What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee's singing debut.
233 Comments
- Zique, on 11/23/2008, -7/+62Who the hell thinks America has the best health care in the world?
- Bloodwine, on 11/23/2008, -0/+43Health Insurance is the biggest problem. I do think it serves a good purpose when you have major surgery and other major issues, but then again what would be their true costs if insurance wasn't in the mix?
However, it has really thrown up a barrier on preventative measures, visits, checkups, minor issues, and so on for those without health insurance.
Anything that helps hide the true cost of care and overly complicates things, ends up skyrocketing the prices. Who cares as long as people pay, right?
Insurance companies and hospitals are reaping the rewards, not the doctors nor the patients. - pintomp3, on 11/23/2008, -7/+46many conservatives and free market fundamentalists who rail against universal or single-payer health care.
- inactive, on 11/23/2008, -5/+36Dugg you down for being a pretentious whiny *****.
- inactive, on 11/23/2008, -31/+57I punched a baby boomer in his colostomy bag.
The only reason free universal health care will become a reality in the next 5 years is to give the Baby Boomers yet another free handout. By the time Gen X and Gen Y get to an age where they will need the health care, the Baby Boomers will already have bankrupted the system like they are doing to Social Security, Medicare and other Baby Boomer legacy programs. Baby Boomers don't give a damn about future generations. - TigerStar337, on 11/23/2008, -4/+26What surprises is why middle class people support the Republicans. The Republicans have done nothing for middle class people like creating new jobs, national health care, and education. Middle class people are lucky to have a job...if they do. They can't afford health care or send their children to the university. But, they still vote Republican. What?
- logandurand, on 11/23/2008, -3/+23Stop protecting insurance companies; make them compete fairly. Insurance hides the true cost of health care from people, so medications and procedures cost ridiculous amounts of money (in almost every country, not just the US). When people pay for their own care, they spend their money smarter and force prices down. Making health care an all you can eat buffet only causes problems, so save insurance for the big stuff.
It'd also help if we stopped eating fast food like crazy and shooting each other so much. Just saying. - pintomp3, on 11/23/2008, -0/+19the hidden hand of the free market is a myth. name one example of a "truly free market". it only exists in theory. the closest experiments have been chile under pinochet and iraq under l. paul bremer. we know how well those turned out.
- Bloodwine, on 11/23/2008, -6/+24I can't speak for Gen Y, but most Gen X really don't expect anything to be there when we retire.
I don't expect to receive any Social Security or government healthcare. If I ever do, then great, it's icing on the cake. If not, then oh well, I planned all along to never get anything.
If anything, the "whiny" Gen X'ers are mostly realists.
The Greatest Generation are the ones reaping the most rewards from the social programs. They are getting far more out than they ever paid in. The Baby Boomers are the ones that will be crying when they realize that they won't get the same great deal.
The Greatest Generation are at the top of the ponzi schemes. The rest of us are suckers. - Innuendo24, on 11/23/2008, -3/+19The people who insist things like Vtnerd confuse me.
"Free market would work if we had free market. We don't have free market in health care in the US."
Really? Then why in every example of government run and operated health care (practically every country in Europe) do they kick our ass left and right in care, prevention, and cost efficiency? You're right, we don't have a truly free market, we are somewhere between the two extremes, but nearly every example of a more socialistic approach provides better overall results. With that in mind why do you insist we push further away from the model that ***** works time and time again? - sirhomer, on 11/23/2008, -1/+16The USA is the only developed country in the world without universal healthcare.. even though, we spend the most on healthcare per capita of any country in the world.
- teamgwho, on 11/23/2008, -1/+15My 10 year old was just diagnosed as mildly autistic as well as having a mild case of Asbergers. He suffers from anxiety and depression. he is in the 5th grade but his math and reading and spelling are on 10th-12th grade and in one catagory, a college level. Sadly he is socially and emotionally on a 3rd grade level. So we want him to see a therapist. We ask the pediatrician to look at a list of in network doctors, to see if he knows any names and can recommend. Sadly he can't.
Quote the pediatrician:
"All the good therapists, especially those who deals with specific types of problems like autistic children, don't take insurance. Why should they? they have a niche catagory and as such are always in demand. If they took insurance not only would it add to their overhead to deal with them, but they would be swamped with patients and never have enough time to provide adequate care."
You can't really blame them, can you?
Who wants to deal with the insurance companies and all their *****? - MJG2007, on 11/23/2008, -4/+18The fact is most western industrialized countries do a pretty good job with managing health care via the government (perfect? No. Then neither are insurance companies).
So we have to ask ourselves, if our government doesn't do a good job, what are we as a country doing wrong that nearly every other government is doing pretty well. - homercles337, on 11/23/2008, -15/+28Cue the ***** crazy, rabid right-wing nut jobs that will quote ad nauseum from blogs, freepers, and other lie-filled sources.
- Coottie, on 11/23/2008, -1/+14Here's a great comparison of health care systems from around the world made by FRONTLINE.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaround ... - scubajim, on 11/23/2008, -0/+13The article is correct in saying a lot of people die from medical errors each year. It is equivalent to 2 fully loaded 747's crashing into each other each day, every day. If that happened in aviation the FAA would ground the planes until the root cause was determined and fixed.
We need:
1. Electronic Medical Records.
2. Efforts to look at the processes that Dr.'s and medical professionals use to improve quality and reduce errors. (Medical professionals WANT to do the right thing and they TRY to do the right thing. So incentive is taken care of. They aren't creating errors because they desire them. ) - fairley7, on 11/23/2008, -5/+17Leave it to a capitalist organ like the Washington Post to dispel myths with myths. While they're right that the US has a health care system that fails many people, they say in 3) that it's NOT administrative costs. In fact, the US has by far the most expensive health care system in the world, and much of it is because we have dozens of insurance companies and dozens of levels of service. If the US converted to a system like Canada's, everyone could be covered for less money than we're paying today.
All other industrialized countries cover ALL their citizens for all medically necessary procedures. In the US, it takes armies of bureaucrats to decide what level of health care each of us is entitled to. In the US, administrative costs are estimated at 15 to 20 cents of every health care dollar. In Canada (and with Medicare) it's 3%.
Check out a comparative table of health care costs from the US Statisitical Abstract: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s1 ... In 2004, the US spent 15.4% of its GDP on health care. The next highest percentage was Switzerland at 11.6%. If the US converted to a universal health care system, we could get Cadillac care for what it's spending today. - KyleGoetz, on 11/23/2008, -0/+12[citation needed]
- OliveStreet, on 11/23/2008, -1/+12I've worked in the healthcare system and I can tell you exactly why it's ***** up and why we, the patients, are getting it up the ass.
First of all, our services are far over-priced. The problem stems from greedy physicians, greedy hospital corporations, as well as greedy drug makers and medical device makers. What's worse, the government is also in on the shame. The AMA was one of the biggest donors to the Bush election and re-election campaigns. When you combine them with the pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, you have a cartel whose pooled resources combine to form the biggest lobbying effort in D.C. They all have the same goal, which is to get richer. And their income comes from the same place: Us.
When I say the government is in on it, consider NAFTA. Why are corporations allowed to have free trade with other countries, but 61-year old Mrs. Jones isn't allowed to buy her blood pressure meds from Canada? These are the EXACT same drug she gets here. They're coming off the same exact production lines. But the meds from Canada are half the cost of what she has to pay at Walgreen's here in the states.
Let me share some more anecdotal references. For 12 years I worked as a radiation therapist in Chicago and Arizona. I no longer work in the field because I've become too disgusted with it, even though my salary was ridiculously high for the work I did. There was a radiation oncologist I worked with in Chicago who would have me perform additional X-rays during the planning session of a patient's treatment because, in his words, he could. In other words, we would perform these additional exposures because even though they were completely unnecessary, they could be justified and billed for and he could make more money for his practice. I've spoken with several people who did the billing in the various rad onc offices where I've worked and typical charges for a course of radiation treatment for, say, prostate was around 50k to 60k. Breast treatments were roughly equivalent. However, with the newer machines that clinics are installing, those costs have nearly doubled. And a lot of this comes from charges like this. Not all. But a significant portion.
In Arizona, I worked with a physician who billed for his services in spite of the fact that he wasn't even in the room. In this case, it was a matter of catheter placement. Before treatment planning begins, a CT of the prostate is done to demonstrate actual volume. In order to localize the prostate, a contrast medium needs to be introduced into the bladder and rectum. These are add-on services that the doctor can bill for in addition to all the other charges the patient is incurring. This particular doctor was a fat, lazy piece of *****. He didn't want to do the catheterization on the patients himself so he had me or some other tech in the clinic do it. He wasn't even in the room, yet the patient was billed for these services. Now the radiation oncology practice itself will argue that because the physician was physically located in the same building as the procedure, he's technically over-seeing the procedure. In my opinion, that's *****. I know this, because I asked one of the other physicians about this situation. The patient incurred yet another "professional" charge for this procedure and the practice made more money. The catheterization needs to done, no question. But if the patient is going to billed for it, the damn doctor should be doing it instead of surfing the web or checking his email.
I could sit here all day and night share similar stories. But what's the point. Our system if *****, but there's too many sheep in this country who think either our system is the best or seem to think a system like that in Europe is tantamount to some kind of Stalinism.
First of all, yes, the same things could and probably do happen under socialized medicine. But you wouldn't find a charge for $1,500 dollars on your bill for a catheterization that was never even performed by the doctor. And I agree taxes would increase significantly. But right now I pay over $6,000 a year for insurance that only covers the basics, and yet I'm restricted as to where I can go and from whom I can seek services. I'd rather pay that $6,000 in taxes and get medical coverage similar to Europe's or Canada's. - greevar, on 11/23/2008, -1/+12The main failure of the American health care system is that it is driven by profit. If you need an expensive operation that will save your life, the insurance company will find a way to deny it and keep the money. The system's priorities need to be changed. The health care system needs to be driven by focusing on preventative care that reduces the cost of more expensive procedures. Treat problems while they're small before they become bigger and more expensive problems. Give doctors bonus incentives who get more of their patients to stop smoking, lose weight, and get physicals. This isn't the only solution, but I think it is part of it.
- jasoninoakland, on 11/23/2008, -0/+11The fact that the best doctors and hospitals exist in the US doesn't mean we have the best healthcare system in the world. The ultrarich and extremely well-connected come here, but healthcare is substandard for the vast majority of people.
- bjornski, on 11/23/2008, -0/+10To the small percentage that can afford them.
- FairDinkumMate, on 11/23/2008, -0/+10"instead of having to wait x amount of time and be approved by some bureaucrat before I can get an x-ray" - This is the exact type of myth trying to be busted here. The MSM(funded by pharma companies no doubt) has spread these horror stories that people believe. Try talking to some people that live in countries with universal health care to get a real picture of how it works.
I am Australian. Universal health care costs me 1.5% in my tax every year. So if you earn $100,000, it costs $1,500 per year. I can go to a 'free' doctor & it may take me a day or two to get an appointment & he receives about $28 from the government for my visit. I can also go to my own or any other doctor that charges more(eg. $50 per visit). I will then pay the $22 difference & he receives the other $28 from the government.
These doctors can refer me for any tests they deem necessary(without any bureaucratic intervention). Again, the lab that does the tests may charge only the government assigned fee, so I pay nothing, or may charge more, so I pay the difference(generally my choice which to use).
If I have a life threatening(or potentially life threatening) illness, I get the best medical treatment available including hospitalisation - free. If I have an illness or injury that is non-life threatening but still requires hospitalisation for treatment(known as voluntary surgery) then I may have to wait a week or two to get in. I also have the choice of paying the difference for a private hospital for this or having private health insurance to cover these types of situations(much cheaper than the US because it covers only the extras & hospital/doctor costs are much lower). This costs me about $130 per month for my wife & I. This also covers dental care which isn't covered by our universal health care system.
Australia's health care system(along with Britain & Canada's, etc) is far from perfect. But all of our citizens & residents are covered & our health outcomes are very good. We also aren't held hostage by the pharma or insurance industries. - smotpoker, on 11/23/2008, -3/+13New and life threatening/debilitating drugs are released in the U.S. before any country without proper testing as well. WTF does the FDA manage to test (and usually approve despite the horrendous side effects) everything big pharm throws at them in 6 years but it takes over 80 years with weed? Maybe because big pharm has people like Rumsfeld infiltrating government offices and exploiting the entire country/government
Our medical industry is ***** and full of doctors who don't give a ***** about the harm they cause or feel "forced" into said harm in order to become/remain "successful" (ie keep their luxuries and maintain child-support and alimony payments). - isorfir, on 11/23/2008, -5/+14We force our companies to give out free health insurance? That's odd, since it's not required to offer it. Plus, it's rarely free to the employee, since they have to devote a (large) portion of their paycheck for insurance (after an already reduced salary so the employer can pay 'their' share).
- Aleman360, on 11/23/2008, -1/+10The whole idea of using health "insurance" to pay for routine health care just seems flawed. I thought the purpose of insurance was to create a large pool of people that made covering rare but exceedingly expensive events possible. You don't use your car insurance to pay for oil changes...
- bjornski, on 11/23/2008, -0/+9We also have the most EXPENSIVE hospitals in the world, effectively denying care to those who can't afford it (more and more and more people every year).
Making sure the wealthiest 25% of the nation are healthy doesn't make this "the best" system at all. - throop77, on 11/23/2008, -2/+10Health insurance companies are charged much less for the same operation than someone without insurance. Its against the law, but they get discounts. Oh, and I like how people without insurance in NY have to pay an extra 8.9% tax on an operation to help those without insurance... wtf!? This resulted in an extra 1K on my apendectamy bill.
- inactive, on 11/23/2008, -8/+15For passing universal health care we will also get something else… an opportunity to finally bury Republican party into oblivion. Get on this people. Even if you don’t care about health care I’m sure you will love to annihilate GOP.
- inactive, on 11/23/2008, -1/+8I don't want one-party system. I just don't want Republican party anywhere near my government. Some third party will take it place for sure. It is kind of funny that self proclaimed libertarians, such as yourself, feverishly defend party of George W Bush. You guys are so full of it.
- esus4, on 11/23/2008, -3/+10Keeping the economy running well is 'one of' the functions of government -- that includes making sure there are adequate and decently paid jobs available and aneducated workforce able to take those jobs.
Things that get in the way of that include things like involvement in ill-advised wars, failed health care policies and destruction of the middle class for the benefit of the ultra wealthy.
Not that we should be blaming the GOP or anything. . . - SethEllis, on 11/23/2008, -6/+13We do have the best health care in the world. It's just that our insurance sucks.
- riot, on 11/23/2008, -0/+610 grand to take it out ... thank god I live in canada. They just took it out when I came down ill as a child.
- StankInTheBank, on 11/23/2008, -5/+11Here come the morons with their "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE IS EVIL!" crap. So let me preempt that by pointing out that:
1. Our free market system is crap. No one should get rich off denying people medical care.
2. No one is promoting socialized medicine. If anything, single-payer is socialized INSURANCE. As in we all join a mandatory non-profit insurance company via taxes, and ALL share the benefits of the biggest "group plan" possible. Better for you, better for your doctor. Bad for the rich insurance companies.
People pushing the for-profit health insurance system we have in place now are either morons or shills for Big Insurance. - enderreil, on 11/23/2008, -1/+7Health is a funny thing. A few years ago I got sick visiting my mother. I was running a pretty fair fever and having trouble breathing. I have a history of asthma and bronchitis and figured it was probably that along with a really bad cold, but my mother got worried that it was pneumonia and rushed me into the local urgent care room since it was a Saturday. There, bundled in coats and blankets I waited for over an hour in a waiting room with a dozen other people before being led to a back room. I saw a doctor for all of five minutes total, a pair of nurses for maybe 15 minutes, and had two xrays of my chest taken.
Through it all my mother and I were asking people how much this was all going to cost as we had no insurance and I had been out of work for two months. Nobody could or would give us a straight answer.
Anyway, the prognosis was bronchitis plus an infection of some kind, though general and not concentrated in the lungs. I was given an inhaled steroid, proscription for antibiotics, an imunosuppressant, and sent home.
A few weeks later the bill came for over a thousand dollars, the majority of which was the 45 minutes of my occupancy of that little back room and the five minutes I spent with the doctor. To add insult to injury, they had tacked on a few meds I never saw. At my last ***** job (I was still in college) I had been living off $600 a month. From this I concluded that if I ever get seriously sick in that ***** little town again I'll take my chances bargaining with the reaper. At least he just kills you rather then raping you first. I think that was about the time I stopped believing in privatized medicine.
God... bless... America... - OriginalReplica, on 11/23/2008, -1/+7While the knowing the pricing in advance will help drive down costs for most things, it wont help so much with health care. When your wife is in labor, you aren't in a position to negotiate price. When you find out you have brain cancer you aren't in a position to negotiate price. When you have been hit by a drunk driver you aren't in a position to negotiate price. And you shouldn't have to negotiate between money and the health of those you love, that's just ***** up. Yes, rich people will always have more options to protect the ones they love, but that is no excuse for allowing everyone else to face the barbaric choice between financial stability and the life of a family member.
- inactive, on 11/23/2008, -9/+15Only wish I'll be around to see what the whiny GenX/Y ***** will be expecting.
- GovernmentsGun, on 11/23/2008, -1/+7Insurance isn't the only thing that has thrown up barriers. Government has added hundreds of thousands of regulations on doctors and hospitals that cost a lot to comply with.
- dhs100, on 11/24/2008, -0/+5What kind of moronic logic is that? When you say, "We do have..." are you associating your health care provision with that of the mega rich? I guess you, your family and friends can all sit back safe in the knowledge that you're receiving the same wonderful health care as the billionaires? Following the Olympic medals table I reckon it's also safe to assume that Americans are also the fittest people on the planet. Hmmm.
"They make the mistake of assuming that the best care in the world is measured measured by broad metrics like life expectancy or infant mortality...and also people who don't have access to the system." What?!? If you don't take those things into account, what do you take into account? I think you're having problems understanding the word 'system'. You can't pick the best components of a system and say that that is representative of the system. You can judge a society by how it cares for its poorest and America sucks at this. If I were filthy rich, I'd choose America for my health care, since I'm a normal person, I prefer the European system. I love the system we have in the UK. I've used it loads of times including for surgery and I’ve been very happy with it...and it costs very little (to the point that I've actually not noticed it). On top of that I've got the option to go private either here in the UK or in America whenever I want. - KyleGoetz, on 11/23/2008, -1/+6Apparently US health care (according to the article) has risen FOUR TIMES faster than personal income. That's a 400% increase. 400% > 30%.
- Kickerr, on 11/23/2008, -4/+9I'm surprised no one has mentioned Micheal Moore's movie "Sicko". And before someone wants to attack him and call him Hitler, Satan, anti-christ or something, just check the facts. Don't take his word for it, you have the tool to research it at your fingertips. Seems some may not want to know, but anyway here is a place to start - http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/
- Sansul, on 11/23/2008, -2/+7My grandfather is alive today because of the Canadian universal health care system. In America, he would not of recieved insurance due to have preexisting conditions, and thus would not of qualified for heart surgery. If we had to pay for the 6 months of hospital stay, we would of had to mortgage our entire family, and potentially bankrupt everyone so he could get to live another few years. We would of had to choose between putting him down like a dog, or going into financial ruin to keep him alive, a decision I am truly grateful we never had to make.
Canadians will guard their universal healthcare with their lives, because that is what is at stake ultimately. Its the very nature of the American healthcare system that those who disagree with it are denied care and die before they can rally the troops. - inactive, on 11/23/2008, -1/+6Quoting a report from a biased organization isn't proving much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute
The Fraser Institute is conservative and libertarian think tank based in Canada that espouses free market principles. Its stated mandate is to advocate for freedom and competitive markets. It generally opposes public policy solutions based on government spending, taxes, deficits, and regulation. - KyleGoetz, on 11/23/2008, -0/+5I'm a 25-year-old grad student and I need it starting Dec. 1, when I'm no longer covered under my dad's plan and cannot afford $150/month for semi-decent health insurance. America, ***** YEAH!
- dofe, on 11/23/2008, -3/+7"The socialists are greatly emboldened. America is filled with people now who are deadbeats and looking for a free ride. I do not want to subsidize their hypochondria."
I feel sorry that's your view of universal health care, as it's obviously really incredibly narrow and incorrect. I suggest you take a look at the health care systems of other industrialized countries that do provide universal healthcare -- but of course, it's probably easier for you to just shout "socialist" than understand the issue. The point is, universal healthcare doesn't necessarily mean one that is run by the government (look at the German and Japanese system, for example).
As to the poster of thinks the government has no role in the economy -- that's a really naive view. Pure free-market economies simply do not work in real life unless you think the American experience with robber barons during the 19th century is the kind of society you want to live in. People often argue that free-markets lead to efficiencies, but they ignore the sometimes disastrous side effects that may have on other parts of the economy. An unchecked free market (thanks to a lack of government regulation) is one of the primary causes of the economic downturn we are facing at the moment.
The point is, government has and should have a role in certain areas of the economy. People who are so quick to bring out the "socialist" card at the mention of universal health care are ignoring the problems with our current health care system.
- TPorter72, on 11/23/2008, -0/+4Canada's cost is about 10% of GDP, they say if we increase it by .5% we can remove our doctor shortage, meaning hardly any wait time.
Canadian system:http://www.ecosante.org/OCDEENG/704.html
US System:http://www.ecosante.org/OCDEENG/727.html - Bith8654, on 11/23/2008, -0/+4Wow I just realized what Newsmax was. I apologize for such an awful link, I just woke up.
- PoppyLacava, on 11/23/2008, -5/+9kookbutt - not true. I work with a semi-retired dentist who is 67, he and all his baby boomer pals are rich as hell and the one thing they can't stand is that they are forced by the government to take social security. They all know they don't need, they all know the crisis it is in, but they have to take it. Some of them give it away to charity, others soak it back into their stock market portfolios to give to their children after they die.
- pintomp3, on 11/23/2008, -1/+5it would be great to see the GOP disappear, followed shortly by the demise of the DNC.
- rushiku, on 11/23/2008, -0/+4Um, no. The goal of pharmaceutical companies is this: to find drugs that extend life such that the person lives long enough to run out of money before they die.
They are not interested in 'cures', as there is no repeat business. -
Show 51 - 100 of 235 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is