What is Digg?69 Comments
- cppwizard, on 06/25/2009, -8/+24Obama wants to "fix" healthcare, yet he refuses to correct the biggest problem in the U.S. Healthcare System - Tort Reform. It is "off the table". Maybe for practice, he should fix what is actually broke first: the United States Postal Service, Amtrak, GM, Chrysler, and Social Security.
- USArugula, on 06/28/2009, -2/+14Stevanoski: Your claim was as to my motive. You have yet to cite anything comment of mine that supports that claim.
I know this goes against the grain for the more pea brained of your group, but perhaps you could ask someone of superior intellect to inform you on the process of citation and support of argument. - USArugula, on 06/27/2009, -3/+14Stevanoski:
"Speaking of blowhard hypocrites have you informed everyone that the reason you voted for Obama is because Obama promised subsidies to arugula farmers?"
I'd love to see your source for that claim. And no, your pea brain does not count as a viable citation. - USArugula, on 06/27/2009, -3/+13goldengracie2: "WHY WHY WHY he is so up in arms about the US"
I dunno, why have you dugg 60 stories in "world news" in the last 30 days. Oh, that's right, because you are a blowhard hypocrite. - LouisCipher777, on 06/25/2009, -10/+19our health care system does have a few problems, but at least we don't ration care.
I had a friend in Canada, Joseph, who illustrated the problems with government run health care. He dislocated his hip, and the doctor found a strange mass on the xray. it took months before he was cleared for an fMRI, then a couple more months for the biopsy. Then when it came time to start his chemo, they denied him the ability to use the drugs we use here in the US because it want's "cost effective". less than a year later he was dead.
The survival rates for most horrible diseases is significantly higher here in the US. They shouldnt be so quick to throw the baby out with the bath water. - AgeofMastery, on 06/28/2009, -1/+10No Stevanoski, it's not our job to find the proof to your claims. The burden is on the claimant to back his claims up.
- fiatjustitia, on 06/26/2009, -6/+15@goldengracie2
RogerStrong is a Canadian who has first hand experience with their health care system. How is he "parroting lies"? - cppwizard, on 06/25/2009, -5/+13Hey RogerStrong, read this: 10 Surprising Facts about American Healthcare... http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
- USArugula, on 06/28/2009, -2/+9Stevanoski:
You continue making wild allegations, but have yet to substantiate your claim as to my personal motives for voting Obama.
You would do well to walk away from this one rather than openly wallow in your inability to back your charge. - eir574, on 06/26/2009, -4/+11"I'm not trying to be nasty, but what makes you believe that had we had universal health care the same things wouldn't have happened - or worse?"
Being entitled to health care is a big step forward for someone who couldn't afford it at all. People complain about having the government decide what care you can and cannot receive, but this seems to be no worse, and perhaps better, than having an insurance company whose only motivation is profit decide what care you can and cannot receive. At least the government is technically responsible to the people. The insurance company is responsible to its shareholders. I have a better sense of what goes on in those companies since the only thing my father could do after losing his dental practice was to work in insurance.
"NO health care system is perfect, and what we have as we speak, is the best in the world"
It may be the best in the world for those who have access. If you don't have much access to it, then it's most certainly not the best in the world. Some like to paint those who don't have access to good health care as lazy fools who aren't motivated enough to provide for themselves. I wouldn't call my parents lazy, though -- just victims of circumstances that occur all the time in this country.
Did you know that a 2007 study showed that we rank 41st in maternal mortality among 171 nations studied (http://www.seattlepi.com/national/335391_maternal1 ... )? One in 4800 women die from pregnancy complications, which ties us with Belarus and just barely edges out Serbia. Ireland came in first, with only one death in 47,6000. And that doesn't even include other types of bad outcomes. Is that really such a fine health care system? Perhaps for the women who don't die in childbirth.
The cost of lawsuits is a problem, of course, but you can't get rid of them completely as some of them are quite valid. My sister once had complications after a surgical procedure to place a metal plate in her head, and the surgeon who went in to fix things up said he would support a malpractice claim. There were muscles that had been cut and hadn't been sutured properly, there was a thumb print on the plate (??), and there were various other problems. Some claims are indeed valid. But, even if tort reform lowers the cost of health care, there will always be people who can't afford the care they need for themselves and their families, and it will not always be the case that they're simply lazy fools who would prefer to do nothing while someone else supports them. - eir574, on 06/26/2009, -5/+11@tasine
"we do defend the fine system we have in the states."
You mean the fine system that left my mother with no way to buy health insurance after she had cancer because my family had lost our health insurance plan due to a life threatening latex allergy that forced my father to stop practicing dentistry? The fine system that will allow a child to die if his parents make too much money to qualify for assistance (which I'm guessing you don't want tax dollars to pay for anyway), but not enough money to pay for life saving treatment? The system that causes my grandparents endless worry about being a burden to the family when they can't afford necessary medications?
If it's worked well for you, that's great. Despite my family's problems, it has worked well for me, too, though I've only had one hospitalization and surgery. There are plenty of people who are doing everything right, but who get thrown off a cliff. Not that I'd expect you to show much compassion for them. You know, you can be a ridiculously partisan republican who will hate any health plan that comes out of a democratic administration, and yet still admit that we've got a problem with health care in this country. - cppwizard, on 06/25/2009, -6/+12You do not work in the Healthcare, do you? The main beneficiaries of those lawsuits are the lawyers, not the patients (just ask John Edwards). The U.S. needs serious Tort Reform in Healthcare. It drives up the cost of everything to the ridiculous levels they are at now. Why do you think Obama will not even consider Tort Reform? Those same lawyers are his biggest contributors.
I live near the Canadian Border and I work in Healthcare. If the Canadian Healthcare System is so great, then why do so many Canadians cross the border to get their care and treatment in the United States? - RogerStrong, on 06/26/2009, -10/+16You are, quite simply, makeing that up. Or quoting some shill paid to make it up.
- tasine, on 06/25/2009, -5/+11No, I respectfully disagree. It is unwarranted huge findings by dumb juries for people who sue for greed alone, and the jury hates the big company so decides to "stick it to them" by awarding a ridiculous claim for a suit that should have never seen the light of day in a courtroom. Remember the old fool who dumped her cup of coffee in her own lap at McDonalds and sued them for millions? I don't know about her, but her lawyer became a millionaire overnight I am sure. Remember ambulance chaser, John Edwards, late of Senate fame, who "channeled" the dead to win awards for his slimey customers?
I worked as a nurse for 20 years and never saw a single case of a doctor making a mistake that rendered a patient uninsurable for life. It may have happened, but you'd think I'd have heard of or known about at least ONE case in those 20 years.
I'm not here to protect doctors or hospitals. I've had my own spats with them. All is not perfect as they truly are not gods, and mistakes certainly can be and are made. However, mistakes of the magnitude you cite, I believe honestly are few and far between. These slimey useless, but profitable, suits are the major problem, and tort reform is desperately needed. - RogerStrong, on 06/26/2009, -4/+9It makes health care accountable to the citizens. These are DEMOCRACIES we're talking about. Health care can and does become an election issue. Governments can and do get tossed when health care is allowed to lapse.
Why is American defence "socialized"? Or American policing? Or road building and maintenance? Or schools? Or government for that matter? Why do these not make you a "ward of the state", when health care does? - digg4peace, on 06/27/2009, -6/+11i cannot believe that people can be so easily duped into thinking that they don't want free health care...I realize a lot of money is being spent to confuse people but seriously, how feeble minded do you have to be to believe that we are better off with out the same health care system that every other civilized nation gives to their citizens? Meanwhile we have the highest mortality rate of any of the first world nations...go figure.
- fiatjustitia, on 06/27/2009, -4/+9"Everyone, that is, who works and can write a check, can choose to buy health care. "
You do realize that people who can afford health care are still getting screwed from co-pays and extremely high premiums?
"Survival of the fittest is supreme natural law."
So... let 'em starve, right? Yep, just let them die from whatever ails them, no matter what, because that's just the way of nature.
You'll be singing that tune until you or someone you care about gets hurt or sick. Then, all of a sudden, you'll want our help. And you know what? We'll give it to you, because we don't suffer from the same hyper-objectivist, narcissistic psychosis that you and your ilk do. - RogerStrong, on 06/25/2009, -14/+19Canada doesn't have socialized medicine. Most hospitals, walk-in clinics and doctors' practices are privately owned. What it has is socialized *insurance*, or in American terms, "Medicare for all". Many Canadians top it up with private insurance - insurance that's much cheaper because of what the public system covers.
Very few Canadians would trade the Canadian system for the American one
No-one claims that it's perfect. And even Canadians admit that for the rich, the American system is better. But for the 98% of us who *aren't* rich, the Canadian system is better. - Striker101, on 06/28/2009, -0/+4Not to be buried in 3rd-level response where most of my effort would be lost in the fog.
@eir574 "Oh, maybe I get it. You think..." You have no clue what I think, and you cannot frame any argument based upon whatever you think that I think.
Other than that you are "A 31 year-old person who joined Digg on May 21st, 2007", who looks like a cat in a box, and who has written 6322 comments to date but has never submitted an article. Your comments are rarely if ever on top-level, your "thing" is stalking and attacking others for your Collectivist cause -- a reactionary, IOW don't act, react.
So next you move to "oh pity me" "...my mother became virtually uninsurable..." which is to be blamed on the fact that you don't qualify to be some "high powered CEO"? What really happened -- your folks didn't read the policy, or didn't pay the premiums, and became "virtually uninsurable"? So that justifies shifting the blame and responsibility shifts to that "fine system", which would mean that millions of other citizens (including myself and everyone else here on Digg) should be FORCED to SACRIFICE their property, and thus perhaps their lives, for your family, while letting their own family go without or even die? Are your parents somehow more important than mine, or your neighbor's, or your mechanic's?
Now I will TELL you what I think -- I think that all of your whining is disgustingly immoral and evil. So before you start sticking labels on me, know that I am not Republican or Democrat, left or right, conservative nor liberal, because such labels cannot be clearly defined. I was not poured from a mold; I am ME; I insist upon individual sanctity. I think for myself and I am responsible for my own life and for the results of my own mistakes. I have no health insurance, but that's not your problem. I refuse to be responsible for you, make that your problem.
http://morality101.net/blog/morality - RogerStrong, on 06/26/2009, -7/+11>> The more it grows,
>> the less efficient it is
This is where your arguement falls down.
a) America is the master of "economies of scale". Like all else, health care can be made more efficient the more it grows.
b) Most hospitals, doctors' practices and walk-in clinics in Canada are privately owned. It's the *insurance* that's "socialized". There's plenty of private sector there.
c) I agree that government is almost always less efficient than private industry. I won't even claim that the Canadian system is remotely efficient. The only thing I DO claim, it that it's far more efficient than the American system. That's quite the fiasco you've got there:
Simply put, where Canada has one inefficient government bureaucracy, the U.S. has a HUNDRED PARALLEL bureaucracies, one for each insurer. C'mon. It's not hard to beat, even by government.
Canadian doctors don’t have to charge higher fees to cover the salary of a full-time staffer to deal with over a hundred different insurers, all of whom are bent on denying care whenever possible. And then the doctors themselves don’t have to spend several hours every day on the phone cajoling insurance company bean counters into doing the right thing by their patients. They file their invoices online, and the vast majority are simply paid without hassle.
btw, a good example for Canadians is auto insurance. Here in Manitoba there's one insuror, Autopac, run by the government. In Alberta and Ontario on the other hand, it's purely private industry, with hundreds of competing insurers.
The Manitoba system WINS. Insurance is *MUCH* cheaper and still covers more, with less hassle. It's not just that there's only one bureaucracy; it's that that bureaucracy is answerable to the voters.
You call it "creeping socialism, communism, marxism". We call it a government answerable to the voters. - chrisjj, on 06/27/2009, -5/+9Buried as inaccurate. Single Payer Healthcare works successfully in all 19 other 'Western' countries. I have experienced the systems both here in the USA and in the UK and I figure if I become unemployed with no insurance and get some serious illness, I'd have to return to the UK for treatment rather than become bankrupt over here. Most Americans don't have that option. When I was living in the UK, I paid about the same taxes as I did over here immediately after moving and on the same salary, and yet over here I had to pay huge deductibles for medical services just because my kid got sick - this seemed to me to be totally unfair and indeed it is. Thank goodness most Americans have now woken up to the fact that they are being screwed by the insurance companies and are now demanding that the government of the richest country on the planet provide its citizens with the same benefits that other developed nations provide as a matter of course.
- danielttt, on 06/28/2009, -2/+6The trouble is regardless of the costs or, rather, who pays, no healthcare will cure your affliction. There aint no pill for ignorance. How bout free food for the next election cycle....I have a right to it....damnit!
- RogerStrong, on 06/26/2009, -5/+9Interesting.
While Canadians have a longer life span, Americans have a better cancer survival rate. And the reason for the latter is obvious: Americans are getting tested, while Canadians aren't - even though Canadians get free testing.
I'd comment on THAT, but I'm at least a decade overdue for booking an appointment for tests myself... - digg4peace, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3@danielttt...
This idea that government can't be made to work really well, or at least better than privatization in any case, is just one of the myths that the "righties" have been using to fool poor simple hard working Joes into continuously voting against their own best interests...one of many. The great think tanks of the far right sit around all day just thinking of ways to manipulate the poor into supporting tax breaks for the rich, wars for profit, deregulation and free trade...in your case it would seem that they have succeeded greatly...way to fall for it!
Oh, and while I may stand corrected on your source of health care, well actually I sit corrected as I am obviously not typing this standing up...at any rate, I would again give the same prescription...for the sake of your own well being as well as everyone else...please lay off the right wing radio and the Fox...in the words of the great George Carlin, it is all ***** and it is bad for you! - eir574, on 06/27/2009, -4/+7Oh, maybe I get it. You think that once my mother became virtually uninsurable at nearly any price, she should just have become a high powered CEO or something so that she could afford health care out of pocket. Does the same go for children?
- eir574, on 06/29/2009, -1/+4"This is not a function of compassion. "
Sure it is, and I base my statements on other comments tasine has made as well. She seems to feel little but contempt and hatred for anyone whose opinions differ too much from her own. This latest revelation that my mother is lazy because she's had cancer just builds on tasine's total lack of empathy for other people.
"What has the government EVER run well?"
I went to a great public school, consistently rated as one of the best (if not the best) in the country. Yes, government involvement in health care has the potential to be problematic, but you're acting as if you're comparing it to a system that isn't completely broken already. Do you like that an insurance company whose only real responsibility is to its shareholders gets to decide what care you will receive? Can the government actually do worse than that?
"BUT That won't work so well because of the PRE EXISTING CONDITION"
Um, yes. That's part of the problem with our current system.
"It'll likely be your fault after all."
Sorry, not so much as a speeding ticket to my name. Once I did stay 15 minutes too long in a two hour parking zone, though there was plenty of available parking. Horrible, isn't it?
"It's about reality. It's that simple and so are you."
I don't know what the answers are, but I have to believe that discarding people once they've had one major illness is not it. It's sad that you feel differently. Another one who cares only for himself, perhaps? Would you feel differently if you had been in my mother's position? If your child was? Would his life seem just as disposable to you? - eir574, on 06/27/2009, -4/+7"Everyone, that is, who works and can write a check, can choose to buy health care. "
Patently untrue. Did you not read my post above? After my mother had cancer, insurance companies no longer wanted her business. But, you'd probably say she deserves to die after having had cancer. - BillE3, on 06/28/2009, -1/+4Considering how poorly the government has done with running its own affairs, I can not fathom how congress is going to do a better job of running healthcare. What I can fore see is how the bureaucracy will eat up a lot of the money allotted for healthcare. Government payroll will take precedent over actual medical treatment. A government run system is going to be top heavy with administrations and administrators which will be paid for before any money goes to patient care. The same amount of care and quality of care are a matter of time and the government is going to make it go so slow, it will not be good. I guess to offset the problems of providing care, congress can pass a national suicide assist law and give us all an option.
- tasine, on 06/28/2009, -3/+6Hate to tell you, sweetie, but there is no such thing as free health care. Even if it is a free clinic, a free ward, a free health fair, etc. IT IS NOT FREE. SOMEONE pays for it. If you work you will pay for it with taxes. If you don't work you probably get your health care 'free' anyway, courtesy of the taxpayers.
Don't believe for one second that any nation "gives" free health care to their citizens. Governments do not have any money except that which they extract from people's pockets which they can then give to others and that buys them votes in the next election.
Is there some particular reason you believe it is more fair for me to pay for your health care than it is for you to pay for your health care? Inquiring minds want to know why so many Americans feel no responsibility for themselves. Have we wimped out this far? Maybe our wimpiness is what has resulted in what you call the "highest mortality rate of any of the first world nations." - mollydog12, on 06/25/2009, -10/+13fta:
"But the worst thing about socialized medicine isn't its ruinous cost, or the rationing of medicine, or the inevitable decline in quality. It's the change it implies in the relationship between the individual and the state. As Mark Steyn has written, once a country adopts socialized medicine, there is no such thing as a freeborn citizen. Every child is born a ward of the state." - OrangeBob, on 06/28/2009, -2/+4"our health care system does have a few problems, but at least we don't ration care."
What a stupid comment. Of course we ration care. Every system rations care. It's an economic reality due to high demand for a scarce resource.
There is a problem with the WAY we ration care. Our care is rationed based on insurance companies making a profit. Their job is to take the maximum profit out of the system that they can possibly get away with, and whatever is left over is used to cover the health care costs.
If they believe that by spending 10 million on lobbyist or legal fees they will be able to get away with denying coverage that will save them 20 million, what are they going to do? They will pick the profit every time. - Stevanoski, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2I never curse, try to make my reply logical and if I can add humor and the same thing has happened to me. They get their stormtroopers lined up and deluge the digg "watchers" or maybe one of the watchers just does it on their own.
- danielttt, on 07/04/2009, -0/+2digg4..what has the government EVER done well...beyond what's constitutionally mandated and that's questionable. We continually give the bureaucracy trillions of dollars and they have run the dollar into the dirt. What makes you so stupid as to believe they will manage health care better than the private sector. They want the cash and the control. Are you simply looking for another freebie? It's not the purview of the government (yet) to administer this for everyone. You can't even read my post to get a grip on what drives me. Read my words. I don't listen to talk radio and by the way, I don't get TV. FOX news is a talking point for you in lieu of rational thought.
- kingnova, on 06/28/2009, -1/+3We don't ration care? You have to be trolling. didn't you watch the CEO's testifying in front of Congress? Have you not read the years of stories?
I notice you use the "I have a friend" fake argument to justify your positions a lot. Why do you ignore facts and data? - Striker101, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2Well now Digg has "temporarily banned" me from commenting because of user complaints.
Wonder who/what/why happened? LOL!
Anyway, it appears Digg has removed my ban, altho they never replied to my objection. - EnviroChem, on 06/28/2009, -4/+6Yes we do ration care. It is rationed based on ability to pay. 50 million people don't have health insurance because they can't afford it. Companies are cutting back on the plans they offer their employees they can't afford to cover raising insurance costs. This means less coverage and higher out of pocket expenses for employees. THIS IS RATIONING!
- eir574, on 06/28/2009, -2/+4" Inquiring minds want to know why so many Americans feel no responsibility for themselves."
Oh, and just the other day I thought you had some actual modicum of compassion for people like my mother who feel responsible for themselves, but who couldn't get insurance because they've had the gall to have cancer and who also can't afford expensive procedures out of pocket. Would you change your tune if that happened to you, or do you have plenty of compassion for yourself and just none whatsoever for other people? What a terrible person you seem to be. Those who can't afford health care feel no responsibility for taking care of themselves? What an obnoxious, blanket generalization. I'm sure it's true in some cases, but not in all. Similarly, I'm sure that some people who say the kinds of things you just said are having a bad day, made a mistake, said something they regret, etc. In your case, however, I do think you're just a really terrible person who cares only about herself and lacks any empathy for anyone else. - danielttt, on 06/28/2009, -2/+4Diggy...I'm older than you. My parents have both passed away. Nothing is free in this world. The wealth and industry in this world pay for everything. I work for a living...usually 60 or more hours per week. I like it. I attempt to give my employer more than what they pay for because my employer's success is my success. I have never worked for the government. I do have to work with government employees many of whom are slackass bastards who could give a rip about productivity and the "service" they are paid to render.
I pay dearly for the government and it, in turn, wastes my money. The government then borrows from MY social security "trust" fund to extend its spending binge further. It again goes deeper into debt by selleing myriad securities all over the globe. My children will get to pay for that. The government has never managed money or industry well. What makes you believe otherwise....beyond the fact the lefty's have told you of the great panacea the government has in store for us if we'll but give them even MORE of our cash.
I don't have the time or opportunity to listen to talk radio. My car's radio hasn't worked for years and I don't miss it. I DO think for myself. You, obviously, have no appreciaton for that talent. - digg4peace, on 06/28/2009, -2/+4@tasine...Well...sweetie...
As it happens, my husband and I own/run a medium size law firm in L.A., we also have several children still at home and in college, all together, we provide health care for about twenty people. It costs us a fortune each year and despite the fact that we provide excellent PPO coverage for everyone, you can bet that if anyone ever got really sick, they would run into many issues with their coverage, as this is now the status quo...exemplified by never ending stream of statements we receive regularly from Blue Cross Anthem limiting coverage and upping premiums...so you see...sweetie....I already pay for a lot of other peoples health care, and I do it with a glad heart I might add, unlike yourself, I actually like the idea that I can help people have good health care as a result of my hard work..HOWEVER, I believe that if the government were to raise my taxes by just the amount that I and other employers already spend on peoples health care that they would be able to provide complete and total coverage with that money... not only for the twenty or so people that we are now paying for, but for everyone else too.
My belief in this is predicated on the fact that there are about 30 models around the globe right now that we can point to where governments successfully provide health care for all citizens.
Maybe the head of the government program would only make a low six figure salary as opposed to the multi-million dollar salaries that the heads of health care now make... but too bad, not every aspect of our lives needs to be a profiteering opportunity for some unscrupulous corporation
Oh, and by the way... going through life selfish and short sighted is not really a great thing...in case you were wondering. - jybravo70, on 06/26/2009, -9/+10I don't want the government dictating my healthcare. The only government involvement I want is regulation to ensure educated and trustworthy practitioners and hospitals are allowed to be licensed to practice medicine and the ability to sue in case they are negligent and caps on lawsuits so their insurance goes down and our costs go down. Let the free market dictate practices, advances, prices, and service offers. I was in the military for 7 years and under government run healthcare, it was the worst medical experiences of my entire life.
Just because you don't pay at the time you get it does not mean it is free. We all will pay with higher taxes, longer waits, less doctors, nurses, hospitals, less access to doctors, facilities, tests, operations, etc. This will set back advancements, break throughs, and investments in new technologies and procedures. Take away profit and free market pressures and you end up with a stagnant cess poll of conformity and isolation from innovation. This will help send the rich out of the country, and who do you think is expected to pay for 80% of this? The more they squeeze the more will flee and the worst it will be for those left behind, welcome to radical left wing ideological thinking and elitism philosophy. - esser1999, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1I don't have any data off-hand, but I always hear about Americans being the least healthy when it comes to eating and exercising. I think that Canadians and Europeans are in better health, less stress and live in more "green" areas. If so, why is their death-rates higher?
- OrangeBob, on 06/28/2009, -2/+3"Survival of the fittest is supreme natural law."
... if you're a member of a pack of wolves. - esser1999, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1Why is it obvious that the reason for Canada's higher death-rate for cancer is Canadians not getting tested? (Is there some data behind this?) My assumption would be that Canadians do not have timely access to treatment for cancer which seems to have stories to back up (i.e. long waits, sending patients to USA for care, etc.).
BTW, I am not trying to bash you; just trying to understand more. I appreciate that you have been fairly civil in this discussion, despite some hostilities toward you. - BillE3, on 06/28/2009, -1/+2The law suits are all about the "Deep Pockets" theory. The doctors and hospitals have "Deep Pockets" filled with ill gotten profits. The trial lawyers have convinced the public it is "their duty" to take those profits from the doctors. Of course the majority of that money ends up in the pockets of the lawyers. They not only charge for their time, but all of the ancillary costs as well. Just another form of redistribution of wealth scams on the people.
My daughter is a doctor and insurance for medical practice, clinics and hospitals is out of control. If you really want to know why 'healthcare' costs so much, follow the money. - mollydog12, on 06/25/2009, -14/+14canadian health care is crashing down around peoples heads. it's a notable failure. if you need a reason not to adopt universal health care in the us the first place to look is at the canadian debacle.
- tasine, on 06/25/2009, -13/+13But, chances are that when the money runs out and there is less and less coverage, there will be cries of distress and recrimination, just as they will here.
- tasine, on 06/26/2009, -11/+11@RogerStrong
Mr. Strong, the issue for many of us truly isn't solely about "health care" though we do defend the fine system we have in the states. What I believe is a bigger issue is that we want smaller, less intrusive government. Our government has grown FAR too large, dealing with things not in their realm of responsibility, things that belong to the private sector or state. The more it grows, the less efficient it is, and the less control we as a free people have. Many of us believe that is true in all countries that usurp private enterprise, including Canada. Many of us in the states resent creeping socialism, communism, marxism, and all other isms that eventually lead to tyranny. Why keep adding to that when there is no need whatsoever? - inactive, on 06/26/2009, -9/+9you have got to be kidding with that
"master of economies of scale" comment about the government
more like "Master of Waste" - LouisCipher777, on 06/25/2009, -16/+16I had a friend who died waiting on the bureaucracy of the Canadian health care system. why don't you ask him which one he would rather have?
- OrangeBob, on 06/28/2009, -1/+1"If the Canadian Healthcare System is so great, then why do so many Canadians cross the border to get their care and treatment in the United States?"
Because, this is a myth. See:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/ ...
Abstract:
To examine the extent to which Canadian residents seek medical care across the border, we collected data about Canadians’ use of services from ambulatory care facilities and hospitals located in Michigan, New York State, and Washington State during 1994–1998. We also collected information from several Canadian sources, including the 1996 National Population Health Survey, the provincial Ministries of Health, and the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. Results from these sources do not support the widespread perception that Canadian residents seek care extensively in the United States. Indeed, the numbers found are so small as to be barely detectible relative to the use of care by Canadians at home. -
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is