rather that healthcare it won't get any better. Remember, your talking about people who sacked the hospital cleaners and bought in private companies who were under pressure to cut corners to get the job done quicker and cheaper and as a result caused an explosive spread of MRSA, and bought an end to the problem of people waiting on trolleys in corridors by removing the wheels from the trolleys, calling them beds and designating the corridors as wards.

      "But that's not the real problem with socialised medicine. The real problem is, it makes every taxpayer pay for one individuals poor choices. Every smoker dying of emphysema takes money from EVERYONE -- not just the person responsible for his poor health (i.e. him.)"

      Hmm, interesting this one. Given that tobacco is more dangerous and addictive than Heroine and Cocaine you may like to ask yourself why it isn't illegal. Answer? Treating smoking related diseases costs the NHS 1.6 Billion pounds a year while smokers pay 8.2 Billion pounds a year in additional tax meaning that smokers not only cover their own treatment costs but pay for lot more on top.

      "Also, who said it's not a socialist principle? That's silly -- of _course_ it is. It requires all citizens to pay into a central fund which is then redistributed, and used to pay for a service that is made, free for the taking, available to all citizens, regardless of the amount they contributed. That's the bloody definition of a socialist system."

      "Answer this: if socialised medicine is such a phenomenal idea, then why is it that anyone here who can afford private (non NHS) care uses that instead?"

      And if it is such a bad idea why is it one of the most popular institutions in the UK particularly with those who lived in the time before universal healthcare. If you can sort out the constant political interference and create an environment where providing quality public services becomes more important than providing statistics to show improvements then more money will would be pushed to the front line where it's needed. In the end though, apart from having an appendix op at age 11, I and my family have been remarkably healthy and we have BUPA private care provided as standard via my wife's company. I don't begrudge paying my National Insurance and to be quite honest I don't mind the idea of 23% income tax. What I do have a problem with is the wasteful way the government throws the taxes they collect into crackpot schemes like ID cards, ridiculously overpriced, overcomplicated, doomed IT projects and all the other ill-conceived bollocks that they keep coming up with. Oh, that and the way everyone's pensions and pay rises keep going down except MPs who by some magical formula have a pay and benefits scale that operates inversely to customer satisfaction i.e. voter turnout.

      I'd put the above much higher up the list of evils than paying for the NHS
    • blueeyedmonster, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8I am SO sick of his ***** claim that we wait 6 months for doctor's appointments. It's just not true.

      I have dual Canadian and US citizenship. I grew up in Canada and had universal health care all my life until a few years ago when I moved to LA.

      Doctor's offices in Canada are still PRIVATE facilities, owned by private doctors. The only difference is that instead of paying myself, the doctor submits a claim for my bill to the government (just as they do with private insurance here). There is still competition between the doctors for that money. If my doctor sucks or there are not appointments, I can go to another doctor.

      I have NEVER had to fill out lengthy forms in Canada to justify every day procedures, as I have in the US whenever my insurance gets a claim for an appointment.

      If I had a life-threatening condition, I would move home in a second.
    • SickMonkey, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6I've posted this before, but I guess I need to post it again.

      My in-laws are Canadian. My mother in-law had a bowel obstruction and needed surgery. She went to a hospital, had the surgery, and got great care with no cost and no waiting time. My in-laws are wealthy and they can easily afford to get US health care (they live in the States part time), but they prefer the health care system in Canada over ours. Their taxes are about 10% lower in Canada too, even with the free health care.

      A friend of mine here in the States developed a very serious heart condition where her heart would just randomly stop, her lips would go blue, and then she would pass out cold as if she were dead. She belongs to Kaiser. Before she was allowed to see a heart specialist, she first had to go to her doctor for the referral. He diagnosed the problem (which was obvious) and only then referred her to a heart specialist. Even though it was a potentially life threatening problem, the earliest appointment she could get was a three week wait. She, her friends, and her family all called the specialist's office repeatedly to see if they could the appointment moved up, but nobody returned their calls. Thankfully, everything turned out ok, but it could have been different.

      The health care system in this country is awful. We spend the most money per capita in the industrialized world on health care (it costs GM $1,500 per car!), yet get the least in return. Universal health care may not be the solution, but something drastic needs to be done to improve our system. You can curse universal health care as Socialism and call it evil, but if you look at the rest of the industrialized world, dollar for dollar it costs them about 50% less and the quality of health care they deliver is much better than ours. If you don't believe me, read this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/ushealthgovernmentpolitics
    • macman2k, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6If neither the doctors nor the patients have a reason to keep costs down, then this program will only make everyone poor due to rediculous health care costs. Doctor's don't like health insurance because the insurance companies create a monopoly on "customers" and force the doctors to give them steap discounts. This means that insurance companies scare people into purchasing insurance and prevent the uninsured from having reasonably priced doctor's bills. In a free market, medical costs should go down over time. Health insurance (paid by government or employeer) creates an evil cycle that makes the insurance companies rich.

      I run a small company and have to pay for my own family's insurance (wife + child). Over the course of 10 years I will have paid 100,000 in insurance premiums. In years where things go bad I still have to pay 20% or up to $5,000! We are in our mid 20's and very healthy. How can we afford to provide coverage for everyone??? When I worked at Raytheon I know they spent even more for my family health benefits.

      Health care is not a universal right! It is not authorized by the constitution!

      Ron Paul, a doctor, really knows whats going on and how to fix it.

      Everyone wants something for nothing, but I have news for you: a government program will cost us more money than a free market, through necessary tax increases. If you are voting for universal health care because it will get you something for "nothing" you are being bribed into voting for Obama. If you are compassionate and want to help everyone get access to medical treatment then give to charities. Don't make everyone pay because of your "compassion".

      Don't start any new entitlement programs until you have fixed the ones we have in place already!
    • iceperson, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3"Don't you find it odd that most first-world nations all have healthcare? They must all be socialist/communist bastards eh."

      Don't you find it odd that whenever someone from first world nations with nationalized healthcare gets sick they come to the US for treatment if they can afford it?
    • manogamez, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Everything you listed can easily be matched and made ten times worse in the current health care system in the US.
    • Pfhreak, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"The first reaction to nationalized health care will be the elimination of healthcare benefits for the majority of employees throughout the US. Now those middle-class workers will be left with increased taxes that are required for such a program and government benefits."

      *****.

      If that happens it'll be just another case of greedy corporations cutting corners to free up some more money for the CEO's latest toy at the expense of the workers. My wife is from Argentina, and they have both nationalized health care and private health care. Yeah, the public clinics suck, but it's better than nothing for the poor people who can't afford health care, and keeps them in good health so they can continue working their way up the pay scale. At the same time, there's more expensive, private clinics that offer excellent service for those that can afford it. If both public and private health care can co-exist in Argentina, then they can certainly co-exist in the US.
    • Pfhreak, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"And BTW I actually respect neo-Libertarians like Ron Paul on civil liberties and opposing the war..."

      You're misusing "neo-Libertarian". Neolibertarian = minimal government intervention on social and economic liberties, but military interventionist foreign policy. Basically, libertarian domestically, neoconservative on foreign policy.
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@hbweb500
      The systems are socialised, it is merely writing bluntly.
    • Monk22, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3i want to thank all the burdens to society that feel they shouldnt have to pay for things they want/need. im so glad i work my 60+ hour week so you can sit on your ass and get free healthcare and whatever else you ***** get out my check. i dont want to take care of you. stop raping my paychecks with your inability to support yourself.
    • Waterrat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Obama's plan retains the private insurance system but injects additional money to pay for expanding coverage."

      That's what i don't like,the Private insurance companys who cherry picks who they will insure and how much they can milk them for.

    • ccagney, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Health care is not a right for one simple reason: It requires someone else to do something for you.

      Doctors spend about 12 years in training making nothing or very little to become a doctor. They come out with thousands of dollars in loans (sometimes hundreds of thousands). Now you are telling them that is your right for them to be your slave.

      Just because out of the kindness of their heart they decided to pursue an occupation that can help so many people, doesn't mean you have a right to it.

      If you want a doctors services be prepared to:
      - help them pay off the cost of all that education
      - compensate them for the stress of having to make life and death decisions on a daily basis (stressful)
      - spending countless nights in the ER

      I should know the cost of being a doctor. My mom is one. As a kid when she was in med school she was almost NEVER home. She pursued anyway and I am glad she did even though it hurt both of us.

      You have no right to her work unless through an hones trade (your money/life work for her service).

      I assure you that if doctors made less money, there would be a hell of a lot less of them because their job kinda sucks a lot of the time as it is.

      The real culprit in all of this is the government intervention and the BS third-payer health care system. Universal health care is not the answer. Removing government controls on the health care system is.

      And NO, health care is not a right.
    • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@mrraven200,

      I hold *freedom* more important than subsidized health care. Not the freedom to do X but freedom itself. The fact that you are so judgmental about what people do with their freedom is just an example of one of the reasons why it's so important to strictly limit government. When you don't like what someone is doing, you want to make them stop BECAUSE YOU DON'T GIVE A ***** ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S FREEDOM. When people like you write laws, liberty dies. That's why the constitution was written to sharply limit the laws you are allowed to right. Now if only we would actually follow the constitution.
    • natschultz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0EntropyMan wrote:
      "Single Payer Health Insurance -- can easily be funded through premiums, not taxes, for most people & subscriber companies. It is much like a private insurance company (think Blue Shield) but national, not regional, and not for-profit. It would have directors and executives like any private company and it better be at least as accountable. However, it might not have much direct control by our elected representatives to keep it from being a political hot potato. No community representation, no taxes, no public ownership = not socialist AT ALL. And that's not even mentioning that the doctors and hospitals are still private.
      The only time it becomes even remotely socialist is if we merge this with something like Medicaid/Medicare, which does take in some taxes and redistribute through services. But for 85% of Americans, that's not the reality. We'd just pay our premiums. And Congress would [hopefully] have no control over specific treatment policies."

      The problem IS that Obama's plan WILL force the taxpayers to pay the costs for everyone's healthcare. No One will be able to opt-out. That IS Socialism. Your other examples (post office, etc.) are not Socialism because they are self-sufficient ie: the person who mails a letter pays for that letter to be mailed, not the taxpayers. But, you do not have to use the post office, you can go to FedEx, UPS etc.
      So no, not everything in our country is Socialist, but any of the programs that force citizens to pay for them are socialistic. This mostly hurts the rural areas, where people are taxed the same as the city, but do not receive the same benefits. Rural NY pays the same high taxes because NYC controls Albany. Rural NY does not need or use the same services, but because the city does the rural people and farmers Upstate must pay the same taxes. This has led to a genocide in the country with almost all small farmers going bankrupt and their children forced to move out. If it wasn't for NYC the taxes would be lower and the farmers would still be in business. But instead, high entitlements in NYC combined with the Federal Government subsisizing industrial farmers and not small farmers and almost all manufacturing jobs sent oversees has forced Upstate NY to pay the same taxes and high prices as the city, yet the actual people living there are living below the poverty line. (BTW: I'm from the city area, so I am not hurt as much by the high taxes because the costs here are in line with the incomes. But what has happened Upstate, especially in North Country, is devastating. Especially considering that NYC could not survive without the water and electricity that all comes from Upstate).

      This is proof that a Universal System cannot work - someone always loses out, and it is usually the working class.

      Unfortunately you seem to be in denial - the USA IS slowly turning into a Socialist country with its entitlement programs. Saying that Universal or Single Payer Healthcare, if it becomes law, will be paid for only by the people who pay the premiums is wishful thinking. If the government forces every person to have healthcare it will be paid for through taxes and businesses, and if the costs are too high businesses will begin laying-off workers and shut down completely.

      The current system is a failure, but it is in large part due to government entitlements such as Medicaid that have cost the private system so much that they had to make premiums unaffordable for many people. If the government never got involved in the first place, the system would not be broken now. Thinking that the government can fix what it broke is a joke.
    • natschultz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0mrraven2000 wrote:
      "Whiteravewn the fact that you hold the "freedom" to own 8 SUVs and 5 houses higher than suffering or life and death is why "they" hate us.
      It's the arrogant self centered pricks stupid.
      And BTW I actually respect neo-Libertarians like Ron Paul on civil liberties and opposing the war but the propertyarian aspect of lasez affaire/Libertarian philosophy is cruel, short sighted, and ultimately will be our down fall either through poor people exploding in rage and burning it all down as they are told their suffering and death is worth less than another mini mansion, or through eco system collapse from exponentially increasing over consumption. There is only so long an exponential curve can go upward before we get a carrying capacity crash".

      Let me guess: you'd vote for Al Gore, right? Because he's for the Earth. The fact that his mansion uses more electricity than anyone else's and that he flies all over in a jet is OK because he "says" he's for the earth.
      I thought "they" hate us because we butt into "their" sovereign affairs. But, I guess you are right, it's because we don't yet have Universal Healthcare.
    • TimDigg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@ aceg1357

      Do you have any idea how many people have NADA right now?
  • RuffRidr, on 10/11/2007, -22/+16So where is the money coming from? The article says that all but the very small corporations will pay for this. So, where does that money come from? Higher prices on products, lower employee count, lower employee salaries, and corner cutting. This is just going to put more people into poverty and welfare. Start working harder, millions on welfare are going to be depending on you.
    • M4tt3r, on 10/11/2007, -9/+15"Campaign aides estimated the cost of the program at $50 billion to $65 billion a year, financed largely by eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy that are scheduled to expire."

      No offense, but RTA, it was subtle. In other words, "rich people".
    • jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -9/+24"$50 billion to $65 billion a year,"

      When was the last time an estimate was correct?
    • vanimal, on 10/11/2007, -13/+25In reality the money will come from the same source that finances every other government program. They will print it and diminish the value of all other dollars held by anyone in the world.
    • RossTizma, on 10/11/2007, -8/+19# $345.7 billion (13.26%) - Medicare
      # $268.4 billion (10.30%) - Medicaid and other health related
      For 2006.

      And that's primarily for people over 65, imagine applying that to the entire nation.
    • PATSCRU, on 10/11/2007, -15/+11"Campaign aides estimated the cost of the program at $50 billion to $65 billion a year, financed largely by eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy that are scheduled to expire."

      good those lop-sided tax cuts were one of the biggest fleece jobs by bush during his tenure...good to see a reversal that will go to a good cause.
    • neuropsychguy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14"Campaign aides estimated the cost of the program at $50 billion to $65 billion a year"

      Yep, I'm sure those numbers are as accurate as the estimated monetary costs of the war in Iraq. Look where those estimates came from: "campaign aides." It's like they're saying, "Yeah, we can uh, pull this off for $65 billion - make that $50 billion." I'm not arguing against Obama's plan, I'm just stating that those estimates are likely very low.
    • justintsmith, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3I just have to say, I have never seen this amount of comment trolling on Digg before.
    • Pfhreak, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1"And that's primarily for people over 65, imagine applying that to the entire nation."

      Good thing they're not talking about applying it to the entire nation, then, just those who can't afford coverage now. From TFA:

      "Obama's plan retains the private insurance system but injects additional money to pay for expanding coverage. Those who can't afford coverage would get a subsidy on a sliding scale depending on their income, and virtually all businesses would have to share in the cost of coverage for their workers."

      Where are some of you getting that "Campaign aides estimated the cost of the program at $50 billion to $65 billion a year, financed largely by eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy that are scheduled to expire" quote? I'm reading the article right now and all I can find is "A memo written by three outside experts and distributed by the campaign after his speech said the plan would cost an estimated $50 billion to $65 billion a year once fully implemented", which is quite a bit different from "compaign aids say".
  • M4tt3r, on 10/11/2007, -25/+2565 billion divided by 300 million = 216.666667

    Did I read that right? Obama thinks $65 billion will be enough. Ha! When every hypochondriac and their brother hears about [free] health care, you can gua-ran-*****-tee any dollar amount followed by "billion" won't be enough.

    Department of Education + Welfare + Universal Health Care = "whatta ya no, no reeson for my ass to get a job."
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -12/+18Your math is bogus. That's what it would cost in addition to what we already pay, so that we can now have universal healthcare.

      So at best, you might take that $65B and divide it by say 30M-40M currently uninsured Americans, not 300M total, for about $2000/year to cover them, which is in line with a fairly bare-bones family insurance plan in the private sector, but for much better benefits than they could get today.

      We could afford much better insurance for everyone if we pooled our insurance into a single payer system.
    • M4tt3r, on 10/11/2007, -10/+9Do you honestly expect people to still pay for the private insurance plans when they can get the same free/subsidized health care from mommy government?

      30-40 million is just the beginning.
    • Katana, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Here in the UK the cost (budget) of the NHS for the year 2007-2008 is set to be £105.6 Billion which is around $210 Billion, and that is for a country of around 65M people. But i suppose that a portion on people opt for private health care so it's not a perfect calculation.
      I don't think $65 billion would ever be enough.
    • M4tt3r, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13@EntropyMan

      Are you denying 65 billion divided by 300 million is 216.666667?

      Because that's all I was saying. I was trying to give a general idea of how much money that is per person in the country. Did you not notice where I said "When (an event that has not happened yet) every hypochondriac and their brother hears about [free] health care, you can gua-ran-*****-tee any dollar amount followed by "billion" won't be enough.

      How is that bogus? See Katana's comment. He validated what I was saying. $65 billion is not enough, so that leads to the question...Where's the rest going to come from?

      /scratches head
    • mactaggart, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Reiterating an important part of Katana's comment...there are only about 61 million people in the UK. Their budget is about $210 million for the NHS.

      Their country covers only 94,525 square miles, compared to the 3.6 million square miles here in the US. Our population density is more sparse, so it will cost more to deliver the same level of service.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5@m3tt4r, your choice of denominator is the problem. You can either add up the total contributions to fund health-care from all sources and divide that by the total population, or you can divide the number of presently uninsured by the new amount Obama wants to add. Those numbers are meaningful. Yours was a false comparison, because Obama is not proposing to spend $65B to cover everyone.

      And if every business dropped their private insurance to jump on the government-sponsored one, then that number would obviously have to go up, hopefully not by more than businesses would save, so it's at least as zero-sum-gain.
    • Math, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3@Katana

      "Here in the UK the cost (budget) of the NHS for the year 2007-2008 is set to be £105.6 Billion which is around $210 Billion, and that is for a country of around 65M people. But i suppose that a portion on people opt for private health care so it's not a perfect calculation.
      I don't think $65 billion would ever be enough."

      The US government already spends more per person than the UK government on public medical care and they don't even have universal health care. With an extra $65 Billion, and fixing the current system, there should be plenty of money.
    • Math, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care#Universal_health_care_economics :

      The US government spends around 0.446 x $US 5711 = $US 2547 per capita on health care
      The UK government spends around 0.857 x $US 2428 = $US 2080 per capita on health care

      How come the UK can get universal health coverage and spend less per person?

      My (mostly un-informed) guesses:
      - The US spends a lot of its money on life threatening conditions for people without insurance, where as the UK is willing to spend money on preventative treatments for people without insurance. These preventative treatments end up saving money in the long run.
      - The health industry in the US knows that people will pay almost whatever it takes to fix a health condition that is potentially life threatening. There is no alternative public system to fall back on (even if it is lesser quality), so prices keep rising and are un-moderated.
    • dognose, on 10/11/2007, -0/+265 billion sound about how much it'll cost to complete the paper work to get this program started. $200/year per person is not going to do much for anyone.

      HSA's are really the way to go.
  • KingOneEye, on 10/11/2007, -17/+19I think this is a great plan. Sen. Obama seems to really understand that while we need universal healthcare INSURANCE in America, we don't need a nationalized system like they have in Canada.
    • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -10/+10We don't need universal insurance. Why are routine checkups and prescriptions even covered? Why aren't oil changes covered in auto insurance? The system is convoluted and the last thing we need is to adopt something even more screwed up.
    • SinkToTheBeat, on 10/11/2007, -6/+21Health care is only expensive because the government got involved in the first place. Government is the freaken cause of the problem people, don't expect it to solve the problem. Universal Healthcare will be just another government program that does the opposite of the desired effect.

      Lowering the Cost of Healthcare: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html
    • geekee, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8"I think this is a great plan. Sen. Obama seems to really understand that while we need universal healthcare INSURANCE in America, we don't need a nationalized system like they have in Canada."

      I'm not sure it's a great plan, but I'm encouraged that he's not taking the route Canada and Europe have taken. Doctors deserve to have options other than working for the govt.
    • YixilTesiphon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11"Health care is only expensive because the government got involved in the first place. Government is the freaken cause of the problem people, don't expect it to solve the problem."

      THANK YOU. If health insurance worked like normal insurance, we wouldn't have so many problems. More government is not the solution. It never is.
    • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Wow... an Ivy Leaguer who isn't a socialist. I was faced with enough pressure (including from arts & sciences professors) at my ***** college where I was smarter than almost everyone. In that environment it must be tough.
    • YixilTesiphon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4It's a lonely path.
  • canewediggit, on 10/11/2007, -13/+28$120B for iraq to get us through september. and some of you think we can't afford healthcare? please. we could afford the best healthcare in the world for every citizen if we stop invading and rebuilding countries just b/c halliburton needs a new revenue stream.
    • RossTizma, on 10/11/2007, -10/+6120B a year would only provide $400 a person per year, not even close to covering the health costs of every American.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10@rossitzma, it would more than cover the 40M uninsured Americans. That's the point. We're already paying for the rest, albeit through deductions to your salary by your employer. I see little difference is that money is paid in taxes, or if my employer takes the same money and pays a private company, except the single payer national insurance company _can_ (if implemented properly) be more efficient -- see my longer post above.
    • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -9/+12It is the federal government's duty to defend the nation from aggressors. The Constitution actually FORBIDS the federal government from doing what Obama proposes. None of the federal government authorized powers cover health care. Of course, social security is blatantly unconstitutional as well so I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the supreme Court to learn to read the document they're supposed to be defending.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -10/+13@WhiteRaven, it does not forbid anything of the sort. This falls under the term "General Welfare," right there in article 1, section 8. There's nothing that says this is the State's responsibility either, so the 10th amendment doesn't even apply unless a state wants to go it alone and opt out of the federal system, which I would favor if it came up.

      If you want to cite an actual part of the constitution to back up your claim, go right ahead.
    • mike17032, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6"$120B for iraq to get us through september. and some of you think we can't afford healthcare? please. we could afford the best healthcare in the world for every citizen if we stop invading and rebuilding countries just b/c halliburton needs a new revenue stream."

      False. That is a drop in the bucket of what universal healthcare would cost. Take a look at what we already spend.
    • diespectra, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Considering we're borrowing the money to pay for the war, it doesn't mean that just because we are paying for the war then we can pay for universal health insurance... It just means we can't keep going on with continuous war.
    • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@EntropyMan

      The federal government of the United States is assigned a handful of fairly specific powers and responsibilities and is *forbidden* to do anything else. Social Security, narcotics laws, federal funding of education and dozens of other major programs are all patently unconstitutional for the simple reason that the constitution does not authorize the government to do those things.

      There is no "general welfare" clause!!! You are confusing the *preamble* with the body of the document. And if we read it in a logical, rational manner, we discover something fascinating. The preamble states the motivation behind writing the constitution.

      "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

      I will summarize. The purpose of the *constitution* is to make a better life for all. And what did they then proceed to do within the constitution? They put the government in a straight jacket. The founding fathers parceled out a few specific, limited powers to the federal government and then *explicitly forbid the government from exceeding those powers* (outside the amendment process).

      The message is clear. The founding fathers believed that the most reliable way to the betterment of the general welfare is through strictly limited government. And the system they instituted to do so is still in force. "Promoting general welfare" is NOT either the responsibility or within the power of the federal government. That "clause" as you called it does not apply to the government, it describes the reasoning behind the constitution.

      The fact that apparently you do not believe liberty to be an element of your welfare is distressing but ultimately beside the point. The plain language of the constitution does not permit the government of the United Sates to pay out monies for the health care of anyone. None of the powers granted Congress covers any such activity. If you *really* want to surrender yet more of your self-determination in this way, you would need to amend the constitution.

      Or rather, you would if we had a Supreme Court that could pass a fifth grade reading test. Let me take that back... they could probably such a test, they just choose to place their own values over their sword duty. That's really the only explanation for upholding campaign finance reform. How can a stark, black-and-white ban on political speech NOT be against the first amendment?
  • boredaghast, on 10/11/2007, -15/+23the government is not the best institution to handle these things. bureaucracy fails the system when it is most needed. the socialists will always lose.
    • RuffRidr, on 10/11/2007, -7/+23The government will handle it fine. They'll get this thing streamlined and running smoothly in no time at all. Just like Social Security!
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -10/+22I don't want the lady at the DMV deciding how important my trip to the doctor's office is.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -9/+14@spacemonkeyzero: that's your problem right there. The DMV is for driver's licenses. You need to see a doctor for health care.

      I'm glad I was here to clear that up for you. You might have died standing in line for your appendicitis license.
    • MixMastaKooz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Is it because of the perceived inefficiency of bureaucracy? Is it that less dollars of insurance paid will go to the end user in a government run program? Maybe....I don't know...

      What I do know is that insurance companies are paying their CEOs millions of dollars and is it also true that people make more money in the private sector? Therefore the people who administer a private insurance company would make more money than their public counterparts? I hope someone points out my logical error here, but it seems that a private insurance company is decidedly *less* efficient than a publicly administered insurance entity in terms of cost of running it and dollars going to the end user... (I'm just thinking out loud....)
    • chongli, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@boredaghast:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care#Universal_health_care_economics

      The USA has the lowest life expectancy, the highest infant mortality rate and the worst coverage of medical expenses of these top countries and still pays far more per capita than the rest of them. The current system is far more inefficient than the "bureaucracy" of a proper universal system.
  • Billiam627, on 10/11/2007, -28/+18"Holding a gun to my head and making me pay for other people is not indicative of a free country. It is communism."

    No, its progress. If you feel the need to keep living in post Civil War, wild west America be my guest. But the rest of us recognize the need for us to help each other out, and live in a country that cares for ALL of its citizens, not just those fortunate enough to afford their own healthcare.
    • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -11/+24What you call progress I call the road to tyranny. A society that favors collectivism over individualism is not free. I suggest you go to your local library and check out this book.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -11/+12Wow. Theft is Progress.

      just... WOW.
    • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -10/+22@billiam627

      It may be progress but it is not liberty. Call it progress all you want, it's cost to liberty means it's still just theft and tyranny.
    • mike17032, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6"No, its progress. If you feel the need to keep living in post Civil War, wild west America be my guest. But the rest of us recognize the need for us to help each other out, and live in a country that cares for ALL of its citizens, not just those fortunate enough to afford their own healthcare."

      There are lots of countries in the world who subscribe to that idea on healthcare, maybe you should move to one of them.

      Of course not a single one comes close to having the quality that the US system does.... I wonder if that means something.
    • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Soon we'll have open borders, and all of the 3rd world will move to our country to have free access to our high tech health equipment. What will the rest of us do who live by the rules and keep our bodies healthy and avoid dangerous habits/activities? It used to be that states could decide things like this, and if someone didn't like it, they move to a different state.

      Big government is synonymous with tyranny. It's becoming quite obvious. People using the govt to rob their neighbors, politicians using their votes to justify theft. Neither major party deserves a vote.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3The bolsheviks also thought communism was progress. They were wrong.

      Turns out liberty is progress.
    • MixMastaKooz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"A society that favors collectivism over individualism is not free." But the converse is also true: A society that lets everyone do what they want, whenever they want, over collective cooperation is chaotic: it's the antithesis of civilization. I think we as a society need to find a balance between individual freedom and cooperation. It ridiculous to think that each of us is an island: we live in a society that needs your contribution and you need the contributions of others.

      So, bringing this back to health care: I'm not arguing for "universal health care," but at the same time, I'm not disregarding the idea that there may be better systems/ideas out there that can provide health care for everyone. I'm not going to label something because by some teleological process the outcome (everyone gets health care, in this case) has been pre-determined as "bad:" I flat out reject that notion. I'm going to scrutinize it based on its merits and what it accomplishes for me (the individual) and our society.
  • moosepile, on 10/11/2007, -8/+10hbweb500: "Couldn't you, uhh, just go to a private physician if you, god forbid, couldn't wait to have surgery?"

    If you head south, yes - but in Canada it's one lineup for all, no matter how much money is in your pockets.

    Universal healthcare is a great thing, and great idea. The implementation of late in Canada has been poor, for a variety of reasons (among many more):
    - Lack of funding
    - Doctors and Nurses demanding more pay (and who can blame them when they look south?)
    - Nurses killing off the "PN" designation so they can all be "RNs"
    - Shortages in staffing. Because we don't believe in your silly foreign medical training. Go to Tim Hortons.
  • BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -13/+14I never understood why the Republican stance on healthcare doesn't drive away the religious right. Justifying not treating people who can't afford healthcare.

    Sure, some people rattle off 'government programs are bad!' BS constantly, but what changes the fact that some people simply do not have access to healthcare?
    • jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -7/+7"what changes the fact that some people simply do not have access to health care?"

      Nothing. Always has been. Always will be. Health care has an infinite demand and a finite supply. The only things you can do is minimize the number of people without and minimize the impact. Neither of these goals is accomplished with (socialism, single payer system, national heath care, whatever you want call it). Governments are notoriously inefficient.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -9/+11Because the right, fiscally, believes that the government shouldn't be doing that.

      Those on the Christian right do donate to social programs. They just make sure they willingly donate, rather than have the money taken at the threat of violence.
    • WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -10/+14@BrandonMills,

      Are you being intentionally dense? The notion of Christian charity... indeed all the positive traits Christianity aspires to... is one of *personal* choice. Being forced to give is not charity, it a mugging.
    • ptFoe, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Because the religious right are ***** phonies.
    • MixMastaKooz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Actually, what we call the Progessive Movement of the early Twentieth Century that spawned modern liberalism was actually a call to Christian ideals: when you look at old progressives, they were god-fearing Christians who wanted to help the poor and unfortunate. Of course, they donated to charity, etc, but the Great Depression broke the backs of charity, and so the "Let's Help the Poor and Sick Christians" (which are in short supply in the year 2007), turned their idealism into government action.

      They succeeded in some areas and failed in others...I don't think we should just throw up our hands and discount government programs based on some (or, dare I say, even if all were) failures...

      Just giving a bit of context here...
  • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -16/+16Hilary spouts off Marxist rhetoric (take from the successful and give to the lazy)

    Now this...

    Shouldn't they be running on a Socialist ticket? What happened to the Democrat party? This isn't Democracy they're advocating. It's pure socialism.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -16/+8If you don't know what the word socialism means, please stop using it. It only makes you look dumb.
    • internetcoward, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4Martin Luther King was a Democratic Socialist, Marxism and Communism are two different things. Marx is the same as communism,note the case difference. Democratic Socialism could work well for America. What we have got going now seems to be crashing us into the ground. Perhaps America is too big geographically.
    • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -5/+14Entropy, you don't know what socialism is. Stop telling everyone else that they're dumb.
    • OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I love the outrage all the righties have over this...

      America has no left wing, people. Compared to the rest of the world, our democrats are just a little less right wing.

      Consider this too: Our police, fire department, roads, and schools provide public services with tax dollars!
  • mattc908, on 10/11/2007, -8/+8*sarcasm* I don't mind my income being sucked away to pay for someone who thought Highschool was a joke and than didnt make it in to college and now rides along with wellfare!
    • MixMastaKooz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I'd rather that person be given $15,000 dollars to live on than giving billions upon billions to oil companies and cooperations.

      Would you not argue that we currently have cooperate socialism (take from the people and distribute to the cooperation) already? Is that better?
  • tony4moroney, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13@aceg and tyranny sucks. we have universal healthcare here in australia and although its not perfect, its a lot better then what the worlds come to know of your healthcare system.

    the basic concept of universal healthcare means healthcare is available to everyone when necessitated. for non-critical procedures you ~may be put on a temporary waiting list, but youre also provided the option of paying for a private procedure if you cant be ***** waiting. if its critical youre operated on, all expenses paid. I dont know about you but id rather be ensured that i can undergo an emergency procedure without people haggling me for insurance documentation and money.

    Personally i'd rather those tax dollars ensure that when need be, i and my loved ones are protected, and if im lucky enough to never fall severely ill at least i know that money has gone to saving people as opposed to a pointless war. if you wanna have a ***** about your tax dollars going to waste dont blame healthcare and 'socialist idealism' you stingy *****.
    • Stephiems, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10I agree. I'm an American living in Australia, and although the system is not perfect (the lack of dental coverage), it is a lot less likely that someone who needs health care won't get it. The best part is, if you don't want to use the public system, you don't have to. Also, if you make over a certain amount of money, you are encouraged to get private health insurance to try to take the weight off the public system. I don't understand what the problem is with that. People who just can't afford private health can use the public system, and if you can afford it, you can use the private system.

      There are medicines here that you can walk into a pharmacy and buy off the shelve, or from behind the counter without using insurance for about 10 to 20 dollars. If you were to try to do that in the USA, you'd have to visit a doctor and get a prescription all adding up to over $200 if you are a visitor or someone without insurance. The health system in the USA tries to control absolutely everything so they can get more money, even medicine that should be like buying aspirin.

      I also really don't understand why people are so against helping out people who can't help themselves. Sure, there will always be people who are just being lazy, but there are a lot of people who really need the help. Are you ok to just stand by and let them die? The same people must be against welfare too....I guess we should just let these people starve and live on the streets.
    • ptFoe, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3It seems like most Americans only care about is money. All of the developed world has some sort of universal healthcare for its citizens. Are American's so ignorant to think that all these countries are wrong?

      Your patriotism is utter ***** all talk but no sacrifice. Get your poor to fight your wars, while you are back home chucking a hissy fit because your cappuccino machine broke.

  • Conwaysb0718, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11I dont want to pay for anyone's health care except those I choose to cover. It's as simple as that.
    • conmulligan, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5That's because you're an *****.
  • AhmedF, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10@jeffiek - wow. You brought out one example. Good job. Well done. My entire argument that health care serves as a safety net for the poor who can't afford it has been broken by your excellent argument.

    You bitch and moan and whine about socialism non-stop - except when it benefits you of course.

    I don't mind breaking this to you - capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. They can exist with each other around.
  • Xspire, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5Here we go again. But I do like to laugh at the Dems. If they want government to take care of us for us (no matter how slow) then sure let's just become a communist regime. sounds like fun to me.
  • Pirate45, on 10/11/2007, -8/+11Unconstitutional bunch of crap.
  • kosmoX, on 10/11/2007, -7/+17Here's my plan for universal healthcare: I'll pay for mine if you pay for yours. Done.
    • ptFoe, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4why don't you go fight your war in Iraq too you pussy?
    • kosmoX, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Wow. Way to think that all believe who believe in personal fiscal responsibility also support the war in Iraq. Why don't you go perform your abortions you murderer.

      ..see what I did there.
  • cookdsc, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Free healthcare? I'd rather see a more realistic goal, how about just greatly reducing the cost of health care.
    • TheOther1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5They would first have to stop frivolous lawsuits. Since most legislators are also lawyers, they are not about to take money out of the pockets of their frat buddies, or possibly their own pockets.
    • betacmag4u, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3We will all benefit from it ...... healthier workforce = less lost days for sickness = billions and billions in efficiency. Wait .....no thats only when white collar workers get health care.......
  • Dillius, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10This thread is a perfect example of why universal health care will fail. People are so strongly against anyone that brings up any criticism (digging down) that we'd just end up with the lousiest health care system in the world due to ignorance and inaction.

    Name one government program that works like it's supposed to reasonably often? Disaster recover corruption leads to fat lined politician pockets and thousands of people left without any hope whatsoever. People who truly need government assistance often never get a dime, while a bunch of lazy people who have the ability to work but no desire feed off those who are willing to put forth real effort.

    Oh, but I'm sure Obama