What is Digg?423 Comments
- IrishJoe, on 10/24/2007, -62/+123Stossel is a piece of ***** hack who masquerades as a journalist. He's a one trick pony who tries to use sensationalism (for the last several years mostly championing right wing causes to keep in the good graces of ABC/Disney). I have talked to several in in the media industry who wonder why he still has a job. The fact that he attacked a widow without bothering to contact her or even her husband's doctors (real journalists do this--it's called research) does not surprise me in the least. Stossel doesn't know the first thing about journalism. As I said he's not a journalist, he's a former consumer advocate who kissed up to the right people. His college degree is not in journalism; it is a B.A. in psychology. He's certainly psyched a lot of people out.
- Vermifax, on 10/13/2007, -22/+57Stossel - Isn't this the guy who got bitch-slapped around by a pro-wrestler a while back...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35wyVQxXUA - ferkranus, on 10/10/2007, -16/+50There seems to by lying on both sides. Moore painted a very pretty picture of health care in Canada...said a person could walk into the ER and be treated within 45 mins. Well, maybe in Windsor, but certainly not in Toronto. And now Stossel has painted an overly pretty picture of health care in the US. I hate Stossel more.
Both systems are flawed, however, in Canada we don't let people die while shuffling them from one hospital to another and no jack off in corporate dictates surgeries... - DrOBoogie, on 10/10/2007, -7/+39Just because he's attacking Socialized Medicine doesn't mean he thinks the U.S's system is that great. If any of you actually bothered to take a look at his 20/20 special on the subject, he actually spends a good portion of his time attacking insurance companies as well. That is, he agrees that there's a problem, but disagrees with the popular solution. You guys should take a look at what he's talking about before jumping into blind hatred.
- executorzz, on 10/10/2007, -11/+35I thought Stossel did a very good job of showing some downfalls of socialized healthcare. He showed how competition lowered prices, and by eliminating the middleman (government, insurance companies) we could lower prices by making the patient more aware and self-concious of what a procedure costs.
Sure, there are circumstances that warrant government aid. From what I understand it seems Stossel would be more concerned about how the aid is spent (arbitrarily or through competition) rather than denying someone aid outright because of principle. - RogerStrong, on 10/10/2007, -9/+32As a Canadian, I'll say that it isn't free - we pay taxes. HOWEVER - we pay less taxes for our health care system than Americans do for theirs. A massive buracracy may be inefficient, but it's far more efficient than thousands of parallel massive buracracies in the U.S.
- heresyforme, on 10/10/2007, -7/+27No, its not free. Someone is paying for it.
- chicoer2001, on 10/10/2007, -32/+52So a system where you can get denied coverage because of a yeast infection is a good one? What about being denied reimbursement because the ambulance that took you too the hospital wasnt pre-approved. Sure the other systems in Canada, UK etc isnt perfect but it's free. I would prefer to die knowing that other people where saved, then dying because of the greed of a for-profit company.
- MattCruikshank, on 10/10/2007, -7/+26What he did with the 9/11 volunteers? You mean, like, helping them find medical attention and helping them get cheap medication?
- EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -33/+51That's a great letter to Stossel. I have no doubt he won't reply. I don't wish cancer on anyone, but the only thing that will wake Stossel up to reality in the US is some first hand experience with our wonderful only-for-profit healthcare.
- hipnerd, on 10/10/2007, -6/+21Look at every other industrialized nation for examples of "socialized" medicine. The system costs less. They live longer. They have lower infant mortality rates.
No system is perfect, but it is hard to argue that we are getting good value for the massive amounts of money we pay for health care in the U.S. - kprasad, on 10/10/2007, -11/+26why is capitalism so bad?
look at lasik eye surgery....insurance companies often dont pay for it and now you can get it done for about a thousand bucks. This cost ten times that amount when it first came around. Improvements in technique and competition between ophthalmologists. - mmmcookies, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Capitalism is awesome, if you have it. America doesnt, it has some nasty combination of socialism and corporatism.
Lasik is a good example, the prices came down because doctors had to compete on price.
For most medical stuff, doctors are not competing for patients. As long as they can get on insurance companies list of approved doctors, they will have plenty of patients, who seldom even ask what an office visit or procedure costs. (10-15 minutes office visits vary from 30-120 where I live, for general doctors, not specialists) - craptacuIar, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20This woman's husband was clamoring for your money? The nerve of some people. I'm so glad that insurance companies are there to keep thieves like that away from your money.
/sarcasm - yodaj007, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14The whole point to insurance is to spread risk and minimize potential damages to individuals. The larger your pool of insured, the more the risk is spread around and potential damages (cost) is lessened. And since it's government and not driven by profit, there isn't an incentive to drive prices up while denying care. You can get care without having to worry about payment. Doctors can treat you without having to wonder whether you can pay. Less paperwork all around. You can get treated confident that the tax dollars of everyone in the insurance pool is helping you out.
This is all an aside though. The article isn't about the pros/cons of socialized medicine. It's about Stossels failure to contact her, her doctors, and actually do some research. Her husband died less than two years ago and he wrote that hers is a sick sob story. That is what this article is about. - Ricky8765, on 10/10/2007, -9/+22Which is why some believe we'd be better off with a federal healthcare system... no profit to worry about making
- SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14"Someone is paying for it - maybe not you" ... actually unless he's not a taxpayer he would be paying for it too. The US also pays more per capita on health care than other countries with Universal health care. But I guess you guys don't mind private health insurance companies raking in the profits. I'm sure they don't mind to. They'll thank you by denying your claims.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13One that is just a subsidy for insurance companies? You could try reading her plan. Just so you're aware.
- zeebusboy, on 10/24/2007, -12/+24Hey greedhead *****: don't drive on MY roads and highways with your *****-mobile, don't call MY fire department when your McMansion catches fire, and don't call MY cops when you find yourself in trouble.
And finally, shove "your" precious money straight up your arse! - P0isonM1nd, on 10/10/2007, -19/+31Yeah, Stossel is a piece of *****. I hope he gets a hold of some tainted hair gel. But he isn't the root of the problem. Our media, in general, is a mouthpiece for the wealthy. That's why Stossel still has a job. He's serving the agenda.
- mtjohnson, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16I assume that you also do not take advantage of any of our other 'socialized' services: police, fire, education, government loans/grants. Right? Just to be consistent.
- ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16Hey, our for-profit system has given us the 40th highest life expectancy in the world! How can you argue with that!!!!
- cheesehead, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13I live in Canada. I like our medical system. If we get sick the doctors don't take your house. What's wrong with that?
- netant, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15Exploit or not, Moore and the Cuban Nation made the effort to take care of those heroes. What did the US gov't do?
You just want to blame everything on the messenger with the hope that people don't see the disgrace of the US health care system: good health care for the rich, the unemployed can go drop dead. - hipnerd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12I'm reminded of a different quote from P.J. O'Rourke: "The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."
The government does many things well, or at least better than private industry: law enforcement, the fire department, national defense, highway construction, and more.
You're complaining about HMOs? That's what most Americans are stuck with. Seldom do we get a choice. Private insurance is too expensive, so we take what our employer offers. My daughter was born with a heart condition, which my private insurance declined to cover, so I was forced to close my business and get a job with the government just to get access to health care. The idea that we currently have "choice" is laughable. - atbnet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10It isn't bad with elective surgeries. However when it comes to critical medical treatment you can't exactly shop around. When you need a heart bypass surgery there isn't time to call around to see who offers the best rates. If you need chemo you aren't alloted time to find a bargain treatment, you need o act now or you will die.
Cosmetic surgeries allow people to research and shop around and spurs more competition. You aren't going to die if you wait too long for your face lift. - vsujohn2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Stossel is not a neo-con he is a libertarian. There is definitely a difference between the two
- JohnFive, on 10/24/2007, -14/+23Hahaha. That little ***** Stossel helped get the US into the Iraq War and is more than happy to mindlessly regurgitate BushCo's talking points. It's great to see this piece of trash disguised as a journalist slapped like a lil bitch! I wish this happened more often to him.
- nirav72, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14really? Tell us that when you or someone in your family gets denied for coverage when you/they need it most.
- nickv, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14Yea, do you have $100,000 - $200,000 saved in case you need to have a bone marrow transplant? (not counting the costs of chemo, hospital stay, doctor time, equipment time.) (ref: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hmn/F99/top-r1.html )
You ***** moron. - siszam, on 10/10/2007, -9/+18Would you rather have your taxes spent to provide corporate welfare and pay for war or would you rather have every American have care regardless of income or an insurance companies profit margin? How can anyone excuse the suffering of their fellow human beings...........even worse endorse the funding of their murders?
- eth3l, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15This typifes the problem with America today. Any little thing that troubles us we look to the gubment for help - the gubment was neve set up to run health care - look at what they did to Walter Reed medical center - hell they cant even get the freaking space shuttle to work - now we want to trst them with setting my child's broken arm? ***** that. you all can have your socialized medicine - Ill stay with the private doctor.
- lharrod, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Also, the library, the post office, the public education system, city and state maintenance, such as street lights, roads, bridges, freeways, etc.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Great comment! Our media and politics are just mouth piece's for the wealthy.
- netant, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13We have.
1) I don't want to drop dead because some rich guy wants to take my money but not return it with health care.
2) I don't want to drop dead if I'm unemployed, underemployed, or retired.
3) Given the choice between crappy National health care, or crappy Darwinian health care, I'll take my chances with the crappy National health care every other country in the world seems to be able support. - AbsurdParadox, on 10/24/2007, -1/+8Virtually all of the replies to my post have proven my point.
Here's the thing. Competition in ANY market improves the quality of that product/service for all. Just look at the computer industry. Prices are lower than they've ever been. Why? Because theres no regulation.
The problem with the CURRENT health care system is government regulation. Government regulation is completely useless. People think that without regulation, people will be dying on the streets, houses will be burning down, etc. Its absurd.
The craziest thing is, the people who rail against the governments involvement in Iraq and the people who want that SAME government to provide healthcare are one in the same. To me, thats the scariest part. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -11/+18Saying "bottom feeding, tabloid style “journalism” " in a piece about Michael Moore and it not pertaining to Michael Moore is just ***** up.
- Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7you must not have read it.
- SqueakyWheel, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Get your state to do it, and then will see how well government health care works. Federalism means trying out ideas, and not having the federal government punish everyone at once
- art42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Moore hasn't claimed to be a journalist.
- elcaminos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Stupid digg users, I seem to remember everybody singing Stossel's praises over on another thread: http://digg.com/videos/educational/Stupid_In_America_Documentary
Funny how all the sheep jump on the bandwagon based on a few people's comments (both threads). - jkbowman, on 10/10/2007, -21/+28No doubt, a distortion warmly endorsed by the private insurance industry lobby---the same group pushing Hillary Rodham Clinton.
- norman619, on 10/24/2007, -3/+10Don't forget it is driven by the consumers. Them profits don't just appear out of nowhere.
- EricSchC1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9The only point you've made are that those in power (not always or automatically the "lefties") created a deeply flawed taxation structure in this country. The practice of the poor get taxed heavier than the rich is distinctly a "righty" trait.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6WOW!!! A person who actually viewed the report objectively. You sir are a rare bird.
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14Okay I'll bite since everyone else is heaping mountains of ***** upon the guy... Stossel isn't saying that people who NEED health care can't join socialized/centralized health care programs as they have in Canada or wherever. All he's saying is that without legitimate COMPETITION in health care that can only be created in a truly free market, there's no incentive for doctors to provide the best service at the lowest cost possible. What could possibly be MORE helpful to poor people than good & affordable health care, regardless of whether it's coming from the state or from their HMO? Without the free market competition mentioned in Stossel's story, hospitals and insurers need not fear the rates they charge because people have no other alternative.
Government-run (or, as we have in America today, insurance/pharma company-run) health care is a situation where doctors don't get to decide how to treat the patient nor how much to charge, which means there's little economic incentive for the doctor and often improper treatment for the patient. What Stossel is highlighting is the free market's backlash against such a system, with doctors deciding to opt out of the govt-corporate complex to get back to the basics of doctor-on-patient treatment, and from what he's saying it seems to be proving beneficial to both doctors and patients. What's so wrong with that? The market isn't forcing people to NOT use Medicare or their HMO, it's just giving them a different alternative. Isn't having more choices supposed to HELP the consumer? Why then is Stossel an ***** for merely pointing out an alternative that many find more attractive than the current system?
I have a question for you haters: Are you counting on retiring comfortably on what Social Security provides? If not (and we ALL know that's the right answer), why would you wish to create another huge entitlement program to take care of your health as well, especially given that the ones we already have like Medicare are such atrocities of inefficiency and graft? Sure, some old folks are getting their pills at a discount, but just as many are getting their life savings robbed from them because they're "slipping through cracks" the size of the Grand Canyon. And you want more of that? Do you really think once our corporate-owned politicians take over the whole health care system in America, that they'll suddenly start representing the interests of the people instead of their corporate masters? What makes Hillary Clinton better at deciding how medicine should be practiced than the doctors themselves who are obviously opposed to centralized/socialized health care? Are the doctors just that damn greedy, or are they perhaps disgusted with the way the system fleeces both their patients and them?
Anyone who clamors for universal health care is begging for the very nanny state that it seems 99% of diggers oppose. How so many of you can be so ideologically opposed to yourself on this one issue is disheartening, since it only shows that many of you still lead with your heart instead of your brain on some issues. Yes, it's sad that some people get no health care in a free market, but universal health care would kill just as many people from being undercared for when every homeless person invents a mystery ailment so they can live at Chateau de Johns Hopkins instead of under a bridge. And what's worse, those of us who'd prefer NOT to pay for centralized health care just as many of us would prefer NOT to pay into Social Security will nonetheless be forced to pay. I don't need another tax; I already pay about half of what I make, which is right on par with medieval serfdom. Likewise, I don't need more government control of my life; it already controls way too much. - barc0001, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Absolutely right! And why the hell should *I* pay for that road in front of your house? You pay for it. And your want a sewer line too? ***** you. Get a septic tank. Water too? What's wrong with a catch basin and filters? Or dig a well, you lazy ass. And if your neighbor threatens you with a gun, why the hell am *I* paying for the cops you call out? User pay buddy. And when the greenbelt behind your house catches on fire, why am I paying for your call to the fire department?
It's simple. Either you believe in a society where there is interdependent services to provide benefits to all, or you believe everyone should pay their own way.
Most western civilizations are intelligent enough to realize that health care is a societal need, just like the police, fire department, sewer system, or roadway. - dalittle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Her plan is a bigger money grab for the health industry than Bush's drug benefit. No way you read her actual plan.
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13the free market doesn't make everything better. tvs, cars and toothpaste yes. health care, police and fire fighters, no.
- sbader, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7It seems to be a conflict of interest to have the person signing the check for a treatment be required to make a profit that would be oh so easier to make without having to sign the check.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 420 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is