What is Digg?194 Comments
- elijahyossie, on 07/05/2009, -13/+39I know this makes me seem somewhere to the left of Stalin in American terms, but the National Health Service here in the UK really does work quite well.
- existing, on 07/05/2009, -16/+32One reason is that a government run (and owned) insurance company would be competing with private business. I'm no fan of insurance companies, in general; however, it will hardly be a level playing field; one only need look at the limitless resources the government would have at its disposal - namely, money provided by us, the taxpayers.
Another reason would be that many don't take to the idea of the government interfering in what should be personal decisions regarding healthcare choices.
Another reason is that apparently, we will be forced to purchase health insurance. And personally, I can not squeeze out one more dollar, what with the cost of anything and everything skyrocketing. And I shouldn't be forced into squeezing out dollars for something I should not have been forced to purchase in the first place.
Those are a few reasons. I can in no way speak for all conservatives, but I think it safe to say that conservatives don't want to see people die, and are not against people having the choice of a government run option. Problem is, it is inevitable that at the end of the day, the government run option will be the only player left at the table; that we will have no options (or choices) in our healthcare with this government run option; and we will not even have the choice as to whether we partake in this system, as we will be forced to play the game. Therefore, it winds up being no 'option', in any way, shape or form.
Finally, I know our current healthcare system has problems; that people should not go without needed services simply because they are unable to afford them; and, in general, insurance companies need some 'attitude adjustment'. I just don't have enough faith in our government to believe that they have the capacity - be it competence or ethics - to undertake the challenge. - cersad, on 07/05/2009, -17/+31FTA:
"Charlotte Allen is the author of "The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus" and a contributing editor to the Minding the Campus website of the Manhattan Institute."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute
Works for a conservative think tank, publishes books about Christianity, includes anti-government paranoia in her writing... this author fits the mold of the typical journalist opposed to public health care. How disappointingly predictable. - martalli, on 07/05/2009, -5/+18One issue not mentioned in this article is how their is no medical care available to 1/6 of the population currently. Most of these people are small business owners and people who work for them, for whom providing health care is expensive or impossible. While this article assert that the elderly may have care restricted, it overlooks that we currently restrict care given to healthy and productive members of society. Neither option is actually a reasonable policy stance, but the current "policy" comes about through inaction and thus appears to be blameless.
- inactive, on 07/05/2009, -19/+32What does any of this matter if it's a public run OPTION?
Why are conservatives so against giving people the choice to choose the government run option? They can still choose a private plan where you can still pay for your feeding tube well past the point where you've lost all feeling and function in your body.
Why are conservatives so against having an affordable plan for the poor? It doesn't effect your plan unless your insurer is artificially inflating your costs. - elijahyossie, on 07/06/2009, -1/+12I'm quite a way off old myself, born in the late 1970s. My grandmother, though, died in 2004 aged 89, and the NHS was fantastic for her. She had a heart attack at the age of 75, and great cardiology care and a by-pass after that. In her last 6 months, when she was very frail but compos mentis and keen to stay in her own home, the District Nurse visited her every other day, and the GP at home once a week, so she didn't have to go to his surgery. She died in hospital, from heart failure, in her own room, with her own nurse so that she wasn't ever alone.
The NHS isn't quite so good with niggly things that won't kill you or do you any long-term harm, but are painful or annoying. So at the age of 80, my other grandmother had a private knee replacement, because she didn't want to wait for the NHS. - pault107, on 07/05/2009, -1/+12@existing
I have personal experience of our NHS, so I can help you out with understanding how it works.
My Grandmother had leukaemia at the age of 75 and was treated very well by the hospital staff. In her dying days she was a real trooper and the staff did everything they could to make her feel comfortable, regardless of the fact that we all knew she wouldn't survive. 10/10 for that one.
At two years of age my Nephew developed meningitis, he was rushed from his local hospital to a specialist hospital in London (St Mary's) where he was on life support for four days. I've never been so scared in my life.
I flew from Holland to England as soon as I heard the news so I could be at his bed side, thinking the worst the whole time. The staff were amazing and I wouldn't have been celebrating his fourth birthday last weekend if it wasn't for them. They did an amazing job.
The NHS here in the UK is far from perfect, but they do a pretty good job.
If you break an arm you might wait 6 hours to see a doctor, but when you're seriously ill, you're in pretty good hands. - jeffiek, on 07/05/2009, -8/+18"which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cost about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. "
Go back to the original cost estimates of Medicare. "At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly "conservative" estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29339.html
Yes that article is from 1993. Google is my friend. You don't want to know today's cost.
What about the initial 10 year estimate of $400 billion by Bush for prescription drugs? Now standing at $720 billion?
I trust this estimate about as far as I can throw it. - existing, on 07/05/2009, -1/+11Interesting. What's been your experience on how the National Health Service in the UK deals with the aged? Not a sarcastic question; I'm honestly interested in your opinion and/or experience.
- eliot2000, on 07/05/2009, -2/+11That's easy. The poor guy should not get equal treatment, because his life is worth less, in terms of dollars and cents.
If you think that's a fair decision, then our current system is just what the doctor ordered. - austroLogi, on 07/05/2009, -14/+23"Why are conservatives so against having an affordable plan for the poor? It doesn't effect your plan unless your insurer is artificially inflating your costs."
Cause I am by no means rich and I don't want to pay for other peoples life ***** ups And really its not going to be an option if I have to pay for it anyways. Why buy private when govt already forces me to buy their *****. - elijahyossie, on 07/06/2009, -2/+10I think it does make it less expensive. With our tax-funded National Health Service, we spent less than half as much on health care as you do in America.
- existing, on 07/05/2009, -4/+12I'm not asking for statistics - I was asking elijahyossie for their personal experience on how the UK's National Health Service deals with the aged. In the case of how the elderly are treated, I believe personal experiences to be far superior as a gauge as to how a system 'works' - as liar's figure and figures lie.
I am not satisfied with our current system of healthcare, but am not convinced that government has the abilities or capabilities to carry out the task (not to mention being ethically challenged). Not to mention, I am against government competing with private industry. Therefore, my question is not a sarcastic one, but an honest attempt to find out how people in other countries, with differing systems, feel about their systems.
If I mistake your intentions, martalli, my apologies. However, I do sense a tad bit of sarcasm in your comment. So...rather than spouting statistics (without the actual statistics or citing a source, BTW)...tell me what your personal experiences have been as to how the National Health Service in the UK deals with the aged. I have had my own personal experiences here in the U.S., not only with loved ones who were aged, but a loved one who suffered with leukemia and eventually was in a semi-coma (for which I had good insurance, BTW) - all of which took place under a system that was NOT government run and/or owned - and these experiences were abysmal. I would like to know, are your experiences different - better, or worse - as it would aid in making decisions on the system Obama is proposing here in the U.S. - Dipsomaniac, on 07/06/2009, -1/+9No, the main reason that those procedures get better and cheaper is that they are performed at a far higher rate than almost any other kind of procedures and therefore there is an incentive to improve them (and sell upgraded and new equipment, too). It's the same reason why Toyotas get better and cheaper every year, and Aston-Martins don't.
It's called economy of scale. Look it up. - elijahyossie, on 07/06/2009, -1/+9I meant to add, and forgot, that my main personal experiences with the NHS are kidney problems as an 8 year old (in and out of hospital for 6 months, fine since) and ante-natal, maternity, and post-natal care. I have no significant complaints about any of these experiences - once my son and I were discharged from hospital, the midwife came to our flat daily for 6 days, then every other day for another week or so. Then the health visitor (they deal with children up to about the age of 6) turned up for a get-to-know-you trip when my son was about 3 weeks old.
As far as GPs are concerned, my GP is great - last time I needed an appointment, with a post-flu chest infection, I rang the surgery at 9am, got an appointment for about midday, and was on the necessary antibiotics by 1pm. No complaints about that at all. - martalli, on 07/05/2009, -2/+10Your neighbor is already paying for you grandma's care. Why aren't you upset about that?
- martalli, on 07/05/2009, -0/+8Actually, the current system takes care of the poor (Medicaid). It is the small businesses and lower middle class that are getting shafted in the current system.
- freddiemiles, on 07/06/2009, -2/+10"Now, I'm well aware that having 47 million people who can't afford medical care is a genuine social problem -- although many of those millions are illegal immigrants, people between jobs and young folks who choose to go insurance-bare. I'm also aware that I can't necessarily have everything I want, whether it's a dozen pairs of Prada boots or a pacemaker at age 99."
This is just ridiculous. What an awful analogy. - elijahyossie, on 07/06/2009, -1/+8"As an example, and just for instance - say a woman has cancer that runs in her family, and wants to have a mammogram done - would that be her choice, or does she have to have some kind of permission first - and who, then, makes that choice?"
Every woman over a certain age has regular mammograms on the NHS (don't know what that age is, I'm not there yet). And every woman over the age of about 20 has regular smear tests, too.
If a younger woman with a family history wanted mammograms before the normal screening programme kicked in, she'd go to her GP and ask to be referred. It all goes through the GP. I'm pretty sure they offer it anyway to women with a known risk, but I'm certain it wouldn't be a problem. - gigi52, on 07/05/2009, -5/+12There is no easy answer for any of this, for conservatives or liberals. We all want health care available at a reasonable cost for everyone. It just is not going to happen. I wish we could wave a magic wand and make it so. I need insurance, but as a small business owner, we cannot afford it. But I do not think an all government plan is the answer, or the government option - which will taint private insurance plan options. Not sure there is an answer, but this I know - we cannot afford more taxes!!!!! I cannot afford insurance and I cannot afford more taxes.
- martalli, on 07/06/2009, -1/+8Would you take the same stance towards police, or the public school system? Favouritism may be seen in practice, but it is frowned on as public policy.
- existing, on 07/05/2009, -7/+14Good point regarding small business. As someone who formerly owned one of those small businesses, I can attest to the fact that providing a health insurance option to employees, or for ourselves, was financially out of the question. I can also attest to the fact that adherence to government over-regulation and taxation was a big part of the reason, and a big part of the problem. Therefore, I would like to know if small businesses will be forced to offer health insurance coverage to their employees, which many small businesses AND their employees will be unable to afford, therefore causing many small businesses to be forced out of business, thus causing further loss of jobs?
And yes, in a sense, healthy and productive members of society DO currently have care restricted, as a result of unavailability due to exorbitant costs. In that vein, however, 140Suffolk makes a good point - it won't be any less expensive by getting our neighbors to pay for it - which, in effect, will be ourselves - in the form of more, and higher, taxation and regulation; to pay for a system that may, very likely, not be better - but worse - with no options.
I don't know what the right answer is; but feel in my heart of hearts that I KNOW looking to government for the answers, is not the RIGHT answer. - cersad, on 07/05/2009, -2/+9140Suffolk, you completely failed to address the economies of scale that I was describing. It's well known that insurance providers with a larger clientele can afford to pay for more health care. Of course, instead of addressing that aspect of private insurance, you chose to revert to the traditional argument that you anti-reform people tend to make: LONG LINES!!!!
First off, we have long lines in America for organ transplants and surgeries that are no less gentle than overseas or in Canada. Second off, what you refer to is a question of distribution as opposed to a question of the economics of having several smaller private insurers that can't handle the scale of health care that a nationwide base could. Finally, your claim is made by attacking the worst instances of public health care that exist in the world today. It makes about as much sense to say am American public health care system would be like Canada's system as it does to say that our democracy will begin to resemble the Iranian democracy.
In short, your argument is weak. Also, I am repulsed how you seem to think that poor people deserve to die or live sicker lives as a result of their lower income--but that's a completely different point that has no relevance to the economics I was discussing earlier. - Innuendo24, on 07/06/2009, -0/+7Yes it is. This sort of logic is why this argument is so ***** stagnant. I mean really. They just compared prada boots to someone living or dieing by getting a pacemaker they need.
This issue is so ***** retarded. Money is such a side issue. It's a ***** right to be able to get health care, not some reward for being wealthy. LIFE, liberty, and pursuit of happiness starts with life. life takes health care last I checked, or it's lost.
This is a basic human right, one which America is the only industrialized country to not provide. ***** shame. - pintomp3, on 07/06/2009, -3/+9Comparing elective procedures to ones required to live is idiotic. I guess poor people will just have to make do without that heart operation. The free market has decided that they are not worthy of living.
- Dipsomaniac, on 07/06/2009, -1/+7No country with single-payer healthcare spends as much per capita as the US, and those other countries cover 100% of their citizens - and, for the most part, provide better care, too.
- DankBuddz, on 07/06/2009, -1/+7Yeah, see i have like real people who are friends of mine, that i talk to, with real life stories to tell me. Not one of them has dealt with the ***** I, and my friends and family deal with here in the states.
Wait times? They laugh at that. - pintomp3, on 07/06/2009, -0/+6Certainly Paris Hilton's life is more worth of saving than a worthless policeman or a fireman who makes next to nothing.
- existing, on 07/05/2009, -4/+10I don't think anyone is suggesting getting the 'anecdotes' of 61 million people, cersad. I do, however, give much more weight and value to a person's personal experiences than I do to statistics provided by those who quite possibly have an axe to grind, or an agenda to promote. After all, it was good enough for Michael Moore, for instance - his film "Sicko" was, in some instances, quite an eye opener, and made some good points (and I'm no big fan of Michael Moore).
Which brings up another question. Those who have viewed "Sicko" - I would be interested in any of your thoughts, pro and con.
Thank you for your vote of confidence in my abilities to analyze statistical information (I am not so convinced of my abilities!). In this case, however - where our government is preparing to 'take over' an extremely large part of our economy and, in so doing, will also remove other options that are now available to us - I feel that the personal experiences of those who have 'been through it', so to speak, to be of the utmost value. - martalli, on 07/06/2009, -5/+11If you are in an insurance plan, then you are already paying for other people.
- cersad, on 07/05/2009, -4/+10You're right. Bernie Madoff deserves much better health care than you do. So do Donald Trump, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Al Gore, Tom Cruise, and Britney Spears.
I guess my point is that money is not a reliable indicator of how hard-working, talented, etc. a person really is. For every rich person who earned his/her way to the top, there are others who seem too stupid or criminal to deserve their place. I'm not advocating taking away their wealth--it's theirs, after all--but when it comes to treating people for quality of life, it seems foolish to make judgments of rich first, others last (especially when it will happen regardless of the institutional policies). - Innuendo24, on 07/06/2009, -0/+6@ Presbyterian: Yeah it costs money. But since when should cost even come into the discussion of it being a human right or not. IT'S NOT A MATTER OF COST IT'S A MATTER OF RIGHT. ***** me this is so stupid to have to say. You didn't even bother to say wether or not it's a right or not, you just said "but it costs money..." So does food. But we don't deny the poor food because it costs money. We have WIC and EBT and a whole number of government programs to supply food to those who need it because it's a ***** right. Healthcare is no different than food, you need both to survive. So why is one suck a big deal and the other is something we're used to?
@TypicalDiggeral: You are ridiculous. Consent doesn't matter if it's a basic human right like food or water. I mean how is any of that related to the issue at hand. People have the right to live healthy lives. Healthcare is part of that just like food or water. Which no sane human would deny someone. Serriously, this ***** "I have mine so ***** you all" attitude makes me think we are beasts not humans. At what point do you draw the line? Because right now i'm on EBT and so you are paying part of my grocery bill each month. Does this offend you? I mean really. Ask yourself how much are you willing to let others suffer before you stop treating this like a monetary issue and start treating this as a human rights violation? - martalli, on 07/06/2009, -3/+9Medicare is a disaster?
- dagamer34, on 07/06/2009, -0/+6Any plan that isn't rationing care isn't sustainable long term. There are only so many doctors, nurses, OR rooms, ICU beds, dialysis machines, etc... in the US. Perhaps if you could cure everything with a pill, then we'd be able to take care of everyone no matter what the cost, but you can't just manufacture the support staff necessary to give quality care because of the extraordinary amount of time that needs to be put in to get such a system up and running.
And if you don't think we're rationing care right now, you're silly. Instead of a doctor saying "no, the government can't afford it", right now it's "no, we'll go bankrupt if we do it". Now most people do it anyway, but for the families affected, they have a pretty ***** quality of life afterwards trying to pay the bills. - DankBuddz, on 07/06/2009, -1/+7Yeah, so does the healthcare system in Canada, as I hear from many of my friends. But, you won't hear that from the right.
- jeffiek, on 07/06/2009, -0/+5"long lines in America for organ transplants"
There's a reason for that, in America and the rest of the world. It isn't money or insurance. It's a shortage of donor organs.
Conflating the two does nothing to help. - PWoT, on 07/06/2009, -4/+9Did you see that article that was posted a while back on how the right-wing talking points involved using the word "rationing" when talking about health care reform? Because they know it's a scary word?
Strange how making sure 50 million people who don't have coverage at all, can get care is suddenly "rationing". So they think rationing is worse than nothing? What do they call the current system? - cersad, on 07/06/2009, -0/+5If you're gonna do that, you'll also have to subsidize medical training for all healthcare professionals, or else the salary might not be seen as worth the debt you incur in med school. That gets messy fast.
- existing, on 07/05/2009, -2/+7pault107 - Thank you for your thoughtful response.
We also have waiting periods in our emergency rooms; your wait will depend, of course, mainly on the severity of your illness/injury. But from what you've written, it sounds like the emergency response in England is as it should be; and thank God for that, and for the survival of your nephew.
A loved one of mine also suffered from leukemia and passed two years after the onset of the disease. The crassness of the doctors involved at the time of his death, almost 30 years ago now - I can remember as if it were yesterday. Which, to be fair, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the healthcare system was government owned/operated or not; it was just a terribly unfortunate situation. Aside from that, it sounds like your grandmother received the best that current care had to offer, as she should. And that is a plus on the side of a government run system, although I must say I do not have the confidence in our government's ability, or desire, to do the same.
Have you found any problems when it comes to making personal healthcare decisions? As an example, and just for instance - say a woman has cancer that runs in her family, and wants to have a mammogram done - would that be her choice, or does she have to have some kind of permission first - and who, then, makes that choice?
Also - how much, if at all, do you pay in taxes to cover healthcare; how does it "work"?
Again, thank you for answering. It sounds like in your case, at least, Michael Moore's "Sicko" may not have been that far off. - cersad, on 07/06/2009, -1/+6Because the for-profit ones have lost the public trust.
- cersad, on 07/06/2009, -0/+5pintomp3 is right. You can shop around for the best optometrists, family doctors, dentists, orthodontists, plastic surgeons, etc. and take your sweet time picking the best time and place for surgeries like LASIK or cosmetic surgery. These are fields where the free market can work because the consumers (us) have the power to make a choice in full soundness of mind and body.
Now when you're in the back of an ambulance getting rushed to the hospital or going in for a life-saving surgery, you don't have that luxury of choice. Sometimes you won't even be aware. It's nothing you can plan for, and often these occurrences require rapid treatment. The power of choice is out of the consumer's hands, and that is part of the reason we require these institutions to be set up in the first place. - inactive, on 07/05/2009, -7/+12The catch that YOU have missed is that this ida nothing new. The "economies of scale" haven't worked in other countries, so it's crazy to try it yet again here.
In the UK and Canada, for example, people suffer and die every year waiting their turn for medical services. Waiting for an MRI, they succumb to cancer. Or they wait in pain for years to get a knee or hip replacement. Or die of a heart attack waiting for surgery. Until a recent court decision, in the UK, if you were going blind in one eye, they refused to give you treatment....as long as you had one other good eye!
And these are people that have PAID. It's like going to McDonald's, paying for your meal. Then they give your hamburger to someone else. Who didn't pay!
The "economies of scale" didn't help them. Because when it's free the system gets overloaded. - martalli, on 07/06/2009, -2/+7Administration eats up almost a third of American healthcare expenditures, but only 2% of Medicare expenditures. Another example of government inefficiency?? I would agree in some cases, but having hundreds of different insurance providers with hundreds of slightly different requirements is not helping promote efficiency in the American healthcare system.
- martalli, on 07/06/2009, -5/+10I think you might be talking about the private insurers in America. Did you realise that nearly a third of American healthcare costs are spent on administration? That is a bloated bureaucracy - but it is almost entirely private...
- elijahyossie, on 07/06/2009, -2/+7My Grandmother had a heart- attack in the late 1980s, when she was 75. She had an NHS by-pass as soon as clinically possible afterwards, and lived another 12 years.
My grandfather-in-law had a triple heart by-pass at the age of 85 in Israel, another universal health care scheme.
The NHS isn't nearly as bad as you make out, you know! - GTS42, on 07/06/2009, -1/+6Wasn't Social Security was once a "public option"?
- pintomp3, on 07/06/2009, -2/+7"I don't want to pay for other peoples life ***** ups" Like when they choose to get cancer and have their claims denied by the private insurance company?
- inactive, on 07/05/2009, -9/+14It doesn't make health care any less expensive by getting your neighbor to pay for your health care.
- martalli, on 07/06/2009, -1/+6There are certainly situations where private companies cannot outperform a government option. Roads and police protection are good examples. Education is also largely government run in most places (88.5% of American kids go to public school). Healthcare may be another industry that works better under public control.
- cersad, on 07/05/2009, -3/+8Why wouldn't private companies simply outperform the government, since the free market tends to perform better than the government anyways? Who cares about "tainting" the private companies, if it leads to better coverage?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 195 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is