What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Know a Book Lover? Give Them the Sony Reader Touch view!
bestbuy.com - It's sleek and light, stores hundreds of books and has a long lasting battery.
766 Comments
- Aidenag, on 10/10/2007, -47/+123Wow, we really are pretty much the last 1st world country to not give universal healthcare. How screwed up is that.
- ChessPieceFace, on 10/10/2007, -13/+89Interesting map. It states "Iraq and Afganistan [sic] univeral [sic] health coverage provided by United States war funding." Makes one think.
- doctorfungi, on 10/10/2007, -20/+95I fail to see why Canada's health care system is considered the optimum model to follow. Private health care is ILLEGAL in Canada.
Australia is where it's at. Public health care is available, but if you decide you don't want to wait on the waiting list, you have the option of using a private health care system. In Canada, you have to travel to the US if you wish to skip the waiting lines in the public system.
In my opinion, that is just stupid. - unclebuddy, on 10/10/2007, -36/+102"Not only is health care a basic human need but it is also a human right and the health of the citizenz leads to great benefits for any nation's economy"
Health care is not a "right". Just as food is not a "right" nor is sex a "right." Please tell me where in our founding documents does it say that we have a right to health care.
Our Constitution recognized our God given rights. Our right to privacy, our right to speech, our right to accumulate wealth and out right to defend our self. These rights are violated daily. Daily! Yet instead of defending these rights and principles we create make believe rights and look to our government to "grant" them to us. What path are we taking here?
Further, when has more government involvement solved anything? The problem with the American health care system is too much government involvement. This industry is heavily regulated and the HMOs have been given near monopoly status due to the government involvement. Why do we want more of this?
Want a look at what health care would cost and look like with far less government involvement. Look toward a veterinarian. They perform very similar services with very similar educations and equipment and to it for 1/8 of the cost of human treatment. And Fido seems to live to a natural old age regularly.
Why are we walking this road? - 10001110101, on 10/10/2007, -8/+68That maybe America should attack/invade itself?
(Quiet truthers!) - Hananda, on 10/10/2007, -37/+87The economic issues aside, I'd like to ask why the pro-universal healthcare folks here support funding for "preventable" diseases. If some guy doesn't take care of himself, and needs a bypass, how is this the problem of the American taxpayer? Don't you guys find it morally reprehensible to force society to pay for this mans lack of concern for his own health?
I'm familiar with the argument that universal healthcare will bring about increased productivity in the workforce, and that's a valid point as far as I can tell, but as far as I'm concerned, the core issue is personal responsibility. It seems to me that universal healthcare would say to the people "Hey, don't bother getting an education, job, or doing what you have to do to look after yourself or your family, let the government take care of you."
Why not make a universal healthcare system Opt-in? Our society is still one in which even those of us born into poverty can work hard and become part of the middle class, even the upper class given correct circumstances.
I, for one, worked very hard to get out of the trailer park and into the middle class, and have never taken Federal or State assistance of any kind. It can, and commonly is, done. I have no interest in carrying those unwilling or unable to finance their own medical treatment, or unwilling becoming competent enough in their field to find an employer that will provide them with health insurance. For those of you that do, more power to you. Personally I would think you'd do better to donate to a local charity, but to each his own. Anyway, point is, why drag the rest of us along with you?
All of the above borderline nonsensical rambling aside, I do recognize that the healthcare system in the US is in serious need of reform. I'm not opposed to universal healthcare, but seeing how mismanaged programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and so on and so forth are at the Federal level, wouldn't it make more sense to implement universal healthcare at the State level? At least at the State level there's some degree of accountability, and varying degrees of healthcare could be provided in the various states. I wouldn't think that the majority of universal healthcare supporters would like to see the program paying for cosmetic surgery, for example, but hey, maybe there's a state out there that wants to do that. - masamunecyrus, on 10/10/2007, -28/+75"Not only is healthcare a basic human need but it is also a human right"
A RIGHT? Being allowed to get health care is a basic human right. Getting it for free is not. If it is all of our rights to get free health care, is it also our right to ask doctors for their services for free after they've spent well over 8 years in college? It's no different than saying that it's every human's right to have free meals at restaurants because food is a necessity to live. At some point, someone has to pay.
"There's no such thing as a free lunch," would apply here. - mushroomsrmagic, on 10/10/2007, -10/+50ron paul has nothing against states having universal health care. if the constitution doesn't provide for it then he is against it. the people should get behind an amendment to the constitution that provides for it if they want the federal government to provide it. there is nothing stopping any state from doing this either. don't blame ron paul for knowing exactly what the ***** he's doing. on a side note, i'm 35 and have not once been to a doctor since high school. healthcare would be a lot cheaper if people would attempt to take care of themselves instead of eating junk food and watching tv.
- zykt0n, on 10/10/2007, -8/+40In Britain we have universal health care and the option of having private health care as well, if we want it. there are hardly any ques in terms of waiting for treatment if you look after yourself. they prioritize treatment, if you smoke and you have lung cancer you wait behind the people who didnt smoke and have lung cancer, if you have a liver problem and you are 12 years old you wait in front of someone who has a liver problem and is 45 years old and been drinking the whole time. all these claims of waiting times etc made by the US government and co is all propaganda based around picked and chosen statistics. public health care is fantastic i wouldnt live in a country without it, and i can confidently say about 95% of the people i have ever spoken to about it would completely agree with me, most of us look at films like sicko and see people dieing in America because they dont have as much money as other Americans and we observe the US as we would a 3rd world country, that needs help and needs AID, and we would send it if the America wasnt so damn proud, and would admit it needs to change and that it needs help to change it properly.
- Lixie, on 10/10/2007, -9/+40We're funding universal health care in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we don't get it!?
- smackhero, on 10/10/2007, -28/+57bu-but Ron Paul says universal health care, like public education, net neutrality, and anything that is pro-populist, is unconstitutional!
[cue the Ronald Reagan propaganda record likening universal health care to creeping totalitarianism.] - Conwaysb0718, on 10/10/2007, -5/+33Why the ***** is it so hard for you people to get it through your thick skulls that Ron Paul doesnt believe the federal government should be writing so much legislation that impacts all 50 states. Jesus Harold Christ, if California elects to have universal healthcare then they can vote it in with a majority of votes, raise the taxes, and attempt to provide the desired healthcare. If Arizona votes down universal healthcare, they dont raise taxes, and life goes on. If you live in California and are really pissed off about paying for everyone elses healthcare, move to Arizona.
You are a simpleton if you cant understand that in the United States, according to the Constitution it should not be the job of the federal government to take the reigns of healthcare. After all, most of you speak on how the government mess up everything they stick their fat/greedy fingers in and cant be trusted, how do you think its gonna turn out when they control healthcare? ($70 for a ballpoint pen? $100 for a clipboard?) Its not that hard to understand when you look at it as a states rights issue instead of saying. "But he is ultra religious" So what? His belief in the constitution trumps that. "He's anti gay!" No, for the same reason he votes down universal health care, which is *surprise* the federal government should not be passing legislation on what you can do with your life! "He's pro-life!" Wrong, even though he personally is, he believes the federal government should not be passing legislation on what you can do with your life.... Seeing a trend here? What's so hard to understand that its more about states rights? - Gadren, on 10/10/2007, -7/+35You DO know that the US spends more on health care than countries with a universal health care system, right?
- j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -9/+34Ron Paul also wants to stay away from soviet-style food distribution systems. Which I take it you would also support if "every other first world country" supported it.
- Magnolit, on 10/10/2007, -14/+38Extremely religious - What the hell? He's a christian, so what?
Universal health care - He doesn't want the federal government involved in such a huge thing because the fed is corrupt and always ***** up.
Net neutrality - Government regulation of the internet. - doctorfungi, on 10/10/2007, -38/+61I've always found it odd that Digg users actually support Ron Paul... considering he is extremely religious, against universal health care, and opposes net neutrality.
Then again, I have seen more hypocrites on Digg than I have ever seen anywhere else. So I guess it makes sense. - pcghost, on 10/10/2007, -7/+29My only problem with the concept of universal health-care is the danger that the government will use it as an excuse to outlaw any activities based on risk to health. I hear the arguement used against tobacco users all the time (I am not one), it's o.k. to outlaw smoking here or there because the behavior costs society money and that justifies the law. The concept that the retarded monkeys in our congress get to tell me what is and is not acceptable risk taking scares the crap out of me. Has this occurred in the countries that have universal care?
- 35263526, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25It's only free to the person receiving it, but someone is still paying through taxes; hence, it's not a free lunch.
Same thing goes for socialized healthcare. - jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -19/+40I just want ONE person to tell me EXACTLY how we are going to pay for this. I have ZERO problems with universal healthcare but where are we going to get the money for it? (and no, eliminating the 125 billion per year we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't going to cover the cost of Universal Healthcare)
- BTrey, on 10/10/2007, -22/+43It's also not a basic human right. It can not be. Rights do not place obligations on others. If you have a "right" to health care, then someone is required to provide that care to you. In essence, their freedom is subject to your needs. Generally, when one person commands the work of another without that person's consent, it's called slavery. You have a basic human right of free speech, but that doesn't obligate me to listen to you. You have a basic human right to freedom of worship, but that doesn't obligate me to place any credence in your beliefs. Your rights to do not compel me in any way other than to leave you alone to practice them. But you can not have health care unless someone provides it to you. Health care is not, and can not, be a right.
- physphd, on 10/10/2007, -13/+34Indeed. It's high time to look at our rankings in access to health care, infant mortality rates, literacy levels, and GDP per capita and realize that our system has much room for improvement. Hubris is not a virtue.
- mishabear, on 10/10/2007, -15/+35"Not only is healthcare a basic human need but it is also a human right"
You can't have a right to things or labor. That is called slavery. Someone has to work and/or pay for these things. No one has a RIGHT to someone else's labor. - atmenterprises, on 10/10/2007, -11/+30Finally a Digger with some sense. Thank you!
- NeoRicen, on 10/10/2007, -76/+95And Ron Paul wants to keep it that way. Sorry but it needs to be said, the monster shouldn't be getting the support he's getting given this fact.
- r0gue6, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24Funny, I went to the DMV, waited about 25 min and took care of my *****. My post office has no wait what so ever. It's better to break my arm and owe 50,000 dollars yay!!!!!11
- schoate09, on 10/10/2007, -10/+28Oh, beacuse we're doing so great right here in America
/sarcasm - demizer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Because we are the ones causing them to go to the hospitals.
- carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19of course not, hospitals have a policy (at least in florida) that they aren't allowed to turn anyone away based on race, age, gender, or insurance status. but once you're all put back together and not going to die, you usually get one to three months before they send the hounds after you if you can't pay. you'll get treatment, and you'll spend the rest of your life paying it off....
- Halleys5th, on 10/10/2007, -13/+30If health care is a right, then liberty (of doctors) is not, and neither is property (of taxpayers).
- MJG2007, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20Yeah...the postal service is SO bad. They actually manage to deliver mail to every household in the country 6 days a week and I can mail a letter for 41 cents anywhere in this country and expect it get their within 3 days.
Such awful service. I imagine if it were totally privatized, we'd have mail service 8 times a day delivered by uniformed courier on a silver platter for half that price, right? - Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20The rest of the world laughs when you use that argument. It is not an argument against universal healthcare but a sign that you need to get a grip of your government.
- CorpT, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21You really don't get it. Try to understand what a 'right' is. Food, healthcare, etc... are not rights. They're things that we earn through hard work. We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone is paying for that lunch. I'm sure it's not you, but I am. Food stamps are payed for through taxes. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21to bad its based on debt
- 35263526, on 10/10/2007, -20/+35He's a monster because he doesn't condone government-mandated thievery? Because when it comes down to it, that's what socialized healthcare involves; some people being forced to give money they've earned to pay for people who haven't got any.
- ccrook, on 10/10/2007, -10/+25Lets consider this: many EU nations have made it illegal to deny the Holocaust - should we follow suit, too?
Absolutely not because it violates an actual right in our constitution: free speech. Since when is free health care a right? It's not. - cyberdork, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16Just FYI, according to the Worldbank and IMF the economic growth rate for 2007 is expected to be higher in the EU than in the US.
- aikimann, on 10/10/2007, -11/+25"Wow, we really are pretty much the last 1st world country to not give universal healthcare. How screwed up is that."
Oh sure, "everyone else is doing it" is a great reason to make sweeping changes to our healthcare system. - Cossins, on 10/10/2007, -19/+33You gotta love how this subject is still even remotely controversial in the USA. As this map illustrates, ALL of the developed world and even big parts of the developing world implements universal health care. It works.
Who cares if it's a right or if your constitution mentions it, if it works and you can afford it (and I'm pretty ***** sure the US can if it wants to), it's a good thing!
And why would the US Constitution mention health care, it's an obsolete document written for a time when it did make sense -- it does hold many good values, but much of it just doesn't apply in a 2007 where US independence and sovereignty can be taken for granted.
About preventable diseases... These are of course still controversial. The problem is that you can't always know what's bad for you. For instance, smoking was actually marketed as being good for you in the 50s. So most countries just go ahead and support every disease, no matter how it was acquired, to avoid problems.
I understand that Americans are very reluctant to pay taxes. This must come from the fact that life in the US is very hard (it sure seems so from the very emotional rhetoric in economical issues), so every penny counts. But you must consider the possibility that increased social security can also increase economic growth (as it has done explosively in Europe), so that what you pay extra now will give much greater benefits in the long run.
One common reason for sudden growth from increased security is willingness to take risks. For instance, European marketers looking to enter the American market are met with relatively high reluctance to take risks.
Personally, I'm happy to live in a place where I don't ever have to worry about getting proper treatment if something bad happens to me. It's not security versus freedom, because giving up one freedom for security, gives you new freedom in other areas.
I hope the American public and politicians will at least consider the possibility, for your own sake of course.
- Simon - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14@DDRSkata
are you opposed to forming your own arguments? That was from Sicko. And honestly it's a stupid argument. These services are usually provided at the town or city level. In some areas at the county. My fire deparment is volunteer. Importantly, these are perfectly constitutional.
Universal health care at the federal level would not only result in a lower economic growth rate, but would likely result in fewer and fewer innovations. Unversal health care at the state level would at least be legal. The problem in healthcare isn't that we need more government, but less government involved. The HMOs are thebiggest part of the problem. The fact that we need health insurance for routine checkups is part of the problem, malpractice abuse is part of the problem. Illegal immigrants, a reluctance to go paperless, and other countries' universal health care systems contribute to the problem here.
I'm no Ronbot but this is one issue that I agree with him on.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html
This column does a much better job putting the whole picture about innovation together than I can.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html?ex=1317700800&en=5889b4819eaf787a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss - j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17Something like 90+% of fire departments are volunteer. Take your socialist propaganda somewhere else. Services that are in demand are filled by the market in a much more efficient manner. The United States DOES NOT operate in a free market economy.
- lazyeyesam, on 10/10/2007, -8/+22Strange that you think doctors are made to work for free. I'm in the UK with the NHS; my health care is paid for through my taxes. Not having to worry about where I'll get the money in case I get sick is a wonderful thing.
- spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -19/+33Its a basic human right to be able to CHOOSE your own healhcare system, having one forced on you by the government is just plain wrong.
- j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -13/+26Watch as an intelligent well thought out comment is buried by socialist activists.
- dagnome1984, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17History shows that it never works and always ends up with mass starvation.
- kballweg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14And the rest of us pay the inflated remainder of the person's bill by increased rates for our care at those hospitals. So, actually, you are already paying for other people's health care.
- knuckles, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15@ doctorfungi
Your comment is incredibly uninformed. There are a boatload of private clinics here in Canada, I use them myself to avoid waiting lines. What Canada does *not* allow is private *surgery* for things like open heart, brain, cancer, car accidents victims etc. The reason for this is simple, it keeps the doctors in the public sector where they are needed. A private system would drain all the resources from the public sector and ***** the entire thing up. I suspect that this is true in Australia as well where they too have found a delicate balance. But to categorically state that Canada deems private care illegal is mind-numbingly stupid on your part. - schlurp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14FROM THE LINKED ARTICLE::
Per capita expenditure on health: Canada $2,669, USA $5711 ($2550 through taxes)
So ONE way to almost EXACTLY "pay for this" would be to provide better service but stop collecting any health insurance fees - pretty rough, I know. But how about this: keep everything the same but pay an additional monthly salary to every american. I know those are tough measures, but according to THE LINKED ARTICLE "Canadians do better by every health care measure" and for many americans that might be worth the hardship of having an extra $3000/year in their pocket? - dagnome1984, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13So you would support someone who wants to make mandatory service for anyone that is over 18? No thanks, but I don't want to enslave the youth. Draft and Selective Service are just forms of enslavement given that the government will own the life of the individual.
- johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15where the hell do you live? of all the things to complain about......
my DMV is so efficient i have not been to one in years. i pop in once every few years to renew my license. i do all the renewal forms and payment online, i just show up so they can take my picture. i am in and out in under half an hour with my new license in hand. i live in a state where registration is yearly, and i have been doing that online for many years.
i feel like my post office is pretty efficient too. i have a small side business that has me mailing out packages pretty regularly, and i choose to use the post office for that because they are pleasant to deal with, and quite efficient. you can't beat the rates for media mail! - ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13@ johnpaul191
He is against abortion. He thinks its an aggressive action towards a human being. But he said it's not under the federal governments jurisdiction to make illegal(and it isn't). Murder is a crime but is it a federal crime? No(depends on what kind of murder). Does that mean murder is OK? No. It's up to the state and local governments to enforce it. Health care is not the federal governments job, neither is a lot of things they have been doing for along time now. So he is a religious I'm an atheist and I support him. You know why? His religion contrary to popular belief is not the important issue. -
Show 51 - 100 of 771 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is