What is Digg?Sponsored by Toyota
Toyota's remedy for floor mat entrapment view!
youtube.com - Toyota explains what is being done to address the potential floor mat entrapment of accelerator pedals.
26 Comments
- PhilPerspective, on 10/16/2009, -0/+26FTA:
"What’s more, this argument stands the usual logic of markets on its head: if you believe AHIP’s story, competition raises prices instead of reducing them. And it doesn’t matter where the competition comes from: anyone who gets a better deal, whether it’s Medicare or a private insurer, makes life worse for everyone else. I don’t believe that, and neither should you.
Of course, the report doesn’t mention these implications. The only bad competition it talks about is competition from the government. Specifically, it claims that a public insurance option would be a bad thing — not because it would be inefficient, but because the public plan would negotiate better prices. Isn’t that an argument for, not against, such a plan?"
Yes it is an argument for such a plan. It's kinda funny in a sad way that the Insurance companies are attacking the Baucus bill. He's a total sellout to said companies and yet they are trying to make him look bad. Will it make Baucus grow a pair and do what's right? That remains to be seen. - reeds1999, on 10/16/2009, -0/+22FTA: 'The industry worries that some people will game the system, remaining uninsured as long as they’re healthy, then signing up when they get sick.'
Kidda like signing up customers and then rescinding them when they get sick huh? - Alheithinn, on 10/16/2009, -1/+20Another masterpiece from Paul Krugman. And nothing you would have heard on FOX, which hailed the report as 100% factual.
- Alheithinn, on 10/16/2009, -0/+11Exactly!
- cosmicinsight, on 10/16/2009, -0/+10Elected officials seldom show a strong will to help undo the wrongs to the society as they are strongly influenced by the vested interests of the big business that feeds them and which these officials are sworn to protect.I wonder why such a strong opposition by the conservative political ideology(media and talk shows included) to something that is so morally right and meaningful to the average multitude and the society at large of this great nation.
- Alheithinn, on 10/16/2009, -0/+9I think the insurance companies are doing to Baucus what the conservative Christians are doing to Obama...not matter how much you compromise and accommodate, it's never enough. They'll still condemn you.
- worddance, on 10/16/2009, -0/+8It's not the first time. Remember these same forces opposed Social Security and Medicare too. This battle has been going on a long time. The difference is that for the past few decades (since Reagan) the money forces have convinced the populace to act against their own interests. Hopefully, that's changed. I think Krugman's right. We're going to get health care bill this time and it will be at least half way decent.
- Hrodrik, on 10/16/2009, -1/+9Thanks, lobbyist douchebags. You manage to show that the only thing you are trying to maintain are your profits.
Thanks for that report. You can go ***** yourselves now. - Alheithinn, on 10/16/2009, -0/+6Obviously, I don't, and just as obviously, you don't know what you're talking about.
- Alheithinn, on 10/16/2009, -0/+6I don't agree that Krugman is attacking Obama. That would imply that he is anti-Obama, and he is not. I think Newsweek is sensationalizing a bit. Krugman disagrees with some of President Obama's policy decisions. He has that right. I disagree with some of the president's policy decisions too, but I still support him.
Limbaugh, Beck, et al, are ATTACKING President Obama. And unlike Krugman, they offer nothing constructive. They are nihilists, anarchists, and nothing more. If any of them have a single real idea between them, I'd be surprised. A political platform has to offer something other than a flat out contradiction of everything somebody else is saying. Krugman DOES offer such alternatives. - secrity, on 10/17/2009, -0/+3I like it when Republicans can't figure out that it is normal for Democrats to not agree with each other and to even criticize (not attack) elected Democrats at times. Unlike the Republicans, Democrats do not walk in lock step.
- Taiyoryu, on 10/16/2009, -1/+4This has already been covered ad nauseum
- Langford, on 10/16/2009, -2/+4This idea of insurance being a mandatory purchase bugs me, I want more information. Is this businesses or individuals? They aren't doing us any favors if they force individuals to buy insurance, there are valid reasons people don't buy insurance, it's expensive and you can't get blood from a turnip. Wasn't the whole idea of this endeavor to keep medical expensive from ruining lives?
We already pay taxes, and as a nation spend more on our national health-care for the elderly than do nations that give health-care to everyone. Are our elderly especially sickly, or is someone being cheated? There is no valid reason we can't have health-care that is funded by the taxes we already pay. - cosmicinsight, on 10/19/2009, -0/+1Mary,thank you for your sharing my sentiment,and I am sure more and more would subscribe to it as there is an underlying truth to it,to further that sentiment,I would like to add that even half way decent in the way of reform would be a lot better for a lot of people who have been hurt by the status quo for so long and stand a chance to be its victims if the healthcare system is not reformed to be inclusive and affordable.It makes even more sense in these dire times when the incomes are dwindling,meaningful employment is on the decline and the elected representatives who can help reform(influence positive change for the benefit of society) are so smug in their power, position, and prestige and the money influence that helps sustain it are becoming more and more far removed from the realities facing an average household.It becomes impossible for them to deliver on their election promises and also an apathy sets in our collective mindset to except nothing in return from them.We tend to justify whatever comes our way by cliches such as vagaries of human nature, profits and greed are the engines of capitalism etc. etc..On a cautionary note I will end in reminding that whatever the recipe of reform is concocted should ensure lowering of cost to any employer employee or individual over plan options available to them at present and that it will cut into the rapid growth of rising health costs,otherwise it is counter productive and will be a patch that will need a patch later on.
- MrFunStuff, on 10/16/2009, -0/+1A Preemptive post for those who think the changes made by Kefauver-Harris Amendment actually protects us from harmful side effects.
United States. Dr. Bruce Pomeranz, a professor at the University of Toronto, and his team analyzed 39 studies conducted in American hospitals over four decades (the study was funded by a scientific-research group). Of 33 million patients admitted to hospitals in 1994, more than 100,000 died from toxic reactions to medications that were administered properly, either before or after they were hospitalized. And more than 2 million suffered serious side effects.
The Kefauver-Harris amendment is meant to protect us from harmful side effects but it's doesn't. It just protected the big pharmaceutical companies from competition.
Let's analyse what new power the Kefauver Harris Amendment gave to our government. The FDA was give greatly expanded regulatory powers, including the ability to deny approval of drugs that they felt weren't fully effective. The FDA's regulatory process to bring new drugs into the market is very costly in terms of money and time, making it exceedingly difficult for businesses other than large pharmaceutical corporations to survive in the drug market. Dr. Mary J. Ruwart estimates that no less than 50% of new drugs have been blocked from the market due to this process.
Because of the 1962 amendments, the FDA can determine and change the requirements to bring new drugs from the laboratory and into the marketplace. In 1962, the development phase of drugs took approximately 4.5 years. A good amount of time for a business to invest money in a product that might never get the chance to sell on the market, right? Today the development time is 15 years. With such brutal development and marketing procedures for drugs, it should be no surprise that drug prices are rising. These regulatory proceedings limit the supply of new drugs, raise the price of existing drugs, and limit patient access overall to drugs. In other words, the demand for these drugs does not disappear, but the supply is often heavily limited. Thus, prices go up.
With the drug market essentially limited to the few businesses who can afford to comply with the expensive FDA regulations, competition has taken a beating. Drugs often represent a more affordable method for prevention, treatment, and a general tool to lower medical costs. However, the FDA has so greatly limited potentially life-saving drugs that medical costs continue to rapidly expand.
If it was the patients, not central bureaucrats, who worked with their doctors to decide whether or not certain drugs were logical for their own situation, competition in the drug industry would flourish, prices would fall, and accessibility would increase. We need to understand that government intervention comes with a price by benefiting larger corporations and limiting the competitive ability of smaller businesses.
I am not discounting the effects of greed and the want/need for profits that is inherent in some individuals. But the answer to these problems is not more government intervention or centralization of the markets. The trouble that we face in health care and many other industries is precisely too little competition, a trend that government has consistently worsened. Just look at the drug market: it has become such a bureaucratized process that it ends up helping the larger corporations, hurting small businesses, and pinching the consumer in terms of choice and cost. - vpshockwave, on 10/16/2009, -0/+1Cool story bro.
- inactive, on 10/16/2009, -2/+3Huh? It's NOT George Clooney!?
- MrFunStuff, on 10/16/2009, -0/+1Over-reaching FDA regulations have caused the premature deaths of millions of Americans, according to research scientist Mary J. Ruwart, Ph.D., who also said federal regulations passed in 1962 are responsible for more than 80 percent of the cost of today's prescription drugs.
Instead of protecting Americans from unsafe drugs, Ruwart said, "these particular regulations, the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments, have proven to be more deadly than all of the drug toxicity that occurred before their passage." She estimated that between 1963 and 1999, 4.7 million people died prematurely while the medicines that could have saved them languished in mandated testing.
"The amendments saved a few thousand lives, but the cost was [in] letting millions die [while] waiting for treatment. That's why the amendments are 'excess' regulation," Ruwart said.
http://www.heartland.org/publications/health%20car ... - Kwanijml, on 10/16/2009, -0/+1Who is burying you?!!!! I'll tell you who. . . the same mindless diggers who love to scream at anyone on digg with a differing viewpoint than theirs (non-liberal) while claiming to be so benevolent that they would digg you up if only you just made 'rational arguments' and cited your sources.
You've done both, very well, and I challenge anybody to refute the logic. I make comments like this quite frequently and the best that anyone can do is skirt the issue, or make an insult, quip, or possibly nit-pick on one small piece of the argument, instead of seeing the big picture.
Capitalism hasn't failed us people! It's not a system, so it's not a system that can be broken; it's the laws of nature, and left unimpeded by government intervention, it works out for the greatest benefit of all.
You like to claim that anyone who does not support health-care overhaul is just a Republican with no ideas. . . well here it is, in all it's glory, and it's been in front of your eyes since the dawn of time: Have the government gtfo of our lives and our businesses. That is the only solution.
Want more? www.fff.org look into Sheldon Richman's articles especially. - ionouono, on 10/16/2009, -5/+4Anyone else think that the guy in the thumbnail looks like George Clooney?
- paulie86, on 10/16/2009, -6/+3According to Mr. Krugman's logic, insurance industry profits will "probably" see an increase with a public option. If the government reduces Medicare spending to hospitals, primarily to cut costs as well as keep insurance companies honest, the latter will be forced follow suit; however, insurance companies will still see a rise in profits? The ones taking the largest hit in this scenario are hospitals and health care providers. The middle men will see increased profits while the actual service providers take a tumble. This is an unacceptable consequence. How can you justify the effects of this on the purely charitable hospitals you mention? We cannot afford to see a loss in the quality of our health care.
- SethEllis, on 10/16/2009, -5/+2"Part of the opposition to a strong individual mandate comes from the sense that Americans will be forced to buy policies from a greedy insurance industry."
Uh...no. We're opposed to it because it's unconstitutional. - jscrilla, on 10/16/2009, -5/+1Did George Clooney write this article?
- akchrs, on 10/16/2009, -5/+1"I don't agree that Krugman is attacking Obama."
Yes you do. - MrFunStuff, on 10/16/2009, -7/+2We need health care reform but a public option is just not sustainable. Especially because of the condition that our economy is in. I am very willing to have a intelligent debate about how to fix this problem.
Remember The only reason insurance play such a big part in today's health care is because cost have gotten so out of control. Think about every other insurance that you have. You don't buy car insurance to get in a wreck the next day do you. Health insurance was used only for emergency before the government started intervening and cost started going up.(I will show examples of this in my post)
Socialized medicine or any government healthcare plan have not solved the problem of risings healthcare cost. Free markets/Competition is the only real prices control. The incentive to keep cost down comes from the fear of being put out of business by a competitor who does.
So why are prices so high for health care if we have a free-market in the healthcare industry.The answer is we don't. We have many law the destroy competition which causes prices to rise. EX
The AMA was given the monopoly on licensing doctors.
This is the key to so many of our problems.
We do not need general practitioners for basic medical services. Through force of government intervention, certification and licensing (under the guise of efficiency, standardization and increased professional standards) has removed the entire bottom level of the healthcare system, forcing people to pay higher costs for services that could be provided cheaper, and taking supply away from people with more serious illness.
The AMA also lobbys to limit the number of doctor's who can legally practice medicine
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doc ...
Congress controls the supply of physicians by how much federal funding it provides for medical residencies — the graduate training required of all doctors.
Why? Supply and Demand. The smaller that supply of health care practitioner the more money they can demand. We need to make sure health care practitioner are not denied the ability to practice medicine due to some artificial limit.
"Mark J. Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan, argues that “we would probably go a long way to solving our ‘health care crisis’” if the “medical cartel” hadn’t prevented medical schools from expanding to meet students’ demands for more places. He notes that American law schools responded to the growing population by expanding the number of places available, whereas medical schools shrunk instead. As a result, their rejection rates rose, frustrating students who wanted to be doctors. The result was fewer doctors to care for the growing population, but it was good for those who did get accepted, as Dr. Perry illustrates in a chart showing that salaries for doctors in the United States are double to triple what their counterparts make in Europe.
One way to relieve the shortage of providers that the medical industry has created would be for the A.M.A. to abandon its aggressive game of turf-protection and allow nurses, midwives, physician assistants and practitioners of alternative therapies such as chiropractors, to offer standard treatments for routine illnesses without physician supervision. For instance, midwifery, once a robust industry in this country, has been virtually destroyed, thanks to the intense lobbying against it by the medical industry. In 1995, 36 states restricted or outright banned midwifery, even though studies have found that it delivers equally safe care at far lower prices than standard hospital births. "
Is A.M.A. Support for Health Reform a Bad Sign?
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/is- ...
The 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendment account for 85% of current pharmaceutical cost.1962, laws passed makes it almost impossible to get a new drug approved. In 1948 one well-know pharmaceutical company (Parke & Davis) had to summit 73 page of evidence to secure the licensing of a drug. In 1968, this same company had to submit 72,200 of data transported by truck, in a effort to have an anaesthetic licenses. Once a lot of these regulation that drive up cost of doctors and medicine are gone it will be cheaper to start up private hospitals.
56% of all hospitals in America were privately own and for profit in 1910. After 60 years of subsides for government-run hospitals, the number had fallen to about 10%. Medical expenditures rose by 224% from 1965 - 1989. Number of hospital beds per 1,000 population fell by 44%. Remember what we have now is not a free market system, it's a government managed system and national health insurance is a different type a government managed system.
sky-rocketing costs are caused by government intervention in the market, that causes artificially high pharmaceutical cost and a lack of competition.
Some people say government is currently trying to tackle the fairness of access, but without significantly decreasing costs.
But those people are ignoring the problem of consistently rising cost. The system won't be very fair when the government cant pay for healthcare because cost got too out of control. It's happening right now
Exhibit 5
Total Health Expenditures as a Share of GDP, U.S. and Selected Countries, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2003
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx1970xx1980xx1990xx2003
Australia xxxxxx$252xx$691xx$1,306x$2,886
Canada xxxxxxx299xxx783xxxx1,737xx2,998
Switzerland xxxx351xxx1,031xx2,029xx3,847
United Kingdomxx163xxx480xxx987xxxx2,317
United Statesxxxx352xxx1,072xx2,752xx5,711
Swedenxxxxxxxx312xxx944xxx1,589xx2,745
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307ot ...
Government managed healthcare start out good be gets more and more expensive. Just like Medicare and Social Security
"We're officially past the point where Social Security and Medicare insolvency are far-off problems that we can ignore.Medicare is going bust sooner than we expected. And this isn't some crazy, partisan rambling. This is coming straight from the government"
http://www.businessinsider.com/medicare-insolvent- ...
When healthcare cost get too high. Countries will ether start rationing care, meaning people who need care won't get it or countries will start going in to debt to pay for health care which could lead to bankruptcy. None of this is very fair.
Countries all around the world don't want to treat healthcare as a goods but it is. It's a service that requires money to provide. Most people in these countries think government intervention has solved their healthcare issue. But little do they know that it was government intervention in the first place that started prices to spiral up. Government managed healthcare is a ticking time bomb of pain. America's bomb is probably going to go off first. Why? Because Americas economy is going down and healthcare cost are going up. All the people dependent on Medicare and Social Security are going to be left with no help. This could easily happen to any other countries, economies are not static. - akchrs, on 10/16/2009, -9/+1I like it when he attacks Obama. AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
"Krugman: the left's new anti-Obama"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20592.ht ...
