What is Digg?105 Comments
- dtr300, on 07/06/2009, -8/+44I'm fine with this, with one condition: the price of purchasing an insurance plan, whether through a public option or through a subsidy, MUST be reasonably inexpensive. Otherwise you will just end up with the same set of people who can't afford healthcare and will opt out. And the people in Congress working to put this plan together really, really need to talk to people at "street" level before they make assumptions about how "affordable" is defined. Also, there needs to be some way to make distinctions based on geographical location, urban vs. rural. Something that seems acceptably inexpensive to those of us in the coastal cities might be an unwieldy expense in areas where incomes are much lower. I will offer a cautious cheer once I see actual numbers. My favorite sentence from the article: "Insurance companies would be required to offer the same coverage to everyone, regardless of medical history."
- MalarkeyPN, on 07/06/2009, -7/+34Krugman says the it will probably cost "between $1 trillion and $1.3 trillion." Before anyone goes flipping out about that, please read his next paragraph:
"There are a number of ways to look at this number, but maybe the best is to point out that it’s less than 4 percent of the $33 trillion the U.S. government predicts we’ll spend on health care over the next decade. And that in turn means that much of the expense can be offset with straightforward cost-saving measures, like ending Medicare overpayments to private health insurers and reining in spending on medical procedures with no demonstrated health benefits." - DigitalisAkujin, on 07/06/2009, -13/+36Krugman is ussually very pessamistic so his optimism here is somewhat reassuring.
- dtr300, on 07/06/2009, -12/+32No, it's not good to rely on the government to solve every problem in life, but at its best, "the government" is all of us combining our resources to solve a problem. I sure don't see any doctors or insurance companies saying, "We're here to help," until they get a good kick in the behind from the American public.
- reeds1999, on 07/06/2009, -7/+25A single payer plan would solve these problems!
- MangalaIII, on 07/07/2009, -4/+19This is all sunshine and rainbows except for the fact that health care industry lobbyists are spending $1.4 million a day to defeat this bill.
- novenator, on 07/06/2009, -10/+21Very good point about the urban vs rural aspect of pricing. I spend most of my time in small towns across America, and things that are commonplace are simply not possible in the countryside. This is why many folks move to cities in the first place, better economic opportunities. Funny thing is, you would think the folks outside of urban areas might appreciate this a little bit more, but the insidious insurance lobby and their Republican parrots have many folks convinced that any change in the current system will mean they will have to pay half their income to support black and latino deadbeats. lol, scare tactics have worked well for corporatists in the past, we just have to make sure the truth gets out.
- drmangrum, on 07/07/2009, -4/+13I just saw a story on CNN about the Canadian health care system that people love to praise. They had a woman who had a brain tumor that could cause blindness and possibly death if it wasn't operated on soon. The Canadian system had her on a 4-6 month waiting list. She eventually had to borrow more than $100k from family and friends to get her surgery at the Mayo Clinic.
100% coverage means dick if you're dead before you get to use it. - sulthernao, on 07/07/2009, -3/+11But it is not politically feasible. Quite a few people are happy with the insurance that they have. If we can get a sensible public option that offers REAL health care reform (aka coverage AND lowering costs for the entire system) I'll be happy. Purity has no place when so much is at stake.
- kattapoga, on 07/07/2009, -4/+10hmm - so the government is "taking over the most profitable sector" is it? Better leave it alone and let the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies continue milking us so it remains the most profitable. Unfortunately if the government competes then the record profits will go down. You dont work for an insurance company by any chance do you?
- deema1, on 07/07/2009, -1/+7Oh, you mean the housing bubble he advocated for years?
http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-krugman-wa ...
The guy flip flops on his calls more than any other economist I've seen. He was bullish throughout the decline, doom and gloom near the bottom, negative in February, March, and April, called the stimulus a success in May and June, and is now negative again. The guy has no conviction or credibility. But you can keep clinging to this fallacy that he knows what he's talking about. - AmnesiacJack, on 07/07/2009, -2/+8About 40 years if I'm lucky.
And right now I'm uninsured (between jobs thanks to the economy).
I guess I just have a problem with the government getting involved since they have an awful track record of managing ANY THING. Why do you all feel that this is the one thing they will finally get right? What have they done to separate them selves from their history of failure? - Tzen, on 07/07/2009, -0/+6There are so many private websites like http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/ to help the veterans because the government does it so well.
- murrdpirate, on 07/07/2009, -1/+7Claiming that medicare and VA are more efficient because they have less overhead is ludicrous. A program is efficient if it can deliver a quality service while keeping costs low. A business that is concerned with profits will use overhead time to manage its budget and cut costs. The government doesn't care about keeping costs low so it doesn't need to use overhead time to investigate claims.
- inactive, on 07/07/2009, -1/+6Quick question, where do you think the government gets money from?
- inactive, on 07/07/2009, -2/+7Don't give a poop as long as this doesn't screw up my current plan which allows me access to the best oncologists in the world.
Also, The European universal health care is no evidence that it works. Costs less but wait times are twice as long. - inactive, on 07/07/2009, -6/+11Well the government is so good at taking care of all the other problems why not take on health care?
- minoss, on 07/07/2009, -0/+5If you want to lower costs you need to get people health INSURANCE (rarely used, high deductible, cheap) instead of health care (used for everything, low deductible, expensive). Further insulating people from the costs will create more demand like it always does and in turn create higher prices.
Forcing insurance companies to accept everyone, regardless of history, is like forcing car insurance companies to accept everyone, regardless of driving history. Sure, government can do it, but it's simply a hidden tax on everyone else. - Richandler, on 07/07/2009, -4/+9Take note it cost a trillion dollars before you actually start to pay for it.
- sulthernao, on 07/07/2009, -5/+9We're private insurance companies and we're here to help (oh wait no we're not, we're here to make money through any means necessary).
Look what you fail to understand is that while neither institution is "benevolent," one has an interest to look after the welfare of its people while the other doesn't.
And don't you dare say anything about how the government will now set up hot dog stands and crowd out the private sector. Want to why that will never happen/work? It's because the government business will fail in the free market. Private insurance companies do not operate under the conditions of the free market (aka perfect information). If insurance companies truly operated in the free market, costs would be driven down by competition to a level of normal profit.
It's only FAIR (and by fair I'm talking about the economic concept of a fair price) that something be done to regulate the insurance companies to free market standards. Do you have an alternate plan? I'd love to hear something substantive.
Oh while I have all those economic reasons for supporting health care reform, I also believe that health care is a right. The fact that it makes economic sense just makes it so much more justifiable. - ninjaturtles1, on 07/07/2009, -0/+4Tzen, what's with the personal insults? I asked a reasonable question.
How long do you think these tax cuts will last, with the amount of spending Obama is doing right now (on top of bush's and co) they can only increase, either that or very high inflation due to the feds quantitative easing. The projections for deficits, Medicare, and Medicaid look very, very bad!
AmnesiacJack, if you plan to retire in 40 years I don't think it would be a smart move for you to rely on Social Security! - sulthernao, on 07/07/2009, -2/+6The public option will be subsidized by income according to income in this new version of the bill.
- hikaruzero, on 07/07/2009, -1/+5That being said, it is not true that all drivers deserve cheap insurance because some of them are downright ***** and bad drivers by choice/negligence! On the other hand when it comes to health insurance, you get what you're born with or what luck you have in life. Everyone deserves to be taken care of regardless of their circumstances, unlike with drivers.
- badfish0116, on 07/07/2009, -2/+6LOL yeah you caught me.....
- lordmike, on 07/07/2009, -6/+10It's actually going to be all paid for... unlike the Iraq war which cost us $3 trillion with tax cuts to not pay for it...
- xman8, on 07/07/2009, -3/+6Preventive treatment is part of the answer. Government run health care is not.
- xman8, on 07/07/2009, -3/+6Sure lets keep destroying America a little at a time.
On the surface Obama knows how to sweet talk most Americans only later to find out it was not what you thought it was.
When are you going to get a grip on reality?
Government health care carries a lot of costs and it is not free. Get it not free. Never will be free. - ninjaturtles1, on 07/07/2009, -4/+7How long until you retire?
- Gemfinder, on 07/07/2009, -1/+4Bill Clinton left office with a budget surplus.
- Gemfinder, on 07/07/2009, -0/+3@Swivelstick: FEMA is actually a pretty good agency. They had San Francisco back up to speed a month after the '89 Loma Prieta 'Quake.
The Bush Administration's rampant use of croneyism put an unqualified nincompoop — who happened to be a buddy of his — in charge. That's why the post-Katrina fowl-up happened. - lordmike, on 07/07/2009, -6/+8I thought the business of health care was to provide.. you nkow... CARE.. not profit! No wonder it's so screwed up!
- lordmike, on 07/07/2009, -3/+5Ummm... no, it covers 97% fo Americans... you should update your right wing talking points to include the ***NEW*** CBO numbers on the bill now that includes a public health insurance plan, which dramatically lowers the cost...
- inactive, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2Wow... Logic on Digg? GTFO!!
- inactive, on 07/07/2009, -2/+4"The guy continues to get the economy wrong, wrong, wrong, and just keeps bringing the stupid."
That's called being a Keynesian. It's par for the course. - bmcnally, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2Just like Social Security!
- darkened, on 07/07/2009, -1/+3All businesses are to provide profit. If you take away the ability to earn money it will remove the need for business leaving only socialistic government ran entities behind. The government hasn't really run anything effective ever, how can it displace the health industry without ruining it?
What happens if after they decide what's fair compensation for drugs that biotech companies realize it's not worth the risk of investing after seeing they will 99% likely be unprofitable even IF they are successful? - darkened, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2If Obama couldn't help but increase our national debt in months more than Bush did in 8 years without his healthcare plan do you really believe he can pay for the entire nations healthcare magically without 1. massive tax increases, 2. massive deficit spending?
If some how you believe that, maybe I need some of the drugs YOU'RE taking. - drmangrum, on 07/07/2009, -1/+3Sure do
http://www.edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/06/can ... - deema1, on 07/07/2009, -8/+10Krugman has to be one of the most overrated and irrelevant economists in modern history. The guy continues to get the economy wrong, wrong, wrong, and just keeps bringing the stupid. I don't care if he won the Nobel prize or not, I have yet to see him get anything correct over the past several years. Not only did he miss the single greatest economic bloodbath of the past three-quarters of a century, but he was on the other side of the fence, claiming things were fine. This guy should have been discredited long ago with his inability to correctly analyze and predict a single market trend, and for the recent revelation that he was advocating that the Fed create a housing bubble back in 2002 in order to combat the recession. Anybody who takes this guy seriously should be ashamed of themselves.
- hikaruzero, on 07/07/2009, -3/+5dugg for "by income according to income"
DOESN'T ANYONE ELSE SEE THE PATTERN HERE?
"from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
ITS A TRAP
TAKE EVASIVE ACTION - MinimumEffort, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2My wife works with some Medicare and Medicaid patients and I assure you they don't get overpaid. In fact they subsidize the M&M patients with their insurance patients and say they pull no profits from them. I asked one owner why they accept them and he said he asks the same question himself sometimes. I think it might be they get some benefit by keeping the schedule more full but my wife says they do give their better paying customers schedule preference. There are also things they can't charge for that they will do for private covered patients but won't bother with for public coverage.
In this case moving everyone to public coverage would either cause the government to pay more for their services (raising the cost of public coverage), they could go out of business, or they could just give everyone the poorer service they currently give the public covered patients (whether by paying employees less or squeezing more patients in, either way service drops). - Swivelstick, on 07/07/2009, -2/+4And the reason it can't run VA care is because of the attitude that the government can't do anything and it hands over ***** to corporations including your example. It's like FEMA and Katrina the government (read corporate puppets) put individuals in charge that shouldn't have been there. The government fails because of the government and the apathy of the people not because government can't do anything..
- minoss, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2Get what you are born with regards to health? Sure, for a very small, small percent of the population who get rare genetic diseases, but for the vast majority health is determined entirely by your lifestyle and diet.
- Nate642, on 07/07/2009, -1/+3I'm self-employed and buy my own insurance and this seems like it might make health care more expensive... I get a preferred rate for being in good health. If insurance companies have to offer the same coverage to everyone does that mean my preferred pricing won't exist? If that is the case it seems like the average amount I pay will go up due to the fact that my price will be averaged with the people who have pre-existing conditions. On top of that it seems likely some individuals will drop healthcare due to this and will push my premium even further. Plus, current people with pre-existing conditions will join health insurance in greater numbers... Now don't get me wrong, I think insurance companies should be required to accept people with pre-existing conditions, but it seems like they have to require everyone to get health insurance as well to make sure it is not only the people with conditions that pay for health care.
I am also a bit concerned by how unhealthy some people choose to live in this country... I think the one price method subsidizes living a less healthy lifestyle. Of course, many people can't help the pre-existing conditions they have. - Benno, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2I'm trying to use efficiency and compassion as metrics to formulate a stand on the health care debate but I can't find a clear winner with any of the popular view points.
People shouldn't die or assume an insurmountable debt because they drew the unlucky cancer card
People that make poor choices (smoking, overeating) should not be subsidised by people that don't make those choices.
Medication and medical treatments should be affordable
Doctors and drug companies deserve to make a profit
People should be responsible for their own health
I honestly can't decide and I'm open to reasonable arguments for and against. - Nate642, on 07/07/2009, -0/+2I don't think you "get what your born with" when it comes to health insurance most of the time. Surely, it does often, but I think a great portion of those in the United States could be healthier if they exercised more or ate better. I think this should be pretty evident from the obesity epidemic we currently face. It seems like if it is a one price system for everyone it just subsidizes people to take less care of their bodies because there is less penalty. I figure I eat at McDonald's too much and that negatively impacts my health. Right now, I try to motivate myself to cut back so I don't have bigger medical bills later in life. Under a one price system I wouldn't have that motivation.
Of course, it gets complicated because there are a lot of people out there with conditions that they are born with or are due to luck and charging them more doesn't seem very fair. However, if I choose to eat at McDonald's as much as I am currently and that causes me health problems later in life I don't think it is fair that others should have to help foot my bill. - darkened, on 07/07/2009, -1/+2Actually private healthcare is doing a phenomenal job. There's a reason people from all over the world come here when they need life saving procedures done. The only reason people leave America for healthcare is 1. cost (my health is not something I would want to risk on having 3rd rate medical care from mexico...) or 2. for experimental procedures that aren't allowed here in the USA due to the FDA yet the patient and doctors feel it's in the best interest to seek them anyway.
So maybe the FDA should being the end all decision maker of doctors and you know, let them decide with their patients what treatments are worth what risk? - darkened, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1You don't need to use the health coverage you are offered at work. You are fully entitled to sign up for private coverage with the same level of benefits. Just don't be suprised when you see the coverage plan you had at your work cost you $20,000 or $30,000 a year. They're not just inflating it for you as a single coverage plan (well they do somewhat) but what you're not seeing is the cost the business shoulders by giving you a health plan. Many businesses that have health insurance pay $10,000-$20,000/year per employee for the benefits you take for granted.
I'm sorry to say but not everyone is entitled to medical treatment. It's not a god given right. You deserve some level of expectation of treatment such as being brought into the hospital from a car accident whether or not you can afford to pay or have insurance, however just by being an American doesn't entitle you to Chemotherapy or a heart transplant if you can't pay for it. These procedures cost $100,000s of dollars, I sure don't want my tax dollars paying for others to have those procedures done when I put my effort into being able to provide for myself and if I had to go through that even with insurance I would have a tough time currently managing financially but I'd gladly pay it to have you know, life.
The last thing I need is to be expected to be one of the other millions of Americans that are some how expected to be responsible to pay for every other person in America's healthcare. - darkened, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1Not if the government institutes a tax on healthcare benefits from employer plans and causes it to be treated as income. Say good bye to your plan if that happens.
- upnorthgirl, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1Nate - you buy your own insurance and are in good health now, but try renewing that insurance when something bad happens - like a heart attack. Happened to my husband and he was healthy, went in for annual physicals etc. when it happened. Bad genes. You never know when they will get you.
So we'll stay in our jobs for the insurance that comes from the same company that you get yours from, raising your rates. -
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is