What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
247 Comments
- Firstdaughter, on 02/19/2009, -1/+57As someone who has worked in the health care field for almost two decades, I can honestly say that the term "Health Care" in the US has become a misnomer... The business is not about health or helping sick people, it is about money...
Am I an advocate for socialized health care? Not really. I am an advocate for health care reform so it can actually be what the definition of the term implies. - Anomaly100, on 02/19/2009, -8/+50I truly don't see what is wrong with Socialized health care. I lived in another country with Socialized medicine for 6 yrs. Everyone had available health care. What is wrong with that?
- sarahlee, on 02/19/2009, -6/+48"Americans are not all in the same boat, and this could threaten fair-minded reform. The divide is partially based on ideology, but it also reflects greater economic security among some voters. At the same time, the lobbyists already have begun to fight any effort to measure value in our health care system. Nevertheless, if the voters who elected President Obama unite, we can win high quality, sustainable healthcare for all."
- CL38, on 02/19/2009, -6/+35Absolutely nothing. We already have many "socialized"programs/systems in place that benefit our society: police departments, fire departments, public libraries, public schools, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, retirement benefits,and the US Military and Veterans health programs. "Socialized programs play an important role in capitalist societies - the challenge is in finding the right balance and determining how the United States can best provide health care for all it’s citizens."
- redcolumbine, on 02/19/2009, -5/+31FTA: There is a real danger, Uwe Reinhardt confides, that politicians will settle for universal coverage that continues to ration care according to ability to pay -- leaving us with a sharply tiered system. This, Reinhardt says, is what he thinks will happen, "unless we, the more affluent, step forward to tax ourselves."
- inactive, on 02/20/2009, -4/+27Socialized medicine doesn't mean everyone is on the same plan.
Here in Australia around half the population have private insurance (a decent plan only cost $600 AU/year) and all the perks,while the other half have "socialised" medicine, and aren't left to die.
In the end Australians actually care about their fellow countrymen, than just wearing BS flag pins. - canadaboy, on 02/20/2009, -9/+31If the US switched to a Canadian Health Care system, the US would save just short of a Trillion dollars/year, while offering free Health Care to every citizen.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/11/ ... nding.html
Canadian Spending Per Person: $3,678 USD (2006)
US Spending Per Person: $6,714 USD (2006)
July 2008 US Estimated Population: 304,059,724
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.ht ...
304.059724 Million * $3,036 (difference) = 923.125 Billion USD
Seriously, if you want to pay off the bailout, the wars, the deficit, and have Universal Health Care for all, you should switch to a Canadian system of health care. I seriously can not think of a more convincing argument. Just short of a TRILLION dollars a year in savings. A TRILLION dollars.
AND you would relieve a huge amount of that $72/hour labour wage in your Auto industry (saving your industry) in reduced health care costs, and the same in every business in the US. You would make all your industries more competitive.
AND all those people financially crushed and made insolvent by medical bills would still have all their money, allowing them to buy houses, and cars, and all the plastic trinkets they could. Thereby ensuring the consumerist society that the US runs on. Not only that, but the money that would be written off on taxes for medical expenses would now be taxed - from sales tax and all sorts of state and federal laws.
Seriously. A Trillion Dollars/Year. Universal Health Care. Lowered Business Costs. Money in individual hands to continue the economy. More tax dollars (so extra above the Trillion Dollars a Year). - algaeturd, on 02/20/2009, -5/+24There can never be any pride in a country where people die simply because they're not rich enough to afford decent healthcare.
If we can't take care of each other, then nothing else really matters when you get down to it. I don't care what people say...what they call it. The most basic needs that should be served is that everyone should have a shot at decent health care. - Fruit45, on 02/20/2009, -2/+19Profit is the very thing that is wrong with private health care. The objective of business is to obtain profit and sustain it over an extended period of time. Profit is unsustainable when business interests conflict with those of patients. It is simply bad business for your customers to have no need for the product your selling, and if your business depends on their sickness, then everything must be done from a business standpoint to keep creating need in customers. This is why there is corruption in the health care industry. Humans can become healthy by themselves and prevent potentially terminal yet costly diseases at the exense of the corporations. These corporations, naturally wanting to survive, will dope and hacksaw you up with whatever means they have, so long as they squeeze the "death" money out of you.
These corporations are profitable and financially viable on the backs of the sick and dying. Sure, government-run universal health care may be inefficient, but the intent is much nobler. Corporate health (a product to be sold, to them) is nothing more than a slow-release sick pill that kills you (financially and physically) over your life. In a way, said entity is like a parasite that thrives on your misfortune through medicinal slavery. - sarahlee, on 02/20/2009, -3/+20Well, Single Payer like most of us are talking about and which HR-676 is about is NOT socialized medicine - more like a one big insurance company that everyone pays into and pays the bills - the single payer.
Just like we all pay our taxes in to the county to support building our highways, but private companies do the work. Doctors and other health care providers remain public and you are free to choose the doctor you want - unlike the way it is now when your insurance company or HMO tells you who you can see in their network. Hospitals become non-profit over 15 years, but can remain private non-profits. - Anomaly100, on 02/19/2009, -7/+23It would be interesting to see how the Repubs would do if we could put them in their own little world with no Socialized systems at work. No schools, no stimulus (no way in this fantasy they're getting that!), no health care, etc. Wonder how many days they'd last....or minutes. I'll bet they'd rethink their views pretty quickly. It's easy to shout at people when your pockets are full. I guess they're bitching because of the sour grapes, and over inflated egos. Who knows.
- dakdak900, on 02/20/2009, -2/+16exactly what most Americans don't get, we will still be able to buy better health care just like we can buy better health insurance now. Americans whom are opposed to this are all too eager to eat the BS FOX news shovel into their mouths.
- CL38, on 02/19/2009, -17/+29These seven policy changes for beginning to change our economy were mentioned at the end of this article. Good suggestions.
*Nationalization of all banks for liquidity & trust
*Nationalization of Fed-a Public Central Bank to create currency & credit for public who underwrite its value
*HR 676 Medicare for All
*Higher taxes for wealthy-close loopholes, ALL income counted, top rate for $1 million+ taxed @ 60%, Carbon & Tobin Taxes.
*Shorter 32 hr. workweek-Efficiency's been up for decades, real wages & benefits remain flat & falling—now takes two incomes to survive
*Bankruptcy "CramDowns for consumers, get back on right track. Acorn et al. to prepackage BKs for bankruptcy judges.
*Cut Defense Budget by 50% we spend more than most countries combined--this is dead end spending. - conradtheory, on 02/20/2009, -2/+13Why don't we start by actually funding it?
- SocialismforUS, on 02/20/2009, -8/+19The US Health Care System is the worst in world. People are dying in the midst of US doctors and hospital staff and in emergency waiting rooms and on the street. The simple maladies that Americans suffer that could be treated and cured early, become life threatening later because of the lack of money to pay for care. Those that receive help in the form of Medicare and Medicaid which does nothing, are looked down upon by the current US health system as being subhuman, not good enough for proper treatment, dirty, unimportant, low class, buffoons, and not worth time to treat or cure. Health Care should be a right...not a payment option.
- inactive, on 02/20/2009, -1/+11Yeah, cause the rich are all about increasing their tax burden.
- canadaboy, on 02/20/2009, -1/+10Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt spread by your HMOs.
Seriously, if I said - hey, here's a TRILLION dollars, and get a system that gives universal, 100%, health care coverage, how could you say no?
This is the breaking point the article talks about - with a depression. The diference is the US has a model just north of the border that's been tried and tested. And works (I mean, how about just using life expectancy - Canada is higher).
Is the problem that you get BOTH 100% coverage and a Trillion dollars back? Because for the instructions on how to get 100% universal coverage, we could always use the Trillion up in America's hat.
:-) - Zippo, on 02/20/2009, -1/+9I'm not sure how things would work in the US, but in Canada, doctors are still paid on a per-patient basis... the money just comes from the government, not directly from the pockets of the people. Yes, yes, I know, the money from the government still comes from taxes... but I'd rather pay a bit more on taxes over the course of my life than try and fork out several grand at the one time for surgery. I had surgery a couple times when I was a kid... and my sister once had major surgery to correct scoliosis. Mom and Dad are, to this day, pretty financially secure. They'd be completely bankrupt if they had to pay for those surgeries out of their own pockets.
We do have health insurance here, as prescription drugs, eye, and dental care are not covered by the national system (after you hit 12 years old, that is). Health insurance is pretty damn affordable, though. I've got pretty good coverage (80% dental, up to $500 on eyeglasses, travel insurance, etc), and it only cost me about $25 per paycheque.
As far as I know, doctors don't get bonuses for abusing or tweaking the system for whatever reason. They just do an honest day's work (and they work damn hard).
The only real problem is there are often pretty long waits for non-priority patients. If you've just got a cold and your family doctor is a busy man, you'll probably be waiting for about an hour or so. On the bright side, more people are getting to see the doctor. Rich and poor people alike all have the same doctors.
And don't think doctors here are getting crappy pay. They still manage to easily buy humongous mansions. - novenator, on 02/20/2009, -1/+8did you just insult yourself?
- inactive, on 02/20/2009, -2/+9btschul -- what you don't understand is that the same system you despise is already in place, just that people are profiting from it. Insurance companies are set up to do exactly that -- pool money from everyone by way of premiums to pay out to those when they need it. In a way, it's already a socially set-up system. Except the premiums paid into it need to cover the cost of six-seven figure executive salaries AND profits to shareholders. If one were to take away those costs and replace premiums with "taxes" -- guess what? It's pretty much the same system, but will cost less.
And you're quite naive if you are so worried about the government making your healthcare decisions -- because that's already being done by the HMOs. They regulate which doctors you can see, which medicines you can take, which procedures you can have. And they don't give a crap about your health. They only care about their bottom line. - DrSnugglebunny, on 02/20/2009, -0/+7Remove "health care" from that sentence and I'd agree.
- Fruit45, on 02/20/2009, -3/+10Just like the fire departments are socialized for the benefit of the common good, it makes sense that health care should be socialized for the same. The reason for this is because, like a house catching on fire and burning down, a sick person can negatively affect the common wealth of a society. If companies were to privatize fire protection service, houses that catch on fire that didn't belong under a certain "plan" would share the same fate as some unfortunate people who can't afford a plan due to disability or circumstance. It doesn't make sense that something so essential to a society's wellbeing is commercialized on a "haves" and "have-not" basis. Once again, if the police was privitized, you would have the upper middle class and the elite living in a castle surrounded by a moat (being capitalistic health care) and rent-a-cops, away from the disenfranchised have-nots. In other words, these poor people aren't a major-enough business segment to corporations.
- KingRocket, on 02/20/2009, -1/+8When people turn up at the emergency room with a cold they make you wait until the real paints have been seen to.
Have been around hospitals most of my life Its fairly rare for people to bleed out in the waiting room. - virtualonliner, on 02/20/2009, -4/+11Health care system in India is better than here in USA. We might not have state of the art equipment, at least we do not spend fortune to cure our cold.
- JohnFlux, on 02/20/2009, -2/+8> Only the market can provide a quality product at a lower price because it is run by people who are in search of a profit
Actually no. What actually happens is that people who are in search of a profit realise they are better of spending money on advertising, rather than improving the product.
"U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development"
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/08010 ... - JohnFlux, on 02/20/2009, -2/+8Do you say the same thing about education as well?
- inactive, on 02/20/2009, -0/+6Bull! Its called caring for the people who make the country what it is. There is no rich man in existence that could do the work himself.
- niczar, on 02/20/2009, -0/+6@deema: which would you pick, a "socialized" system that *MIGHT* fail in the future, or a free-market system that is failing, has failed, and will fail again?
- biotch, on 02/20/2009, -2/+8Not sure if you care... but socializing it would take 20% of health care costs which currently go to profit, out of the health care system.... bonuses could be applied to those doctors whos patients come back less frequently freeing up resources for others. Those things would seem to link monetary motivation back to a health driven industry.
- hymneforthedead, on 02/20/2009, -0/+5We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office
--Aesop (~550 BC) - gfryesc, on 02/20/2009, -2/+7you guys realize that the wealthy always carry private insurance in the socialized models as well. It allows them to have timely access to the best doctors and technologies. So in Canada the wealthy pay 3x+ for healthcare. Once for their social plan, again for their slack neighbor's social plan [multiply this one as necessary], and lastly for their private plan.
- fallentree, on 02/20/2009, -0/+5Look, RonPaulsballs- food production is almost entirely government funded through subsidies.
- Taiyoryu, on 02/20/2009, -0/+5AU$600/year?!? That's US$384. That's less than a monthly COBRA payment! Individual healthcare plans start at $100-200 per month, but that's just basic coverage and is nothing compared to an employer provided health plan assuming your employer can afford to provide that benefit. More and more businesses are cutting back or outright dropping healthcare as a benefit. Let's not forget the fact that the list of preexisting and non-covered conditions increases every year. When private companies have to compete against free, no wonder their paying their lobbyists to insure there's no traction of a universal healthcare system.
- tmonsta1, on 02/20/2009, -2/+7did you get your mail today?
when you called the fire department did they show up?
did you send your kids to school?
can they read, write, add?
I'm sorry... you were saying.... - niczar, on 02/20/2009, -2/+7Yeah Arkons, look how useful those Wall Street traders and executives have been to society. I have a friend who went to the same university as I did, he went to work to the City of London to work as a futures trader, and he makes 100x more money than his former classmates who are employed as engineers or scientists. If anything, he's probably 100x LESS useful than any of the others.
- mdwstmusik, on 02/20/2009, -0/+4P-l-e-a-s-e. The current system is worse. I have very good and expensive insurance. It still took 2 1/2 years to get a surgery that I needed because I was required to exhaust all other cheaper (potential) remedies before the insurance company would agree to pay.
* see a GP
* have the GP refer to a Specialist
* Specialist says "you need surgery"
* Insurance company says, "You have to try medication first"
* Specialist prescribes medication
* Insurance company says "That medication is too expensive, you must try a cheaper one first"
* Medication doesn't help
* Specialist prescribes original medication
* Insurance company says "That medication is too expensive, you must try a cheaper one first"
* Second medication doesn't help
* Specialist prescribes original medication
* Insurance company finally agrees to pay for original medication
* Third medication doesn't help, Specialist says "you need surgery"
* Insurance company says "prove it"
* 6 months of tests, tests and more tests
* Finally, Insurance company agrees to pay for the surgery
I'll take my chances with a politician that can be voted out over a corporate board and share holders motivated by profit. If there were no profit motive, the total expense for fixing this problem would have been much lower, and I would have been better much sooner. - zeitgueist, on 02/20/2009, -0/+4Doctors are very well compensated in most UHC systems, and most also pay for medical school tuition.
- fallentree, on 02/20/2009, -1/+5do you use roads?
- freakstyle571, on 02/20/2009, -1/+5"Government doesn't have to respond to market signals and doesn't have to care about who it serves because it has a monopoly on force"
Wrong... the Government HAS to watch out for the people. Are you telling me that if suddenly EVERYONE was paying into a National Heath Care System that we would let them get away with the same abuses as we currently let our HMO's and hospitals get away with now? You would have tens of millions more people looking at the same coverage and you can bet that in this day and age, nothing would "slip by" - impei, on 02/20/2009, -0/+4Alexa says 45.5%.
- Math, on 02/20/2009, -1/+5Yes it does.
The US government currently spends more PUBLIC money per person on healthcare than the Canadian government.
And the Canadian public gets Universal Healthcare for their public funds, while the US public gets squat.
If the US implemented Universal healthcare, then the total cost to the taxpayer would go down. - DrunkenPirate34, on 02/20/2009, -2/+6Kindergarten-12th grade is free.
- novenator, on 02/20/2009, -2/+6Yeah, those socialized medicine programs in nordic countries are failing so miserably, aren't they?
- reeds1999, on 02/20/2009, -0/+4The health care problem is one that is not going to be solved soon. People really should look into sources of health care other than the US where the care is affordable.
I have done this and have had excellent results. - biotch, on 02/20/2009, -3/+7access to wealth is how YOU determine people's usefulness... and .. yr sick
- KingRocket, on 02/20/2009, -1/+5Occasional if you need some super specialist in Australia and your a non private patient there might be some delays, but all in all its sweet as.
Keep in mind in Australia your free to buy your own private cover, so its sort of the best of both worlds. - Taiyoryu, on 02/20/2009, -0/+4Yep, they're all about not paying taxes whatsoever.
http://digg.com/business_finance/Swiss_Bank_Agrees ... - oxdeltaxo, on 02/20/2009, -1/+5Most medical establishments here in Canada have a walk-in policy. Which means you can come in off the street show your ohip card(Essentially your medical info), see a doctor and be on your way. In the Us every single time you visit the doctor your insurance company records it and may penalize you in the future for unspecified reasons.
If you call your system quality, I'll take my canadian system any day over your ***** HMO's. - biotch, on 02/20/2009, -2/+6"I think the free healthcare will never aproach the level of care I've gotten from more expensive..better.. doctors."
maybe so ... but I bet the level of health care will be better than NO healthcare... such is the case for about 1/6th the US population. - oxdeltaxo, on 02/20/2009, -2/+6Math is entirely correct. In total the American tax payer pays more, purely for the reason they must buy health insurance on top of taxes. The reason this costs more is because the HMO's are a capitalist enterprise, made to make money not heal sick people. They are allowed to set premiums at whatever rate they like, charging the wealthy or well off less and the poor more.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 261 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is