What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
177 Comments
- homercles337, on 07/18/2009, -7/+19Im sorry, but you are wrong, wrong, wrong on every single point. SS is not bankrupt--thats a talking point generated by your ilk on the ignorant right. Its the fault of the repugs for using it like a checking account--even then there are simple solutions to maintaining it. Also, if states are left up to decide what to do with national health care, then we will end up with the credit card system of health care. It only takes one state to remove regulation and all insurance carriers will flock there. This has to be regulated at the federal level--thats why it has to be a national plan. Seriously, these are only two things that are entirely wrong with your post. Why are you Paulbots so aversive to facts? Is it because they totally destroy any and all arguments you can make?
- 4AntiStupid, on 07/18/2009, -7/+1810 people in control of 12% of the economy. See the problem?
- lido, on 07/18/2009, -7/+18Oh perfect... unless I missed it, not a single health care PROVIDER on this list. So let me get this straight, these people are to make policy for putting us trillions of dollars in debt and going to tell us what tests can be ordered and paid for or not, and yet not a single one of them has ever even seen a patient or knows how to PRACTICE medicine. Just brilliant.... "Hang on lady, we going for a ride!"
- archiesteel, on 07/18/2009, -2/+13"On Digg, I also have to laugh at how many people are frothing to get Canada's system. Guess what? It's not federally run. It's run by the provinces."
Yes and no. It *is* run by provinces, but they have to adhere to standards set by the federal government.
And to those who say it doesn't work: it works better than what you have in the States, so kindly suck it. - realeskimopimp, on 07/18/2009, -8/+19Gee. Only every other industrialized nation has universal healthcare.
But will it work in America? No, no, of course not. We live on a different planet. - TheOmbudsman, on 07/18/2009, -1/+9You're not actually using a FOX segment as proof to support an argument, are you? If so, clearly you need heath care immediately.
There is nothing 'fair and balanced' about that segment. It was designed, shot and edited to support their view. And as someone intimately familiar with the Canadian system, I can assure you that their view is NOT reality. - MrBogard, on 07/18/2009, -2/+10Dennis Kucinich just got something passed through the House potentially enabling states to run a single payer system if the Federal Gov. fails to. Everyone should support this *****. This is the best compromise I've ever seen on this issue. States rights is a big deal for the Republicans (except when they try to ammend the constitution to block state-by-state reform they don't agree with!); potentially this should make everyone happy. Here's Dennis on Dennis:
Dear Friends,
With your support, your phone calls, your emails, we won a major legislative victory today for a state single payer health care option in the House of Representatives in Washington, DC. The House Education and Labor Committee approved the Kucinich Amendment by a vote of 27-19, with 14 Democrats and 13 Republicans voting yes.
The amendment propels the growing single payer health care movement at the state level. There are at least ten states which have active single payer efforts in their legislatures. They are California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington. The amendment mandates a single payer state will receive the right to waive the application of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which has in the past been used to nullify efforts to expand state or local government health care.
Under the Kucinich Amendment a state's application for a waiver from ERISA is granted automatically if the state has signed into law a single payer plan. With the amendment, for the first time, the state single payer health care option is shielded from an ERISA-based legal attack. Now that the underlying bill has been passed, as amended, by the full committee, we must make sure that Congress knows that we want the provision kept in the bill at final passage!
The state single payer option was one of five major amendments which I obtained support to get included in HR3200. One amendment brings into standard coverage for the first time complementary and alternative medicine, (integrative medicine). Another amendment drives down the cost of prescription drugs by ending pharmaceutical industry's sharp practices manipulating physician prescribing habits. An amendment stops the insurance industry from increasing premiums at the time when people are not permitted to change health plans; and finally an amendment imposing a requirement on insurance companies that they disclose the cost of advertising, marketing and executive compensation expenses (which generally divert money from patient care).
Please make sure you post this message on your social networking site, ask all your friends to get involved and encourage everyone you know to sign up at www.Kucinich.us so we can build full momentum behind this movement for real health care.
Let's do this!
-Dennis - jackspade, on 07/18/2009, -0/+7not if there's a public system which would compete against the insurance companies
- archiesteel, on 07/18/2009, -1/+8"Does it work in any other country?"
Yes it does. That's why people in Canada, France, the UK, etc. would never trade their healthcare system for one modeled after the U.S.'s.
"The US has the best healthcare system in the world."
No it doesn't. Many are uninsured, and many who are insured do not receive the care they need. If you have tons of money, sure you receive great treatment. If you don't...tough luck!
"If that wasn't the case then why would people fly here to have major operations?"
This is a rare occurence, and you're using it out of context. It's mostly people from Canada, and the state-run HC system still pays for it.
"In a sense you are right. We do live on a different planet. One that is far superior in terms of healthcare."
...which is why you're ranked 34th in the world, right? - RogerStrong, on 07/18/2009, -1/+8That video has been widely debunked here as mixture of half-truths, quarter-truth's and outright lies.
The guy goes to a PRIVATE walk-in clinic without an appointment and end up waiting - as if the same thing wouldn't happen in the U.S.
He's told that there's a two-year waiting list for a family doctor at that ONE clinic. Rather than phoning around to other clinics (like our family did - we found a family doctor the same day), he declares the entire system to have the same wait. - pintomp3, on 07/18/2009, -2/+9Conservatives think Americans are too stupid to implement that every other industrialized country has managed to pull off.
- steelersfan7roe, on 07/18/2009, -3/+10Shouldn't the public be at least in the top 10 key players? If not first...
The fact is, most Americans want a public OPTION.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtons ... - RogerStrong, on 07/18/2009, -1/+7>> it wouldn't exist without
>> the close proximity
>> to the US.
What a profoundly stupid and ignorant thing to write.
Canada was in World War II years before the U.S., and trained many of it's pilots. Canada was in World War I from the beginning - the U.S. joined only as it was winding down. Much of the hard work in Afghanistan has been done by Canada, while other countries stay ni their camps in the north. - wastelander, on 07/18/2009, -0/+6Yes, the majority of physicians (particularly the younger ones) support universal health-care.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN314 ...
I am a physician and have been working as a hospitalist for more than 10 years.
Obviously you haven't had enough exposure with our current "system" to see how totally F##@ed up it is.
I suggest you look into : www.pnhp.org - Willravel, on 07/18/2009, -2/+8Where the ***** is Dennis Kucinich on that list? He's a player in that he's actually trying to fix the system instead of compromising.
- archiesteel, on 07/18/2009, -3/+9More lies from the Health Insurance lobby.
- stuffradio, on 07/18/2009, -1/+7I'm a Canadian, the most I have had to wait so far was around 30-45 minutes in a walk-in clinic. He probably chose the busiest one and the most inconvenient one he could find, remember... this is from FOX. They don't want to find anything that would give it a positive spin.
- archiesteel, on 07/18/2009, -1/+7You'll find the majority of them are in favor of UHC.
- archiesteel, on 07/18/2009, -2/+7Stop whining. You are wrong on UHC - that's why you're being buried.
- RogerStrong, on 07/18/2009, -0/+5>> That's because your
>> Queen was being attacked
Canada got independence in stages - the big step being in 1867.
Joining the war was Canada's decision. Continueing to conduct business as usual with Hitler for another two years was the American decision. - RogerStrong, on 07/18/2009, -0/+5>> Median Wait Time for 3 months
>> ending May 31/09 - 3.8 weeks
Median Wait Time: 15 days
http://www.gov.mb.ca/health/waittime/surgical/hear ...
That's in my home province of Manitoba.
And when someone close to me needed heart bypass surgery sooner, she was moved to the front of the line and had it within 36 hours. - Rantus, on 07/18/2009, -4/+9Here we go again.
First, let me address the Ron Paul idea bout health care, which is to have "Health Care Savings Accounts". This won't work, do you know why? Because what's to stop them from raising their prices? And if you get really sick how much does that cost? $100,000? Yeah, I've got that lying around... And lemme guess that these savings accounts will be more or less like a retirement account so you can "make money" off your savings right? That is until Wall Street pulls another fast one and cleans you out. No thanks.
Everybody (at least here) is bitching that this is a giant scam, and that Obama and the Federal Govt is going to raise taxes on us all while simultaneously bankrupting the country. How old do you have to be to believe that? 12 years old maybe? New York State already has a socialized medical program called Family Health Plus and you know what? I was on it once and it saved my family's collective asses. So if raising taxes is what's necessary to get a public option for everybody that works at least as well as family health plus then I'm all for it. im already paying for it anyway.
Look, this situation is basically them vs us. "Them" being the doctors, lawyers and executive scum at insurance companies who get rich off of other people's misery. "Us" being the common citizens who don't have a vested interest in making money off of health care. Let's face it, if you work in health care then your opinion is definitely going to be biased hands down. It's where you get your money from so why wouldn't you? the same goes for the Politicians. But this whole mess transcends all that BS by orders of magnitude. We need universal health care, and we should have had it a decade ago.
If we don't get universal health care then we're going broke anyway, one way or the other. People can barely afford anything right now as it is, and when you add in medical expenses then its all over. I believe zero of what the GOP says about the issue anyway. Have you seen a bigger bunch of malicious corporate whores? All they project is fear and paranoia, which has worked so well for them so far (Iraq) they figure that its now standard practice to get what they want from stupid people. And speaking of Iraq and other Bush disasters; the total cost of Iraq and Afghanistan is probably going to top 3 trillion. Anybody who thinks that spending that much on wars of aggression is defensible but universal health care is not is a low life. If we don't get universal care then we're done as US businesses can't compete as health care costs keep going up and up. The doctors play a huge part in this as well. Since when does the Hippocratic Oath say that you deserve a big ass house, a BMW (or two) and a dumb hot blonde chick with big *****? When i was in college I overheard a conversation between a med student and some chick he was trying to pick up: She asked him why he wanted to be a doctor. Without missing a beat he said (no lie) that it was for the "benjamins". Some of these guys make me sick. One of the arguments agaist a public option is that it will lower the salaries of doctors so we will get less good doctors. This is utter ***** and I would rather have a doctor who is a doctor because he wants to help people rather than one who just wants to make cash off the sick.
As for the plan: Germany has had universal health care since 1883 and is still one of the best models in the world. Hell, they invented it. So you're telling me they can have it first and have it last over 100 years, a depression and 2 world wars but it's not a functioning model that would work for us?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Germany
If you say no way then you're just full of *****. - archiesteel, on 07/18/2009, -1/+6twomeyw23334: you should actually read articles you post - nowhere does it identify UHC as the cause of delays. Rather, the blame is put on patients for waiting too long, and on GPs who are sometimes not well trained to recognize the symptoms.
The conclusions to draw from this are that an aging public needs to be better informed about arthritis, and GPs should update their training as the general population gets older.
The real question however, is whether it's better to wait a little to get arthritis treatment (once it's been diagnosed) or not receive treatment at all because your private insurer - like many - refuses to cover you if you're diagnosed with chronic Rheumatoid Arthritis...
Meanwhile, Americans are waiting 36% longer in ERs than they did in 1997:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/94080.php - RogerStrong, on 07/18/2009, -1/+6>> for putting us trillions
>> of dollars in debt
It's the CURRENT system that puts the U.S. "trillions of dollars in debt". Americans pay higher TAXES for health care than Canadians - even those Americans who are denied it anyway, because they can't afford the massive out-of-pocket expenses. Chart:
http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.c ...
Canadians pay for their health care. But at least we only pay for it once, and we get that health care.
Americans pay MORE for it (through taxes alone), and then they're denied health care if they can't pay for it a SECOND time. - atm259, on 07/18/2009, -0/+5Even if this is /s I am still going to bury you.
- archiesteel, on 07/18/2009, -2/+7Hey woodyex1,
I'm in the top 1% of incomer earners. I'm successful because I work hard, but also because I'm talented (for which I bear no merit, I was born that way) and I've been fortunate (random luck). I'm not so presumptuous or near-sighted to believe that those who are less fortunate than me are lazy bums, nor do I feel so guilty about my success that I need to rationalize it by making up BS about "hard work" and "good ethics." Some of the hardest-working people in America are not insured, like the single mother from the ghetto doing dual shifts to support her kids after their deadbeat dads left them.
UHC works. It's more efficient, more fair and overall provides for a better, more harmonious society to live in. If you can't understand this, then you're too dumb to be part of that enlightened elite you foolishly consider yourself to be part of. - SpinningHead, on 07/18/2009, -2/+7Yeah, we should ask the red states how to run health care. Lets see how thats working out for them.
http://www.americashealthrankings.org/2008/glance. ... - RogerStrong, on 07/18/2009, -1/+5>> How can the
>> government be
>> "more efficient."
Even the most inefficient government bureaucracy is more efficient than the over 100 *parallel* healthcare bureaucracies in the U.S. - archiesteel, on 07/18/2009, -1/+5"How can the government be "more efficient."
Well, in the case of health care, it is. Since there's no profit to be made, you don't need to spend all that overhead on a bunch of people whose only role is finding ways to not pay for people's care. There's also a sizeable economy to be made with volume (which is important for any type of insurance).
"Why couldn't you and fellow leftists run an efficient non-profit health care organization?"
We can, that's the point your own ideological obsession is preventing you from seeing.
"If you believe in "ends justifies the means" arguments, as you obviously do..."
Actually, I don't. The rest of your argument kind of desintegrates by itself, sorry.
"If the ends is, longer life, do you supporting banning alcohol, the third leading cause of death in the U.S?"
Nope. I'm for promoting moderation, but it's a matter of personal responsibility.
"If the ends is cost, do you support banning people over age X from receiving procedure Y, as the majority of health care costs are at the end of peoples lives, when it does the least amount of good?"
I'm not for therapy at any cost, but it shouldn't be based on age. That's a very arbitrary way to set things, as you can have a healthy 80-year old just like you can have an unhealthy 60-year old. The point, though, is not ban anyone.
"You *sometimes* pro-government violation of rights people"
That's a contradiction of terms. "Rights" are guaranteed by governments - otherwise, it's the rule of the strongest.
Get this through your thick right-libertarian skull: governments are here to stay. Rather than improductively arguing against their inevitable existence, why don't you work at making them better? Otherwise you'll simply be wasting your life on a faulty utopia.
The rest of your post doesn't even make sense. You're basically arguing against civilization in some sort of Ayn Rand pipe dream. Why not just disappear to a log cabin in the woods instead of posting stuff on a computer network that wouldn't exist without the "collectivist government"? - siyengar, on 07/18/2009, -0/+4In my June 1st article, “The Cost Conundrum,” I explored the question of why two border towns in Texas of similar size, location, and circumstances—McAllen and El Paso—should cost Medicare such enormously different amounts of money. In 2006, McAllen cost $14,946 per enrollee, which is the second-highest in the United States and essentially double El Paso’s cost of $7,504 per enrollee. Analysis of Medicare data by the Dartmouth Atlas project shows the difference is due to marked differences in the amount of care ordered for patients—patients in McAllen receive vastly more diagnostic tests, hospital admissions, operations, specialist visits, and home nursing care than in El Paso. But quality of care in McAllen is not appreciably better, and by some measures, it is worse. Indeed, studies have shown that the care for patients in the highest-cost regions of the country tends to go this way—with more high-cost care across the board, but less low-cost preventive services and primary care, and equal or worse survival, functional ability, and satisfaction with care. The cause that I found locally was a system of care that was highly fragmented for patients and often driven to maximize revenues over patient needs. And I pointed to positive outliers across the country, including Grand Junction, Colorado, and the Mayo Clinic that deliver markedly lower-cost, higher-quality care.
http://mtblog.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/ ...
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/200 ... - RogerStrong, on 07/19/2009, -0/+4Incorrect. In Canada, the Crown has a symbolic or ceremonial role.
As for Hitler, may I refer you to:
How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.se ... - stuffradio, on 07/18/2009, -0/+4I like the fact that Americans are ignorant on how well our Canadian Health System works. Do you see me complaining about our system? No.
- TheOmbudsman, on 07/19/2009, -0/+4@TypicalDiggeral
Your monarch assertions are irrelevant and intellectually neutered. It's akin to a schoolyard "my father can beat up your father" argument that tries to distract from the fact that you, and the uncompetitive insurance companies that make insane amounts of money by denying treatment, are losing the debate on heath care.
I can think of another country with a queen - England. They also have nationalized medicine and guess what? Their dollar is worth significantly more than yours. Doesn't really move the debate forward does it?
Despite the complete and utter pernicious debacle that passes as the American Heath Care system, It's interesting that 'wait times' is really all you and your ilk got... despite it being debunked thoroughly.
As much as I enjoyed your 14 year old study on international wait times, I believe a litany of other studies refuting it can be found. As well as some shocking studies on American infant mortality rates compared to other countries with nationalized medicine, etc.
Here's an (A) (B) (C) quiz for you:
Who has the longest wait time?
(A) patient in England.
(B) patient in Canada.
(C) patient in the United States denied coverage by their insurance company.
And, my father can beat up your father. God save the Queen! - RogerStrong, on 07/18/2009, -1/+5>> The US has the best
>> healthcare system in
>> the world.
Heh. Because a study by Pfizer Inc. said so, right? - RogerStrong, on 07/19/2009, -0/+4"Canada is also a constitutional monarchy, with The Crown acting as a symbolic or ceremonial executive."
"In the British model, the Crown now serves as the ceremonial executive (or head of state) while the prime minister is head of government."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada#Government_and ...
The citations back this up
And the Bush family is on the LEFT....? - archiesteel, on 07/18/2009, -1/+5Nice how you completely dodged the fact that if you have RA you *won't* be able to get insurance coverage in the US.
You "blame the government for everything" people are priceless. Fact is, overhead costs for the US HC system is about 35%, while the overhead costs for the Canadian UHC system are only 1%.
More efficient, fairer, more economical...time to leave your ideological BS at the door and step into the 21st century. - RogerStrong, on 07/18/2009, -0/+4Americans pay HIGHER taxes for health care under the CURRENT system than Canadians and most other do.
http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.c ...
If anything the rich should be demanding reform, because the real indications are that it would lower taxes, not raise them. - archiesteel, on 07/18/2009, -1/+5By the way, you still continue to dodge the fact that someone with chronic arthritis would *not* be covered by private insurance. You're basically saying it's okay for that person to suffer in the US after decrying "waiting times" in the UK.
It seems to me you're simply embarassed by your own hypocrisy and are desperate to change the subject by repeating the right-libertarian gospel. Don't worry, you'll grow out of that phase some day... - mason092, on 07/18/2009, -0/+3/s? I think?
- steelersfan7roe, on 07/18/2009, -3/+6Can't we stop spending billions on machines that kill and spend it on things that heal instead?
Our priorities show us who we are as a nation. - Rantus, on 07/18/2009, -1/+4Uh, ok. And what if one of your kids gets leukemia and you don't know it until after you start a new job with a new benefits package and dealing with it bankrupts you because it was a "pre-existing condition". Your arguments about not wanting to help anybody else are typical selfish ***** *****. Whatever.
- Fluffyhamster, on 07/18/2009, -0/+3I blame Andrew Jackson
- enantiodromia, on 07/18/2009, -1/+4also Massachusetts supports about 10 other states with their Federal Tax dollars. perhaps the loser states should fend for themselves while the good states save their money?
- archiesteel, on 07/18/2009, -2/+5You didn't debunk anything - you simply reiterated your belief in tired old clichés, i.e. "poor people are poor because they deserve to be" and such. Your utter lack of compassion for your fellow human beings places you beneath contempt.
We are not living in a meritocracy. Not all of those who are rich and successful work hard; in fact, many don't. Not all those who are poor and struggling are lazy - in fact, most of them aren't. The only reason someone would claim otherwise is if a) he's to stupid to think for himself and obediently repeats Rush's talking points, or b) himself successful without really working hard for it, and rationalizing that he deserves it in order to assuage his guilty feelings.
So, which one of the two are you?
As for the writing advice: thanks, but considering I write at a better level than you *despite* the fact that English is my second language, I'll let you dispose of it as you see fit, which in your case will probably involve shoving it up your ass along with a half-dozen other objects, including a live gerbil, a small statue of George Bush and your cousin's penis.
Get back to me when you turn 18, I'll give you some more lessons about how to debate on the Internet - after all, I was doing it when you were still in your diapers. - 1hrSleep, on 07/18/2009, -0/+3I may be young but I ain't ignorant. ( =P )
I've had a good number of surgeries so far with one more coming up. All of them, including orthodontic work, have all been covered by our healthcare.
Cost in the US? Maybe 100k.
Actual cost (In Canada)? Nothing. - archiesteel, on 07/19/2009, -1/+4"Secondly, I've stated I'm not arguing in defense of the current system."
No, you're advocating something worse: a complete free market, with no recourse for consumers *at all*. The law of the strongest.
Free markets don't work - every time they've been tried, they lead to abberations like natural monopolies. it is a philosophy based on belief in a non-existent "invisible hand of the market" that has more to do with religion than anything grounded in reality.
"Read that about 50 times and perhaps, if stars align correctly, it might sink into your skull."
I understood your failed philosophy long ago. Read this about 50 times, and maybe you'll snap out of your religious beliefs: free markets don't work.
"Your complete lack of any comprehension skills is quite revealing."
Not as much as the one-track mind you and other right-libertarians display. Go back to the pseudo-economics of mises.org, they're one-person short of a circle jerk.
"Total *****. America has the best care in the world."
If you have money. If you don't, you're out of luck. That counts towards "quality of service" - and guess what, that's not what the population wants.
Meanwhile, Canadians have a longer life expectancy.
"You obviously need the force of government, the power of the gun, to make your system work."
Have you always been this paranoid? What's the matter, are you afraid the big bad government is going to step in and prevent you from butt-***** your cousin?
"Like, the government should take control and run the Internet right?"
The "Internet" is a protocol, you idiot. (One that was created by - gasp - "statists" and "collectivists".) No one "runs" a protocol.
"And insurance companies in a free market, and specifically not the retarded employer based system we have here (because of the government) are answerable to CONSUMERS! Which allows a faster response, and the ability to leave an insurer and go to a new one instead of having to wait for the next election cycle."
And in a free market model nothing prevents insurance companies from forming a cartel, inflating prices and denying coverage (or refraining from paying benefits) to those who need it. Furthermore, the most successful company could easily become a monopoly by forcing all competitors out of business.
Your religious belief in the infaillability of free markets is not grounded in reality, and I'm not interested in debating someone who denies reality the way you do. Don't bother answering, I'm not coming back to this thread - I've wasted enough time on yet-another-fanatical-right-libertarian. You guys are a dime a dozen on digg, but in the "real world" you are an insignificant minority. Enjoy your irrelevance! - enantiodromia, on 07/18/2009, -3/+6do you actually know anyone from England?
- nvpham, on 07/18/2009, -1/+4um.. it says Top 10... meaning there are many more and they are the top 10.
- RogerStrong, on 07/18/2009, -1/+4Agreed. At this point it's looking like Sarah Palin / Joe the Plumber in 2012. Rush Limbaugh will merely be shaking his pom-poms for ANYTHING they say.
- archiesteel, on 07/18/2009, -2/+5Oh, and by the way, it is really telling that you'd consider tellling someone they've got a vagina some sort of an insult. Have you always considered women to be inferior, or is that something that developed recently, i.e. when the girl you had a crush on turned you down for the prom?
In any case, women aren't stupid, or weak. The sooner you learn this, the better you'll do in life. -
Show 51 - 100 of 188 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 