What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
87 Comments
- charlie6969, on 07/09/2009, -2/+41pbs.org compared Japan, the U.S.A, Germany, Switzerland and the UK, regarding Healthcare.
Some quick comparison examples:
1)The U.S. spends MORE (percent-wise) of our GDP on Healthcare for our citizens than the other 4.
2)The U.S. has the LOWEST life expectancy (at birth).
3)The U.S. has the HIGHEST infant mortality rate.
4)Japan has almost TWICE the amount of MRI machines as the U.S. (number per million population).
5)Japan has almost THREE TIMES the amount of CT machines as the U.S. (number per million population).***
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaround ... - treehugger87, on 07/09/2009, -3/+28There is no way a sensible health care policy is going to be enacted in this country as long as the corporations that stand to benefit are given greater access to Congress than the people are. Congress is bought & sold, Democrats and Republicans both.
- Pirate45, on 07/10/2009, -3/+20We don't have a free market in this country.
- Ghostalker, on 07/10/2009, -5/+22Dugg for: "Evil publicly-funded park" and "socialized grass"
Kinda reminds me of all those evil socialists working as police, firefighters, ems, teachers, social workers, park rangers, librarians, etc.
/s - Sagags, on 07/10/2009, -6/+16I want universal health care.
- FTWmovin2canada, on 07/10/2009, -1/+10Obesity by Country:
United States: 30.6%
Germany: 12.9%
Switzerland: 7.7%
Japan: 3.2%
Wow, I wonder why we spend more money and have a lower life expectancy. Hmm... this is a tough one.
source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-o ... - roodammy44, on 07/10/2009, -1/+10I mean, jesus, what's happened to america?
You put a man on the moon, now you can't even give your citizens decent healthcare? - Lowry, on 07/10/2009, -0/+8Thank you for stating the obvious. Sometimes it needs to be said.
- revscat, on 07/10/2009, -2/+10I'll take it one further: the idea of the free market is a fiction and a fantasy without historical basis.
- zeth006, on 07/10/2009, -0/+6No need for /s for that one!
- Ghostalker, on 07/10/2009, -1/+7My "argument" is that whenever a service is provided that might make somebody's pocketbook a bit lighter, it's derided as socialism and/or communism-related in a lazy effort to scare people into thinking we're turning into Europe/Russia.
The federal government should do it's best to protect and provide for it's citizens. Our interstate highway system is second to none worldwide. Our food is checked to ensure it meets certain requirements before being put on the shelf. My car [while inspected by the state], has to pass certain federal polluiton-related regulations to ensure I'm not pumping out poisionous fumes when I drive by a school. But when people get sick and are unable to generate tax revenue, somehow it's OK if they don't get it merely because they can't afford it.
The point of the article though, is you can keep your expensive private option. Just have a system so everyone else can have health insurance too. Otherwise, this new "lower class" of people who otherwise couldn't afford a trip to the doctor is simply going to be a breeding ground for pandemics. - Sagags, on 07/10/2009, -3/+9more valium for those lonely nights on digg ehh?
and why would you digg me down for saying I want universal health care? It's true, I just don't have a citation at this moment. - novenator, on 07/09/2009, -0/+6Great link. Bookmarked for future reference.
- roodammy44, on 07/10/2009, -1/+6No, they're justified in taking over an industry that's having a detrimental effect on americans.
Whether the effect is on industry (GM healthcare costs come to mind), the people (i've heard many stories of people being made bankrupt when they get ill) or just pure inefficiency of the current system, it just makes sense to do it the way proposed.
This isn't some crazy left-wing power grab, pretty much every other western country in the world does it this way. And it works. If you argue that if the federal government runs things inefficiently, that means people have to take more accountability, not that it's a bad idea in the first place. - calypsoschnitzl, on 07/10/2009, -6/+11This article makes too much sense. (head explodes)
- humanerror, on 07/10/2009, -2/+7You are all kinds of stupid.
- sluggybuggy, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4Obesity is a huge factor, but that doesn't explain the high infant mortality rate
- jamesdew, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4That "if you don't like it move" attitude is very un-democratic.
- Berkana, on 07/10/2009, -1/+5Are you aware that in Japan and Germany, health care and insurance are also privatized? They are merely regulated so that everyone can afford health care.
Universal healthcare does not mean private providers are eliminated. Watch the Frontline documentary on health care in five *capitalist democracies* linked from the PBS page. The rising Swiss healthcare fees are still way lower than what we pay in the US, and they don't have large segments of their populace uninsured. - broncfan23, on 07/10/2009, -1/+5Marginalize dissent!
- mithrasinvictus, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
Benito Mussolini - Berkana, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3Isn't it precisely the fear that the government will try to tell people to adopt healthier lifestyles that Republicans oppose public health care under the pretense of defending "liberty"? Now you're saying you won't support public healthcare UNLESS fat Americans are deprived of their freedom and are forced to go to fat camp? Seriously, resolve your mental dissonance first, then comment.
The obesity belt happens to coincide with the bible belt and the poverty belt.
http://www.craphound.com/images/obesityinamericama ...
You want Obama to order fat folks from the obesity-belt south (a region dominated by "freedom loving" conservatives) to go to fat camp before you'll support a public plan. Something here doesn't compute. - mrkmrk, on 07/10/2009, -11/+14"The fact remains that the only downside to the public option is that it's just too awesome."
This man is an idiot. - roddack, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3hooray for tyranny of the majority then?
- Waiting2awake, on 07/10/2009, -1/+4Nov - He is getting dugg down because it is the same partisan crap that the last 8 years was built upon. There are two sides to this problem. Republicans and Democrats. If you are blind to either of their misdeeds, you are part of the problem and not the solution.
It is time to grow beyond the narrow conceptions allowed by the two party system. - thecoolestguy, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3@Tobias,
http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/myths-facts/i ...
Infant Mortality and Premature Birth
Myth: The U.S. infant mortality rate is higher than that of other countries
Fact: The U.S.’ infant mortality rate is not higher; the rates of Canada and many European countries are artificially low, due to more restrictive definitions of live birth. There also are variations in the willingness of nations to save very low birth weight and gestation babies.
The ethnic heterogeneity of the U.S. works against it because different ethnic and cultural groups may have widely different risk factors and genetic predispositions.
Definitions of a live birth, and therefore which babies are counted in the infant mortality statistics very considerably. The U.S. uses the full WHO definition, while Germany omits one of the four criteria. The U.K. defines a still birth “a child which has issued forth from its mother after the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy and which did not at any time after being completely expelled from its mother breathe or show any other signs of life.”1
This leaves what constitutes a sign of life open and places those born before 24 weeks in a gray area. Canada uses the complete WHO definition but struggles with tens of thousands of missing birth records and increasing numbers of mothers sent to the U.S. for care.2 France requires “a medical certificate [that] attests that the child was born ‘alive and viable’” for baby who died soon after birth to be counted, which may be difficult to obtain.
Myth: The U.S. premature birth rate is higher than that of other countries.
Fact: In the Netherlands, babies below 25 weeks gestation are no longer resuscitated, but rather given only palliative treatment. Those at 25 to 26 weeks are generally resuscitated and kept alive, but the decision depends on the facts of each case.3 The result is underreporting the number babies that may be live-born but who are not offered aggressive treatment.
Switzerland only uses two of the four WHO criteria, respiration and heart beat, and does not aggressively treat very premature babies. In some cantons, the baby must be 30 cm long to be registered as a live birth. Switzerland also requires registration of still births only from 6 months gestation and has no rule regarding registration of live births. Studies have found significant underreporting of premature births in Switzerland, which can alter the overall mortality rate by more than a percentage point.4 - Countess666, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3i think (hope) he's paraphrasing bob casca here....
please let that be true. - Countess666, on 07/10/2009, -1/+4you wrote : "guess what, you can drop them."
you are a idiot.
If you need to drop them because they wont pay to save your life, you have absolutely zero change of getting accepted by any other health insurer.
and that happens a lot, if they feel the health insurance premiums you'll pay wont cover the cost of saving your life they are going to do everything in their power to get out of paying up.
and no, your not stuck with the government, the private option will always be there, specially if the government doesn't do a good job. - Andronicus, on 07/10/2009, -3/+6Oh Government, you rain down upon me with benefits to provide for all my needs. You have programs to redress nearly every social injustice, and provide for most wants. The scope of your magnanimity grows day by day.
Oh Government, though I know not where from which these numerous blessings flow, I beseech thee to not staunch them, for out of loyalty to thee I have rightly cast off my old ways and means,
and now depend upon thee for my daily bread. Only You have the power to make all things affordable.
Into your wise administration, I commend my freedoms, for what use have I of they, if by their exercise I am forced to live outside your gracious providence?
I shall shut out the heathen influcences of skeptical thought and critical analysis. Apparent failures of your many programs are due not to inefficient and corrupt execution, but lack of true faith in Your wisdom, and the solution to failure is bigger and more.
I humble myself before you and acknowledge my personal inability to provide for my own desires.
Forgive me, and give to me...gimmie gimmie gimmie gimmie!
Yes we can (has cheezburger)!
Amen. - mbm1980, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2link to back up your claim?
- thecoolestguy, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2roodammy, that's a stupid argument. Prices don't go down when the government taxes people and provides the service, rather than private enterprise funded by consumers.
---This isn't some crazy left-wing power grab, pretty much every other western country in the world does it this way. ---
The countries that are seeing their economies and standards of living rise fastest have the lowest health care spending as a percentage of GDP.
While Europe's economy is stagnant and its unemployment is high, average wages are increasing rapidly in East Asia.
Ghosttalker,
---The federal government should do it's best to protect and provide for it's citizens. Our interstate highway system is second to none worldwide. Our food is checked to ensure it meets certain requirements before being put on the shelf.---
The federal government should not take over the responsibility of providing for each person. It actually leads to a less prosperous nation.
Inter-state highways are one thing, since they must be provided and/or regulated by government (since transportation conduits are a collective good that create natural geographic monopolies), but food safety inspections and health care are something each person should provide for themselves. If we take your argument to its natural conclusion, then you would advocate government providing every thing for citizens, and taking taxing nearly 100% of each person's income. Obviously this is not what a free society is about.
Homogenizing policy for 300 million people is a bad idea. Letting each individual manage their own life, and choose for themselves how to spend their productivity, is the best way to manage a society. - Bowd99, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2I see these arguments pop up on every single thread regarding universal health care. In the UK we have a two-tier system, the NHS and private practices. I'm sure the US government could work out an "opt out" policy for people opposed to paying towards a socialised health service. That way people who aren't against their tax money helping other citizens can get the free health coverage and people like Barackalypse can continue paying ridiculously inflated health insurance prices to cover themselves and themselves only. Everyone's a winner!
- thecoolestguy, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2Many countries that pro-single-payer health care advocates point to as examples of the success of 'universal healthcare' still require people to pay when they use many medical services (the government only partially subsidizes medical expenses for many procedures), but this is not what the pro-single payer health care advocates want in the US: they want all services to be totally free for the user, so the examples they use are not accurate portrayals of what they're advocating.
- racetoinfinity, on 07/10/2009, -3/+5Come through the looking glass to reality.
- zeth006, on 07/10/2009, -2/+4I'm not so sure that the number of people calling 4 times a day to check up on the status of their claims is really so high that it can be pinpointed as the cause of high healthcare costs.
But at the same time, you do have a good point. Exercise and improved diets would bring down the average American's healthcare costs dramatically. This is exactly why some companies now find merit in installing gyms near the workplace and as I read in an article some time back, making exercise mandatory as a way of reducing healthcare premiums. - novenator, on 07/10/2009, -3/+5Not sure why you are being buried, you are 100% right
- jamesdew, on 07/10/2009, -0/+223% for the UK, jesus I did not realise it was that high. Luckily my girlfriend is from sweden @ 9.7% but she lives with me in the UK now. I wonder if that means she will now get fat, sure hope not.
- nickdwhite, on 07/10/2009, -1/+3And healthcare was actually regarded as much better back then. Poor legislation, as a result of corporate lobbying has left a mess of the healthcare "free market"
- Ghostwo, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2Government: Non-Profit Organization whose motive is to maintain power by keeping its citizens/voters happy.
Insurance Company: Corporation whose motive is to make as much money as possible, by increasing premiums (revenue), and reducing claims (expense).
Do you really want your health and life (which shouldn't be privileges) to be controlled by a corporation that operates according to the Principles of Insurance, and has no accountability to it's policy holders, or a tolerably inefficient government system that doesn't require you to literally pay or die? And if you do borrow massive debt and default, everybody else has to pay for it anyway.
"Other countries have lower costs and rate of disease" because their people can go to the doctor to have something looked at without having to worry about a $30 co-pay, instead of waiting to see if it clears up. The marvels of preventative medicine. 1/6 of Americans don't have the option of going to the doctor at all, turning that $30 into a random amount from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars. If they could afford that, they could afford insurance. But they/we can't afford either. Health and life has become a commodity to be bought, sold, and traded. - roddack, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2I wonder how many supporters of these public options give money to charities that help people who can't afford health care right now?
I find it funny that people won't pony up and start a private charity to help those in need but instead think it is better to just use force to make them give money for their cause. - calicheese23, on 07/10/2009, -9/+11Wow this article makes a lot of assumptions. Cheaper than our current system? For everyone, unemployed and employed? Get real.
Look at our government now. There is no way it could run a quality public health care system for cheap.
Inflation also plays a role in our medical cost!
Other countries have lower costs and rate of disease because they eat better and exercise. - thecoolestguy, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2well said roddack, they think that when government gets the money through taxation, rather than people giving it voluntary through purchases or charity, every thing will magically get more efficient.
- kamakazitp, on 07/10/2009, -4/+5yea, the same government that thought it would be a great idea to bailout GM.
look how great that turned out!
oh wait...
I want to see a personal health care plan that has some amount of personal responsibility included. Cover flu shots and what not, sure. But why exactly should I be paying taxes so the guy next to me can pound a few Big Macs a day and smokes a couple packs of cigarettes and then gets the government to pay to keep him alive? - uncleosbert, on 07/23/2009, -0/+1@ thecoolestguy
who exactly do you think pays to maintain the interstate highway system?
and the funny thing is, you don't seem to realize that the federal government oversees the system we have now. uh huh. you can watch nixon talking up our private insurance system here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGKkPEvD2OM
the federal government essentially guaranteed private insurers a market when they made it illegal not to insure employees.
the funny thing here is, you defend an industry that already sits at the knee of the government, begging them to protect the market, at your expense. and here you are, defending it, as a free market experiment.
and actually, i do give frequently to several charities. i'd still rather have my taxes raised, because you're right: it's too little, too late. charities have never managed to take up the slack: even when our tax rates are at their lowest, there just aren't that many people who will offer up their extra to the needy.
frankly, the reason i'd rather tag in the government is because our system is the most expensive one on the planet, and it still ain't that good. those two qualities together make it indefensible in my book. - thecoolestguy, on 07/10/2009, -2/+3The reality is that in all nations where government has taken a greater role in health care for the last 40 years (all industrialized nations), health care costs per capita have increased 10X (40X if one doesnt adjust for inflation).
Education and health care are the only industries that see their prices increase faster than inflation each year, and they happen to be the only two industries where the government has taken an increasingly greater role in providing/managing in the last few decades. - roddack, on 07/10/2009, -0/+1I would agree finding a pure free market in history is pretty much impossible unless you start going back to city states and they would have been likely be closer to the idea of a free market.
I am not sure what you mean by the idea is a fiction and fantasy. Clearly market forces are always at work and they are just delayed by intervention - beccabob, on 07/10/2009, -0/+1To all the people railing on the fatties, please check out http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/09062 ... It shows that being underweight is worse than being over weight. I also had a lot more to say, but Digg ate my comment. I am too tired to type it out again.
- roddack, on 07/10/2009, -0/+1So Bob if I don't want to be part of this public option am I going to get the tax money taken from me to provide for it back?
- roddack, on 07/10/2009, -0/+1You would be awed by a person wearing a fancy hat ordering people to do something against their will.
-
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 