What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
334 Comments
- madcat033, on 10/11/2007, -10/+53This article was so flawed... this is terrible. First of all, she says the only things we innovate are: "The deductible, the co-pay and the pre-existing condition." Have you ever taken a public policy class? Co-pays and deductibles are ESSENTIAL for any healthcare system to work. If we ever do get universal healthcare, it had better have a deductible and co-pay. Those prevent "moral hazard." If doctor visits are COMPLETELY free, then everyone will go to the doctor at the slightest sniffle or sneeze or random ache. The deductible and co-pay are essential to weed out the ***** and prevent unnecessary usage of the healthcare system. Otherwise, total healthcare costs would go WAY up and doctors would be swamped with stupid *****.
And I don't know what "innovations" she is expecting, but nearly ALL of the medical innovations come from the US. All the major drug and pharmaceutical companies are based here, and we pay much higher amounts for drugs than anyone else. We essentially subsidize these drugs for the rest of the world.
This woman also contradicts herself. She defines "the very meaning of insurance" as "risk-sharing: We all put in some money, though only some of us will need to draw on the common pool by using expensive healthcare." She then later says: "I once tried to explain to a Norwegian woman why it was so hard for me to find health insurance. I'd had breast cancer, I told her, and she looked at me blankly. "But then you really need insurance, right?" Of course, and that's why I couldn't have it." Excuse me, but you just defined insurance as "everyone putting in money, and only those who need it taking it out." If you don't already have insurance, but you have breast cancer, you are essentially just asking for someone to pay for your medical bills for free. You didn't pay in beforehand. You're asking for a handout. You defined insurance as "everyone putting in money, and only those who need it taking it out," yet YOU DIDN'T PUT IN ANY MONEY!
And then she goes on with: "He dismisses as "an entitlement mentality" the idea that everyone should be getting the same high-quality healthcare." Well actually, America DOES have a pretty pathetic entitlement mentality. This is an America where 66% of the population is overweight and 33% are OBESE! We gorge on fast food and ignore regular exercise. No one seems to give a ***** about taking care of their own health. When it comes to eating a cheeseburger or not, no one cares about their health. No one wants to waste the time or energy exercising for a healthier heart. But then, as soon as they develop heart disease, or lung cancer, or ANY of the numerous very preventable yet very expensive diseases, then they all want free medicine and blame evil insurance companies and republicans for their ills. Perhaps you should take care of yourself before you expect--nay, demand--that others take care of you.
This is a terrible article. She is not particularly knowledgeable or insightful. She takes political shots at Republicans. She seems to be arguing more against profit and capitalism than arguing why universal health care would be better. She doesn't understand why insurance companies don't want to give her free breast cancer treatment.
Tell me, Ms. Ehrenreich, what "innovations" are these socialized medicine systems in other countries making that we aren't? You fault us for not "innovating," yet you fail to provide any examples of what we should be innovating. All the world's drugs and medical tech originate HERE. Why don't you ask that Norwegian woman where her drugs were developed, or her cancer treatments, or whatever.
And what you also can't grasp, is that this ***** isn't actually FREE. That's why you need co-pays and deductibles, which you lambaste in your article. Co-pays and deductibles keep the total costs DOWN by preventing unnecessary use of the health care system.
You know, I am not even opposed to socialized medicine. I think if implemented properly it could work, who knows. But this article is pointless, provides no good arguments, and is a general waste of time. She doesn't seem to understand the topic she is writing about, and seems more concerned with arguing against capitalism and republicans than actually saying why socialized medicine is better. - Jeffmr1, on 10/11/2007, -33/+76I would actually say that private enterprise worked exceptionally well in health care, until the government stepped in. Let us not forget that the insurance industry as we know it today was not called upon by a free market, but rather, created by the federal government almost forty years ago. The biggest incentive for everyone to have good medical care for the best price: eliminate tax shelters and laws requiring businesses to provide insurance and allow people to pay for medical care tax-free (medical savings accounts etc.). Now I'm not saying we just throw the switch and make an instant change, of course there would have to be a heavy transition to get our health care system back on track, but the free market, for charity health care system that we once had, can make a comeback.
- nexus420, on 10/11/2007, -32/+73Another person under the misguided impression that the free market created our current mess. Government created this mess, and more government will NOT fix it.
- dracostimpy, on 10/11/2007, -7/+46Also, health care can hardly be called "free market" when 90% of people get their health care through their employer. That means the employers control the health provider plans and costs, not the insured (aka you). If the health insurers had to compete against each other for each individual policyholder instead of just throw some cabbage at a CEO to get him to sign his company up for that provider, things would be a lot less expensive because of the fierce competition that would create. We need to separate insurers from employers if we really want to see the free market's influence on health care.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -10/+47less competition is not good for the consumer
- gayforvaginas, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21It's refreshing to see so many common sense comments. You can only blame the free market if there is a free market. As free as we are this is now what we have now. It was government that created HMOs and government regulation and power over any subset of the market only attracts lobbyists who want to manipulate that regulation to price others out of the market.
- toxteth, on 10/11/2007, -17/+35Q: Where did Silvio Burlusconi, former PM of Italy, have his pacemaker installed?
A: Ohio, USA
Q: If Italy, Canada, Cuba, Britain and every other state-sponsor of health care provide such great service, why did he come here?
/buried as inaccurate - inactive, on 10/15/2007, -22/+38you ***** want the same people who brought you the DMV to run your healthcare? have at it and in no time those of us who believe in darwinism will be rid of the deadweight we call YOU.
- sloppychris, on 10/11/2007, -6/+21Here's my thing: If you feel medical treatment is a right that everyone deserves, feel free to donate to organizations who share your belief. That's totally cool, you're allowed to spend your money however you see fit. That's what's so awesome about our country, we have the freedom to pursue our own happiness in the way we want.
I believe people should have to earn medical attention by learning skills and trading those skills with those of a doctor. I believe in providing opportunities to those looking to learn the skills necessary to provide themselves with health care. Public schools and community colleges are great ways to do this, and I'll gladly pay for them.
I don't support any law that bans you from giving your hard earned money to causes you agree with. If that's how you want to spend your money, cool. But why do you support a law that FORCES me to support a cause you agree with? - nexus420, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17I don't know the exact number, but 90% isn't far off. That's because the government linked health insurance and employment, thereby forcing people to have jobs to get affordable health care. Getting the government out of it will cause prices to go down and service to get better...it always does.
- PoeticExplosion, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16Package delivery. Fed-Ex and UPS > USPS
- honkyman5000, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17Cross reference the increase in cost of healthcare with the creation of Medicare and see if there's a correlation.
- j0keR, on 10/11/2007, -7/+20Absolutely. I buried this story as inaccurate for that exact reason. It's a lot like how the current "energy crisis" was created by government intervention. They subsidized and over regulated the market until there were no other choices. Profit isn't evil people. If profit is so evil why don't we just let the government supply us with "free" food? Maybe because we already know how that would turn out? I realize that the government has educated most of us to believe that democracy is good, government works, and that socialism would work if only we elected the right people to manage it, but it's all a lie. Smaller government is the only way to correct the situation.
- sloppychris, on 10/11/2007, -13/+26I love it. Public governmental intervention ruins the free market, then blames the free market for inefficiencies the regulations created. Classic.
- spoid_, on 10/11/2007, -17/+30Private enterprise sucks. Screw the drug companies that created life saving drugs and make a profit. We should go back to the stone ages and die in our 30s.
- nexus420, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Yep, thats the other big issue, HMOs. The HMO is another entity that would not exist if not for government intervention. The free market health care system, that we had for many years, worked on the very basic principle of capitalism, "more services = more profit." The government, specifically Richard Nixon, flipped that idea on its head for our current "less service = more profit" system. It is this abomination of government that has screwed our health care system, and until we dismantle the things that brought us here, we will not be able to fix it. More government is not the solution to the problem of government.
- obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12When you get health insurance through your employer, you're getting a group rate. In theory, everyone pays into a pool. The larger the pool, the better the rate. Sure, there is competition among insurance companies for big contracts, but individuals get practically locked out with really bad rates. An individual can't get the kind of rates a group can!
A huge employer such as Wal-Mart *could* negotiate an awesome rate for their employees, but they don't. Oddly, they negotiate low prices for all sorts of other things. They get employees without having to offer benefits.
Tying insurance to employment is hardly a "free-market" solution. A free-market solution would allow employees the ability to quickly switch jobs. Tying people to a specific job is not free-market. It weakens the negotiating power of labor, and I think it also weakens our position in the global economy. - nexus420, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Yeah, you still have to pay for it, but you will pay much less, for the same coverage, through your employer. They are not linked explicitly, they are linked through tax breaks. Employers are allowed to write off all insurance costs, while individuals are not. Which means that the company usually pays a portion of the premium, leaving you to pay the rest and they can write off the expenses. (simplified; i'm not a tax lawyer :) ) This doesn't totally prevent private health insurance, it just makes it prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of people. I believe Wal-Mart's issues had to do with preventing employees from working enough hours to qualify for health insurance, but I could be wrong on that.
- aeoo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13USA has the best system for elites. It simply has a very ***** system for anyone who is not loaded with cash and hooked up at the international levels.
- musicmantrs, on 10/11/2007, -7/+17More government fixes everything, just look at how well social security works [do I need a sarcasm tag].
- timothybryce, on 10/11/2007, -21/+31Government control over health care has got to be the worst idea I've ever heard of.
- nexus420, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13how about the cell-phone industry? you think the government could've gotten a cell phone into the hands of pretty much everyone that fast? Not a chance. There a very few examples of getting government out of anything, once it gets power, it does not like to give it up.
- toxteth, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13I wish I could give you more than one thumbs up.
- BossX, on 10/11/2007, -16/+26Spend an hour in a Canadian hospital and see for yourself - a movie can't tell you what to think. We are privileged to have doctors that will treat us without question, rich or poor, without them I wouldn't be here today. The system works, get over it. I wish the US had the same benefits. Oh yeah and here, the more money you make, the more taxes you pay - it's called giving back to society.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+16Go to your local social security office and notice the efficiency there. Now apply that to health care. Cry.
Lets also keep in mind folks that the United States is a huge country. The countries you so love Canada, Cuba, ect based from Sicko, also have populations not even close to the US. What works in small efficient countries, might not work in the large ponderous government and size that is the United States. ***** they have 8 year olds on no fly lists. you want them handling your heart surgery papers!? - rosieanna23, on 10/11/2007, -8/+17It seems to me that whether people have insurance or not isn't really the issue. Just because people have health insurance certainly does not guarantee that they have "affordable health care." That's where the profit principle clashes with the idea of providing necessary services for people who are sick or injured. Medical treatment and procedures are generally expensive, and most people can't afford to pay it out of pocket, so they purchase health insurance.
What about all of the treatments that insurance companies don't cover because it's not profitable for them? What happens to those people who need them but can't get it because it's too hard for their insurance company to turn a profit while covering such expensive treatments? If insurance companies are truly to provide affordable health care, then they must cover expensive procedures that people need instead of rejecting claims because it makes it harder for them to make money. - Gerz1219, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12I agree that healthcare should be separated from employers. My problem is that I firmly believe that healthcare is one area in which the free market just doesn't work. In theory, if all employer-backed health insurance went away, the insurance companies would be competing for customers. But the insurance companies don't make money by paying for health coverage -- the commodity which customers are paying for. They make money by *not* paying for health coverage, or at least ensuring that they pay out as little as possible to the healthiest patients possible, so they can keep as much of the premiums as possible.
The profit motive drives innovation and efficiency when you're talking about computers or mail delivery. But when you're talking about health coverage, the insurance companies have a strong profit motive to refuse coverage to anyone who might possibly collect on their insurance. That's how they make their money, not by lowering premiums and competing for sick customers. They don't want the sick customers' money. It just means they'll have to pay out more down the road.
There's no system under any sort of market which would cause insurance companies to compete for customers. The potential customers most in need of coverage will be systematically denied because, inevitably, they will be collecting more than they put in. Every other industrialized country has realized that it's a practical necessity to spread out the cost of healthcare among the general population, without hyperbolically dismissing this notion as socialism. - pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9quick question: enjoying those non-profit fire fighters, police, and roads?
- Sketchcast, on 10/11/2007, -7/+15I feel sorry for the working class of your nation. America, one day you'll turn your misguided patriotism away from party worship, xenophobia, and fundamentalism; one day you will realize that true patriotism is caring for your fellow citizen.
- sid0, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9^^^ what nexus says happened in India as well. Previously the government had a monopoly on phone services. When private operators were allowed, prices dropped like a rock and today a huge number of people have cell phones.
- Gerz1219, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9There's a big difference between health insurance and car insurance. High-risk drivers are high risk because of personal fault. With rare exception, they got into accidents in the past because they were driving under the influence, or because they just weren't paying attention on the road. And at the point at which high-risk drivers have to pay exorbitant premiums, they've forfeited the right to drive anyway.
Sick people are not necessarily sick because of personal fault (although I do believe that issues like obesity and smoking would have to be addressed in any universal health care plan). Sick people can become sick because of genetic predispositions or random chance. It's not a sick person's fault if they can't afford coverage, and the loss of coverage is no mere inconvenience -- as is the case with drivers -- but a life-or-death proposition. The alternative for sick people who've priced themselves out of the insurance market is to die.
In fairness, you pointed this problem out, but you provided no solution. Because there is no free market solution. All I see here are unconvincing mumbles that non-profit church hospitals will pick up the slack for 40 million people. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8"How many poor kids can afford Harvard?"
They all can. - digboy99, on 10/11/2007, -11/+18Complete socialism nonsense. If there is one thing the free market does is provide incentive for innovation. This person is either hell-bent in promoting a social/political agenda, or wholly ignorant.
- 3tcp, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Social Security is a failed program because it's money that just goes out of the economy. It forces present workers to pay for ex-workers and as such the level of taxes on the working will need to be raised in order for the relatively small number of current workers to pay for the benefits of the retired. The argument for social security savings accounts is that the money stays in the economy as investment money and naturally adjusts so that the amount of money available to pay social security benefits corresponds to the number of people who will receive benefits.
The ratio of people paying social security taxes to those receiving them is much lower now than it was when the system was started. This is going to continue and means that if the social security system is not changed this one program will end up dominating the budget simply because of the ratio of working to retired people changes. - spinningobo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10"Oh yeah and here, the more money you make, the more taxes you pay - it's called giving back to society."
Um, I don't know what they've been telling you, but that's pretty much how it works here in the U.S. too. The wealthier people are in a higher tax bracket, and pay a higher percentage of their income as taxes - which is absolutely foolish.
The wealthiest 5% of Americans pay OVER HALF of all our federal income taxes, and the wealthiest 1% pay over a third. They're paying for most of the ***** that the rest of us enjoy every day.
Say a CEO of a major corporation makes 100 million dollars per year. That means that his ability to make decisions and run the company is WORTH 100 million dollars per year. When he runs the company well, hundreds of jobs are created, and everybody prospers along with him. So how does the government reward him? They take $50 million.
And now, on top of that, you want him to pay for everyone else's health care? Not to mention that in doing so, the overall quality of our health care would be reduced.
I don't know. Hate the rich people all you want, but to me, that's unfair. - AtheistAcolyte, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10@Nexus -
That can't be right. My wife is a behavioral therapist, and cannot get insurance through her company without paying for it personally. Also, wasn't there a big kerfluffle about WAL-MART not giving health insurance to employees? I have to think minimum-wage earners don't have that benefit available. - bovox, on 10/11/2007, -10/+16No, I want the same people who put together the Interstate Highway System to run healthcare ... also the same people who put together the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines ... also the same people who make sure our airplanes land safely on the tarmac ... also the same people who got us out of the Great Depression ... also the same people who ran the organization that gave us the Atomic Bomb ... also the same people who landed men on the moon.
- roodammy44, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Because what is good for the rich is always good for the majority.............
- sloppychris, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Ok. So which ones?
- DummyO, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12Wow, I surprised that so many educated, usually liberal people are so against public health care. Do you not think that everyone deserves to live and not go bankrupt or put off a serious illness or disease? Do you think saving a little bit of tax money is worth worrying about getting sick next time you're "between jobs" or just graduated college? I just don't believe that we can be so heartless to fellow Americans because "they deserve it" and so willing to help other countries in need.
- greevar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6No, that's already happening I'm afraid. Sans the Soviet America.
- pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8yeah, same with government run police and fire fighters.
- arpad, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6When tax policy takes the "free" out of "free market". When the employer gets to pass along the cost of the health insurance to the tax-paying public while individuals who wish to purchase health insurance have to bear the entire cost of it. That's how it's not a free market.
- Himself, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7yes, like in Canada.... where people frequently drive south into another country for surgery.
- Error601, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Please keep this kind of crap in politics. Socialist drivel has nothing to do with health.
- etnin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Yes and no. Pregnancy used to be a pre-existing condition (therefore not covered if the insured switched insurance companies) before the "government" stepped in and barred this practice.
- temsi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Hate to burst your bubble, but statistics show that people who live in countries with universal healthcare, like the Scandinavian countries and most of Europe, live longer than Americans do, so your "let's die in our 30s" statement doesn't really work.
When profit trumps human life, we have a problem.
Would you accept it if the police department was forced to turn a profit? How about the Fire Department?
Those are social programs and none of us have any problems with them and most of us wouldn't like them privatized, so why do we accept the sickness industry as a for-profit industry (can't call it health care, because the state goal of a corporation is not to care for, but to profit from). - sloppychris, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Just because something is true in one instance doesn't mean it's always true in every other instance.
- dracostimpy, on 10/11/2007, -8/+14Another big reason for the rising cost of health care is the virtual monopoly known as the AMA:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/sickness.html
http://www.mises.org/story/1252 - strangewill, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Hey we already are, we just pay for it through taxes anyway. Defense contractors anyone?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 334 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is