What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
773 Comments
- Geheg3D, on 06/18/2009, -14/+192"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free,"
Except it wasn't free. These people just didn't want to pay twice for healthcare. They're going to get taxed for it no matter what, so why not also feed at the state trough? - stompk291, on 06/17/2009, -120/+277ha ha ha ha <inhale> ha ha ha!
coming next for everyone in the country! but this time, it will WORK! I know it! /s - presidentraygun, on 06/18/2009, -53/+167Proof universal health care will not work! Just like it didn't work in Canada, Britain, France, Taiwan...in every industrialized nation but the U.S.
U.S. leads the world in bankruptcy due to medical liability. We're #1, we're #1, we're #1! - zombiecarlin, on 06/18/2009, -11/+110The US has Nationalized healthcare, it's only the profits that our privatized. Insurance companies get to cherry pick their perfect customers: healthy, young and middle class. The type who don't get sick very often and as a result they make Billions in profits.
On the other hand the government is left with the rest: The young, the poor and the elderly who's care the taxpayer pays through Medicaid/Medicare. And yes they are the ones who need a lot of treatment.
So at the end of the day we get doubly screwed. We pay big chunks of our salaries towards our own over priced health insurance while at the same time pay large chunks of our tax dollars towards the national healthcare program.
The only ones who win? The insurance companies. Democrat, Republican or nutbag you have to admit something needs to be done. - elcalrissian, on 06/17/2009, -32/+130I have a salaried job, and pay for my own health benefits.
You had better believe that Im going for the Government Sponsored Health Care when it becomes available. - weirdralph, on 06/17/2009, -54/+146Oh, come on. Just because it's failed miserably every time it's been tried, don't assume it'll fail miserably this time! Based on the law of averages, isn't it bound to succeed eventually?
- stompk291, on 06/17/2009, -43/+104you mean, like communism ?
- DavidNiven, on 06/17/2009, -32/+93This time, we'll throw even MORE money at it until it works. :-)
- greenvortex, on 06/18/2009, -17/+74Um, of course. Contrary to the quote in the article summary, and the knee-jerk posters here, that is the friggin idea. Universal Health Care isn't just for the poor, it is for everybody,
- bettverboten, on 06/17/2009, -123/+176OMG failure everywhere it is tried smaller, Mass & Hawaii,
so I know let's create a huge giant plan for the whole nation /s
Stupidity to the highest level! - reticulate, on 06/18/2009, -16/+62Uhm, the rest of the civilized world gets by just fine with nationalised healthcare.
And before anyone asks, I live in Australia, where we have one of the most lassize-faire economic systems in the world, as well as a functioning safety net. And I work full time and have private medical insurance.
No doubt this comment will be buried by the armchair blowhards but at least someone here is being honest. - SQLDigger, on 06/17/2009, -38/+79""People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free,"
And, you know, Congress is going to foot the bill anyway. - publiczenemi, on 06/18/2009, -10/+50This is why we can't have nice things.
- Bullislander05, on 06/18/2009, -23/+63I have two challenges for people who support US government-sponsored health care systems.
1: Find (and cite, please) a government organization that works efficiently, doesn't waste more than has to be wasted, and has the interests of the people in mind (not just their safety. That's one interest.). Things that pop to mind immediately are Amtrak and the Department of Transportation as horrifying. If I can afford private health insurance/care I want to keep it, because it would be a hell of a lot better than government-sponsored health care. However, because the government has a track record of starting a bureaucratic agency and then phenomenally expanding it, I forsee many private insurance companies getting screwed due to 1: the sheer size of the government and 2: a Congress that will treat the public option as its baby.
2. Show me that this is not just a political vote-gaining scheme. Think: between 40 and 60 million Americans are uninsured (I've even seen CNN say 59 in one segment, then about 30 seconds later say 42. Let's just say it's in that area). That's 1/6 of the population. If, all of a sudden, they're given health care, who are they going to vote for in 2012? It seems the Democratic stance lately has been "Poor? Unable to afford X and Y? Vote for us! We'll take it from those people who have X, Y and Z and you win!"
The point is, Congress doesn't care a tiny bit about your money. If they can spend it for a few more votes, they will. Arguing health care is a basic human right is a pathetic cop-out by someone looking for subjective reasons to support their ideas rather than objective reasons. - Cam_86, on 06/18/2009, -23/+62Um... Did you even read the article? No, scratch that, did you even read the DESCRIPTION of the article?
It failed because it was a two tiered system. Thats why you have to commit to one system, otherwise some people will try to exploit the fact that there is a choice.
I dont get all the fear mongering and blissful ignorance associated with universal healthcare in america. You guys can point to Canada and the UK all you want, but at the end of the day their programs are just as good or better than americas while costing significantly less. Its weird to see fiscal conservatives argue against this when all the facts in the world prove that point. Its almost like they hate poor sick people so much that they are willing to spend 2x as much on their own healthcare to spite them. - NikoKun, on 06/18/2009, -45/+84To all the people badmouthing the idea nation wide.. It failed because it was small scale. It failed because it expected some people to pay for their own, while others got it free. That was it's mistake, it was not destine to fail, simply because it was uhc... It was just implemented poorly.
A REAL health care system would have to be setup for everyone, in order to work right. - Lord1Loki, on 06/18/2009, -9/+43Except that you are already paying for free health insurance for the uninsured. Hospital emergency rooms cannot refuse treatment even if someone has no insurance. Many hospitals these days are for profit. Who do you think pays for the treatment for the uninsured? Hospital administration raises all prices to cover those losses. You are already paying for treatment.
You are probably paying more in this system than you would if everyone had health insurance. People without insurance know that they can still use the emergency room, but they can't get in to see a general practice doctor. The difference in cost is almost tenfold, not to mention people clogging up the emergency rooms with non-emergencies.
The system is completely broken and we all are paying for those without coverage anyways. - leandra, on 06/18/2009, -8/+42Could you please elaborate on how the system is a failure in Massachusetts? I live here in MA and so far not too bad. Mind you it's not "really" universal health care. It's a healthcare requirement associated with tax breaks and assistance based on income level. So if you're financially okay and have your own (this is my case), I get a tax break. If you're living paycheck to paycheck to paycheck and can't afford to shell out for Blue Cross or whatever, they will get you a discounted rate through the health connector. If you're dirt poor like my father-in-law, then they provide with Masshealth. From friends and family all in different brackets, it seems rather successful so far. If you think it's failing, please explain how. Thanks!
- seanayb, on 06/18/2009, -28/+59Because state-run healthcare sucks ass. I wonder why that is...
BECAUSE IT'S RUN BY THE STATE
You see, the State sucks at running things. - TheH2OMan, on 06/18/2009, -26/+57The U.S.'s problems with healthcare costs have nothing to do with our lack of government-run medicine and everything to do with an ass-backwards approach to how we handle health insurance.
To begin with, we have a model in which your insurance pays for everything. No other form of insurance works like this. Your car insurance is for big accidents, not to cover your oil change. Healthcare should operate the same way - reworking the payment system so insurance was just for big procedures and things like regular check-ups were paid out of pocket would force the system to be more responsive to individual needs and payment abilities. Expanding on the HSA program would go a long ways towards that.
Second, we have a tax regime that disincentivizes individual purchase of health insurance and incentivizes employer purchase of it. All this does is make sure that the health insurance market responds to employer needs - one size fits all insurance plans. If health insurance had a tax incentive structure like car insurance it would make the market respond to individual needs - customizable plans that just got cover what you need covered and a price structure designed to outdo the other companies in competing for individual consumers. Such a revision in the tax code could be helped by either removing the state laws regulating insurance companies cover various procedures (so people who don't want them covered don't have to pay for them anyway) and letting people purchase insurance across state lines.
Finally, if you want to fix the healthcare industry in America there needs to be substantive tort reform. One of the single largest costs driving the price of healthcare is malpractice insurance since a single suit could bankrupt a doctor if they don't have insurance. It doesn't matter if they're innocent either - the cost of legal fees in defending themselves will ruin them. If reasonable caps were placed on what plaintiffs can sue for, along with practices to disincentivize frivolous lawsuits it would do wonders for reducing costs doctors and hospitals must then pass on to patients.
We don't need government-run medicine. We just need to get the government distortions of the marketplace out of the way. - Innuendo24, on 06/18/2009, -19/+49I like this thread. People are looking at this example as a sign universal health care can't/won't work when if you look across the Atlantic you see country after country with universal health care and it's working.
Selective vision I guess. - duncan202, on 06/18/2009, -10/+40For all those who point out other working socialized health care systems in the world you need to take into account the following:
The US has a large and quickly growing population of retiring people who, right or wrong, feel they are owed quite a bit when it comes to health care.
The US has a large illegal immigrant population (and I'm not taking sides on this, it's just a fact) that can show up at any emergency room in our "broken" healthcare system and get treated with little/no money.
The US has a large population of people that are willing to take advantage of the system at the expense of others.
The population of the US is far greater and diverse than most, if not all, of the countries with socialized healthcare. - SQLDigger, on 06/17/2009, -14/+43And failing that, we'll start enforcing a "duty to die", to make sure that old people die in a timely manner so we can afford health care for the young! (forced sarcasm, btw - this idea actually makes me want to vomit)
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell042601 ... - Lust4Me, on 06/18/2009, -15/+42The program should not have been labelled Universal if it didn't have the capacity to help both rich and poor. I imagine private lobby played a role in its demise, however. Universal care should work if ruled with an iron fist, but management is soft (elected). Meanwhile, people feel immortality is a right and hence these medical systems balloon and fail instead of providing reasonable care to everyone.
- DirtyVicar, on 06/18/2009, -4/+29You forgot the group that fell in the crack. They're above the poverty line and can't get government assistance, but they can't get private insurance because of pre-existing conditions or just can't get proper treatment because of an unscrupulous insurer.
- MadLeper, on 06/18/2009, -16/+41Working out wonderfully here in Canada thank you very much, regardless of the right-wing libertarian FUD that's being spread around.
I think the real lesson of Hawaii's health care failure is that Americans are incompetent at implementing and running public health care programs. Every other civilized country has one, why cant America get on track ?? - camaroz06, on 06/18/2009, -6/+30Ummmm we have mandatory health coverage here in MA not universal.
- workaround4u, on 06/18/2009, -20/+44Heym MadLeper, did you know that surveys show that a majority of Americans are happy with their health care? Do you personally know anyone with health problems that isn't able to get them addressed at their local ER? I have personal acquaintance with at least 2 people, without health insurance, who have had serious health problems adequately addressed.
Guess what. A single payer system may mean that you can get health care, but it also means skyrocking taxes, skyrocking inflation after the feds print the money needed to provide your "right to health care", waits for treatment, rationing, the disincentive for talented people to enter medicine, and the end of the free enterprise that gave us the best health care in the world/history.
You lefties are pathetic in your quest to get something for nothing. There is no free lunch. Why shouldn't you pay for what you get?
It's all I can do to stay calm in the face of such ignorance. Why can't you look at something like the Hawaiian experiment, and draw some logical conclusions, and stop being such a naive baby. Sheesh. - Tenareth, on 06/18/2009, -9/+32Wow, the "Free Rider" problem that has been defined in Economics for over a hundred years is proven yet again. Amazing.
- NYCnative, on 06/17/2009, -62/+84This should be on the nightly news....but sadly we know where their loyalty is..
- NikoKun, on 06/18/2009, -26/+48Maybe it failed because it wasn't a complete system, and it was small scale.
It wouldn't fail in this way, if it was a system automatically setup for EVERYONE. Don't assume people will pay for their own, if such a system exists... But it must be setup to handle that, of course.
This failure says more about the way they implemented it, in this particular way, than whether or not UHC works. -_- - Bloodwine, on 06/18/2009, -9/+29This is what is going to happen if they introduce the public option health insurance:
a. employers will stop offering health insurance to its employees to save costs. good news is these people can still get insurance via the public option, but the bad news is this is like a pay cut, because health insurance was part of the compensation
b. individuals who have health insurance now will save their money by opting to use the public option instead.
I really don't see how this won't come to pass if public option (aka government health insurance) is made available. - askantik, on 06/18/2009, -4/+24It didn't work in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Australia, or Japan, either. Hahaha.
/s
. - Doubledown, on 06/18/2009, -32/+52@THETEH
Really... why do people come to the United States to get the best healthcare???? Oh wait, it's because the government does not regulate cost-effective health-care. Guess what happens when that comes???? - ricksite, on 06/18/2009, -21/+41@Doubledown Exactly. Two problems with the US are its global image and illegal immigration. If the US is so crappy, why are people risking their lives to some here? If our health care system is so crappy, why to people travel here to receive treatment?
- inactive, on 06/18/2009, -4/+23No they aren't
I'm not sure when "Europe" became synonymous with the politic of every damn country in Europe. There is more than 25 countries in the EU, with health care systems ranging from none to fully covered by the State.
And no, they aren't "seeing the light", whatever the ***** that means. - TheInformer, on 06/18/2009, -21/+39Obama's "change" for the United States will be to look at ways of doing things, then choosing the one that fails as his plan.
Example: Give billions to companies. Companies still fail, so do the same thing again but on a wider scale and call it "stimulus".
Example: Heath care. Medicare. Medicaid. They're going bankrupt, so roll them out on a much larger scale and call it "universal health care". - askantik, on 06/18/2009, -3/+21Hence the word 'universal.' :) BTW, basically all the other first-world countries (which have universal healthcare) have lower infant mortality rates (and you CAN'T blame that on "they exercise more in Europe" *****) and higher life expectancies (you can use that exercise excuse here, but that doesn't really make it valid-- 'specially since Australia, Canada, and Japan aren't in Europe).
BTW, the countries that have a single-payer system (not what Obama is advocating, but that's what I advocate) all pay less of their GDP and less per capita for healthcare than we do-- and it covers everyone. Private insurance is still available for people who are "too good" for the public system. So if you have enough money to afford private insurance, you have no reason to bitch and moan about "long waiting lines" (though this is mostly a myth anyhow), and if you don't have the money, well, you should just feel lucky that you now have healthcare. It's a win-win situation, really. - ricksite, on 06/18/2009, -18/+35Our inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can health care be an inalienable right when it hasn't always existed? It isn't covered by the right to life. Right to life means that another person is not allowed to kill you. It doesn't mean they have to keep you alive. Why am I required to pay for this *****? For some reason we can't call it slavery, even though it is akin to slavery.
- TINZUSA, on 06/18/2009, -19/+36State funded health care is not communism. People need to stop aligning everything with Socialism. It's a pitiful attempt by corporations to induce fear. There are great ideas within every "ism" and the smart thing to do is select which ones best fit the problem.
- JohnFlux, on 06/18/2009, -8/+25sgtbutterscotch, that's exactly what most countries do. You have socialised health care, but you can still get private health care if you want it.
- WasabiBomb, on 06/18/2009, -10/+27You didn't even read his comment, did you, brbeaird?
Here, allow me to quote: "It failed because it expected some people to pay for their own, while others got it free." - Doubledown, on 06/18/2009, -4/+21So the statement "if you subsidize anything, you get more of it" is actually true.
- WasabiBomb, on 06/18/2009, -0/+16@rignopolis: For-profit healthcare != Good, either. Why do you think an insurance company thinks about anything other than making as much profit as possible? The less service they provide, the more their shareholders make.
- localzuk, on 06/18/2009, -11/+27Works just fine in the UK thank you very much, and France, and Canada...
- CaptainPanda, on 06/18/2009, -11/+27Pardon my French, but why the ***** is the word "liberal" considered insulting in this country?
From Wikipedia: "Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals."
"Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity."
Sounds pretty good doesn't it? Calling someone a liberal is saying that they do not think half of the population gets freedom of speech and the other half doesn't. Some types of liberalism (such as classic liberalism) are actually identical to libertarianism and many types of liberalism encourage capitalism.
Another thing mentioned on Wikipedia's article that most liberals agree upon is "limitations on the power of governments." Using "liberal" as an insult is akin to saying that government should be able to squelch all rights of its citizens.
Guys, think about what you terms you use to insult others. - topgigmedia, on 06/18/2009, -10/+25Works fine in Canada. Besides, running a program on a nation al level in a comprehensive manner has quite a number of different variables. It done correctly, it can be incredibly successful like in Canada.
Get the facts and lose the unsubstantiated biases. - Jacobpmueller, on 06/18/2009, -8/+23I was just about to type the same thing. Basically Stompk's response here, and the general response by any opposed to universal health care is based on ignorance or foolish misunderstandings.
- inactive, on 06/18/2009, -7/+22Funny, isn't it?
In Canada, you pay a fixed amount for healthcare on your taxes, but it get prorated for the month that you were covered by a private/work insurance.
Such a simple idea, which worked for decades now, and yet... As Americans, we can't find a solutions. - bbtrev, on 06/18/2009, -11/+26And the number 1 reason that the costs in the US are higher per capita? Wait for it..... PROFIT.
If you didn't have people profiting off of the sickness of others, then the costs would probably be right in line with the other countries of the developed world. Remove profit from your health CARE system and maybe the Care part will start to show through.......
HMO model == Fail!! -
Show 51 - 100 of 806 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is