What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
294 Comments
- djcgmcse, on 09/29/2009, -18/+188Facts are rarely on their side these days. Not that the republican party is competely without good ideas, they just choose not to focus on those. Instead they focus on lying and misleading people to try and pull people towards their cause. They need a complete overhaul of their party. What it is they are supposed to stand for, what are they trying to accomplish, and why they take a certain position. And *****' do it with FACTS instead of lying. Otherwise you are peice of ***** and we'll call you out every damn time.
- sonnybobiche, on 09/29/2009, -22/+110The GOP is in shambles. Democrats have a majority in the House and 60 seats in the Senate. They could pass anything they wanted if they were unified. Stop blaming the GOP for the Democrats' inability to come to a consensus.
- ylikone, on 09/29/2009, -31/+109Hasn't the GOP always been the party of lies? Only the old, paranoid or ignorant like them.
- mithrasinvictus, on 09/29/2009, -15/+81Medicare is no indication because it only covers the ederly, a group not profitable enough for the for-profit healthcare insurers. When younger people are allowed access to medicare, it will become more cost efficient.
- beakerwimp, on 09/29/2009, -10/+72atomheartmother: Hi. With respect, I am curious what empirical facts inform your conclusion that programs like Medicare leave us worse off financially. You seem like a well-informed person, but let me just recap the common ground facts that all healthcare economists, members of congress, and people who study the relevant studies agree on at this point. These are empirical facts.
First, we need healthcare. Obviously we're going to consume healthcare services whether or not private insurance exists, whether or not Medicare exists, whether or not Medicaid exists, etc. So eliminating Medicare would not eliminate our per capita healthcare expenditure. This obviously leaves us to debate which method of insurance has the best ratio of quality of care provided to cost per capita. In other words, if private insurance has a worse cost/benefit ratio than Medicare, we'd obviously be worse off if we eliminated Medicare. We'd all still be paying for that care that Medicare used to cover, except we'd be paying for it at the cost/benefit ratio provided by private insurers.
Second, Medicare does have much lower overhead (otherwise known as "administrative") costs than private insurers do in the USA. By all accounts, Medicare has overhead costs of roughly 3% of claims while insurance companies have overhead costs that average 25% of claims in the USA. In other words, from what we can actually see happening in empirical fact over the last few decades, Medicare provides much more bang for each buck. That wouldn't be so great if Medicare also provided horrible care, and it did for a couple decades, but all non-partisan studies on patient satisfaction done over the last decade or so (even studies commissioned by conservative think tanks) show that average patient satisfaction with Medicare is significantly higher than average patient satisfaction with private insurance. I encourage you to read all of the relevant studies on this subject. You will be especially surprised as you read the ones funded by conservative groups, that can't even fudge the numbers enough to reverse the general conclusion.
Medicare's low overhead when compared to the overhead of private insurance is mirrored by the average overhead costs displayed by medical systems in countries with socialized medicine. In other words, even in healthcare markets where the system has been "socialized" for decades, average per capita overhead is much lower than it is for private insurers in the USA. For instance, overhead in Canada is roughly 1/5 of what it is in the USA per capita. Overhead in Switzerland is roughly 1/3 of what it is in the USA per capita.
Considering these facts, we see that those claiming Medicare is an "inefficient" system must be either basing their assessment on poor customer satisfaction from over a decade ago, not considering Medicare's efficiency as compared to the efficiency of private insurers, or completely ignoring the true empirical situation.
Are there strong arguments against my line of thinking? Of course. There are many valid points to be made against these empirical facts. First of all, can we really compare apples to apples when talking about this stuff? After all, Medicare covers a homogenous sector of the population that might allow for different overhead costs and different (possibly inaccurate) ratings on customer satisfaction. Second, part of the overhead costs for private insurers are corporate profit and taxes. Should these really be included in the empirical numbers when comparing to a government program such as Medicare? The following is a good article recapping the major valid rebuttals to the empirical facts:
http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicar ...
Now, when I read through that article I see a lot of valid points that make me think long and hard about my position. But in all honestly, the article tries its hardest to discourage me from accepting empirical fact. The purpose of the article is to posit as many counterfactuals as possible against the empirical evidence. It raises any objection it can (some shaky, some solid) in hopes that I may turn away from the rock solid ground of empirical fact (established over many decades, established over many different healthcare markets). I take valid objections to my line of thinking very seriously and I believe there is a great danger to giving government a greater hand in health insurance.
But, in conclusion, strong empirical evidence exists that government-run insurance results in lower per-capita healthcare costs for society. This works in other industrialized nations. It works in the government-run sector of our own nation's healthcare economy. I think the more important thing to debate is whether or not the USA can continue to be a world innovator in medicine and medical procedures if we cut fat/costs out of the system by "socializing" insurance. This is a real concern. Perhaps it is worth it for us to pay so much more per capita with no empirical health benefits than all other industrialized nations in return for the incredible medical innovations that extra profit motive has facilitated over the last few decades. Perhaps our grandparents, parents, and we have been paying all of that extra money per capita in order to develop technologies that help the entire world. Perhaps we subsidize innovation as a charity to ourselves and to the rest of humanity. Is it worth it? - sHockz, on 09/29/2009, -9/+63i am sorry, but i have a hard time believing the finger pointing between the dem's and repub's.....getting sick of it. each side just wants to attack the other, and no one is getting ***** done.
congress, prez, and senate -
take my advice.....shut the ***** up, sit the ***** down, start fixing this *****, or get the ***** out. - happyimbecile, on 09/29/2009, -0/+36My grandma is scared of minorities...
- founderofpork, on 09/29/2009, -8/+42RIGHT NOW MEDICARE ONLY COVERS THE ELDERLY.
THE ELDERLY ARE A HIGH RISK GROUP THAT NO FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANY WOULD EVER TAKE ON.
THE GOVERNMENT IS INSURING ONLY THE RISKIEST GROUP OF CITIZENS.
A LARGER POOL OF MEMBERS LOWERS COSTS FOR EVERYONE. THIS IS HOW INSURANCE WORKS. READ OTHER PEOPLE'S POSTS AND KNOW AT LEAST A LITTLE OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE YOU REPEAT THINGS THAT WERE REFUTED TEN PIXELS ABOVE YOUR MINDLESS POST.
Christ. I hate digg. - sodade, on 09/29/2009, -7/+40Did you bitch about the rape of the american taxpayer by the MIC over the last 60 years? If the answer is no, you lose the right to talk about fiscal responsibility.
- sodade, on 09/29/2009, -7/+40Those who place their trust in corporations over their own government have no right to participate in an adult discussion of how our government should solve the huge problems facing us. Yes our government is corrupt (largely due to the corrupting influence of corporations) but at least they are SUPPOSED to be answerable to the people. Corporations are only answerable to their shareholders and only when it comes to the bottom line.
- founderofpork, on 09/29/2009, -2/+34Don't forget that the GOP is also the party of people who are desperately scared of change. They're also the party of "Everything was better in the 1950's!"
Do they know that we're almost a decade in to the 21st century now? Catch up guys. - founderofpork, on 09/29/2009, -1/+32So, just to summarize norman619: You shouldn't trust the government because it's been corrupted by corporate money. You SHOULD, however, trust the corporations that are buying out or government officials.
How in the hell does that make any ***** sense at all? At least when you're dealing with the government you know that profit isn't 110% of their motive. It might be a solid 70 or 80%, but at least somewhere in the heart of most politicians is a sliver of goodwill and genuine desire to help the people of this country.
Any corporation out there would kick you out of your house, light your dog on fire and then ***** you in the ass if it would raise their stock price by a few cents. BUT DON'T WORRY GUYS, YOU CAN TRUST THEM TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE WITH NO REGULATIONS!!! - TheSwashbuckler, on 09/29/2009, -5/+34Ah, the ignorance of Republicans...
- Swivelstick, on 09/29/2009, -12/+40Then why aren't people who paid insurance all their lives covered by the corporations? Answer is simple bleed them dry while you can then discard them when we know they will cost us a lot of money. You need to take your blinders off the current system is so corrupt yet so many say just leave it as it is or worse the corporations will save us..
- blackcloud333, on 09/29/2009, -4/+31Oh, you mean that time a bunch of crazies tried to get impeach a president for getting a blow a job, wasting tax payer money in the process and focusing on all the wrong things like usual? I remember that.
- enantiodromia, on 09/29/2009, -2/+29my great-grandmother, who just turned 99, got to watch her daughter, then grand-daughter, slowly die from horrible diseases, within the last ten years.
both were dropped from their insurance policies, and were unable to obtain new insurance coverage, because they had the audacity of having cancer and cancer w/ALS.
she watched both of their life savings spent on out of pocket medical expenses during their last years, leaving our family with nothing but extra bills.
you go ahead and ask her what she thinks is better: paying a bit more taxes and leaving some money to their family, or handing over their entire life savings to health insurance companies leaving their family broke and grieving. - termerjur, on 09/29/2009, -17/+41A thought occurred to me resently - what are some primary public complaints about the GOP? Their odd resistantance to engage modern issues in public debate resulting in various confusions and befuddlements, a denial of contemporary thought, disdain for technology...the "Grand OLD Party". A fair amount of issues and descriptors regarding old age.
Again - "Grand Old Party" presumably (by this descriptor) funded significantly with "Old Money".
How to keep the old money flowing? Who's got "Old Money"? Well, grandma and grandpa of course, that's who. Grandpa's no pushover. He tends to know BS when he hears it. But grandma? And if you can get to grandma there is a better chance to get to grandpa. She wants to be nice - everybody knows that, it's a given. So who goes knocking on grandma's door with a brand new sales pitch?
Knock - Knock!! "Grandma they're gonna try to kill you with health care!" Poor grandma. What can she do but sign a check - she's only trying to save her life and the country...and it was so nice that someone took the time to let her know about this horrible plot against her.
Oldest trick in the book. Grandma is the target all right. The target of the GOP.
- beakerwimp, on 09/29/2009, -2/+26endlessirony: With respect, "who" I am "quoting" is the entire body of worldwide non-partisan empirical study on the subject over the course of the last two decades. Actually, you can also include partisan studies, even including studies done by Conservative think tanks such as the Cato Institute (which do obviously admit the vast per capita difference in health care cost between us and the rest of the industrialized world - although they come to vastly different conclusions than I do about the best solution). This includes every study done by the US government (the CBO in many cases), WHO (the World Health Organization), AMA (American Medical Association), the world's most prestigious universities, etc.
If your contention is that every recognized authority on the subject, including international teams of doctors and health professionals, including the world's best research universities, including the CBO, are not reliable sources... I'm not sure where we can go from here. I'm not sure it is possible to proceed with any kind of rational debate if you are willing to block out the most relevant empirical data related to the subject. I see that as a big problem.
I urge you to think long and hard about your position. Here I am summarizing the relevant facts to this debate in a manner that is quite reasonable. I even posted a decent rebuttal to my own points! And you dismiss my whole post with one flippant line. If you think I am the kind of person who trusts authority and wants government to run everything, you are far off base.
There was a time when the American Conservative movement was intellectually vibrant. The fathers of the movement sprung up in opposition to intellectual deficiencies on the left side of the political spectrum. In the early 20th century the left wing ran wild with emotional policy stances that do not work in real economic markets. Conservatives were a voice for caution, for reason, for factual analysis. They forced this country to recognize the importance of markets over time. But now, in the year 2009, I feel that the American Conservative movement is devoid of any real intellectual power. Their policy stances are not based on any realistic understanding of economics. In many cases their policy positions are contradictory or incoherent (such as supporting abuse of civil liberties and bigger government when it comes to social issues but opposing even meager roles for government into issues like health care). Instead, they base their positions on emotional pleas and they dismiss cold, hard, irrefutable empirical evidence unless it falls in line with their pre-conceived notions. They've become an extreme cartoon version of their former reasonable selves. This is the same type of behavior that true Conservatives opposed in the early 20th century. People like Barry Goldwater would be horrified (which he of course famously said outright before his death). It is sad when a guy like me who has spent most of his adult life studying economics, who is fiscally conservative, who has great agreement with libertarian philosophy, is completely disgusted by the state of the modern American Conservative movement (or what little remains of it). Truly pathetic. - founderofpork, on 09/29/2009, -3/+26No, they're afraid of equal rights for gays and other minorities. They're scared of a country that isn't majority white and christian. They're scared that the world might be changing.
Whereas I see the future as a place where things can get better. The world can move towards more liberty and prosperity for more people. Walls of nations can eventually be broken down and we can unite as a planet to spread outwards and explore the stars.
But this scares republicans, because they're scared they aren't the most important thing in the universe. - smacksaw, on 09/29/2009, -4/+26I remember an article recently on Digg about the right making unfounded claims and then people thinking they are true and no one actually examines them.
Well, I for one am very interested in this whole "doctors will close up shop and retire" bit you've tossed out there.
The polling I've seen has shown doctors to be supporting this...overwhelmingly. And dealing with bureaucracy? Have you ever been to a doctor's office? They hire people to do that. It's part of the cost of doing business.
Let me share with you my experience. Whether I go to a doctor or a hospital in the US, it usually takes some time in the waiting room to get the insurance part done. Then I pay the copay to the cashier. After that there may be a billing problem, a call to the doctor and the insurance. All wasted time that costs money and resources.
Now, going to a doctor or hospital here in Canada I just show my card and sit down. That's it. It probably takes about 15 seconds of effort for them to get my info. One place to bill, one system, the system always pays...now that I am in Canada, I am always surprised at how small the staffs are. And then I remember - without the massive complexity of private insurance, doctors don't need to hire tons of office people. I go to my dentist up here, who has a smaller practice and he has MORE people doing insurance than an office with 20 doctors. Why? Because dental isn't free here - we use private insurance. Same with my chiropractor.
I went to a clinic last month with 20 doctors on staff and they had a receptionist and a biller. My chiropractor has 3 girls who do reception and billing most of the day.
In summary, having experienced both systems, I'd have to say you're pretty much talking right out of your ass on this one. But, it won't matter, because like I said, people who agree with you are not going to actually use their wits and sense to extrapolate things to their common-sense conclusion. Common sense? Not so common. - reeds1999, on 09/29/2009, -2/+23er, the Government is already in charge. It is called "Medicare". Look it up. Patients highly satisfied with it.
- pinchduck, on 09/29/2009, -1/+22The GOP doesn't have the votes to do squat. They can dress up as the boogey man and jump out at Grandma from the shrubs all they want, it doesn't change the numbers in Congress. Which means the Democrats can't pass health care because of...the Democrats.
- Diefree, on 09/29/2009, -5/+25That's wrong actually. 65% of Americans want a public option in healthcare.
http://crooksandliars.com/node/31549
So why does the GOP want to lie and deny what Americans want? - Paranor01, on 09/29/2009, -2/+22Sounds like you'd be happy in someplace like Somalia, where the gov. doesn't do anything for it's people.
- inactive, on 09/29/2009, -2/+20Even if it is, it's still better than people making profit off of deny others coverage.
- inactive, on 09/29/2009, -6/+23since when is fear-mongering in the "liberal" book?
- mithrasinvictus, on 09/29/2009, -9/+26OK, the idea of a discussion involves actually reading the arguments and responding to them, not just posting the same misguided opinion over and over, mkay?
- jpirizarry, on 09/29/2009, -0/+163 Trillion Dollars for the Iraq War vs. less than 1 Trillion over 10 years to cover the uninsured. Mmmmm I guess that for conservative spending money to kill people is perfectly right, but not so to saves lives.
- curtisag, on 09/29/2009, -5/+21Yes I did. I'd like to see the military cut in half or more. All foreign military bases should be closed and the money spent here.
- Subduction, on 09/29/2009, -1/+16Wow, the old cynical paint roller really makes doing nothing, believing in nothing, and helping no one go a lot faster, doesn't it?
- inactive, on 09/29/2009, -4/+19^^^^ You're wrong norman, most people do have issues with their health "INSURANCE". Which is what this is all about.
- termerjur, on 09/29/2009, -2/+17sources?
- smacksaw, on 09/29/2009, -9/+23LOL, nice try. Let me fix that for ya:
Medicare will be a giant, inefficient bureaucracy that will fight the even bigger and more inefficient bureacracy, the corporatism of private insurers.
Just because you say it will be another gov't ***** doesn't make it so. All of the figures I have seen are quite compelling in regards to savings. Honestly, you're going to tell me that we can't find savings when we spend ~$7500/yr per capita, 40m uninsured, millions more underinsured and denied coverage...and elsewhere there is better coverage for ~$2800/yr?
If you can't find those savings, you need a math refresher. - thal3s, on 09/29/2009, -0/+13Must be nice to live in a world where you don't need facts.
I think adults refer to this as a "fantasy world". - termerjur, on 09/29/2009, -1/+14What? I just ask for some sources and I get dugg down? Who the heck do you think you are?
All I can find that addresses the issue is this:
Obama Job Approval - 51% voted up 40% voted down (negative number declining by 1%)
http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx
"State of States" - 30 States Blue, 4 Red sar far in '09.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122042/State-States-Ser ...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122003/Political-Party- ...
So what's the deal? You think the interwebs is a hoax or what?
All I'm asking is that you cite your sources so you don't come off like you're just proving the premise of this article. Are you a sly democrat that wants to make republicans look even more stupid by making crap up? If you got numbers shown them - it won't hurt. - AgeofMastery, on 09/29/2009, -1/+14Rasmussen's polls always skew to the right of everyone else's. Whether that's because they're owned by a former WND columnist
http://washingtonindependent.com/30539/rasmussen-t ...
and Bush campaign staffer
http://therasmussenretort.blogspot.com/
or is just a coincidence I'll leave for you to decide. - minorthreat, on 09/29/2009, -4/+16are you suggesting it is a good thing for a party to be completely unified and members of the part vote a certain way simply because they are part of that party?
This is not good for the country.. Members of congress should vote using their head, not what nancy tells them to do. - tastypaste, on 09/29/2009, -0/+12That "cut" in Medicare you claim is happening is not a real cut. Parts of the health care reform bill revise Medicare and have overlapping coverage, that's what's being cut. Rather than having two different programs covering the same thing, we're getting a more efficient program that covers even more.
But go on and believe the right wing spin and lies if it makes you feel better. God forbid you should spend 30 minutes of time looking up the real facts that are readily available on the internet. - Liverboy, on 09/29/2009, -0/+12FTA:
"The party’s desire to foil the president politically trumps whatever interest it once may have had in sound public finance." That really says it, although this statement could also apply to many of the principles the GOP holds dear lately. - AvangionQ, on 09/29/2009, -1/+12Our current system of private insurance are nothing more than `soulless vampires making money off human pain` -- and the Republicans have been bought and paid for by their corporate lobbyists ... the majority of Americans favor a public option for single payer health insurance -- in other words, if you're a tax paying citizen, your government will pay your medical bills ... to get over these false flag fears that have been brewed up through lies and manipulation, we need to get over our nomenclature and start calling the public option and single payer what they really are -- healthcare for all citizens ...
- EtherGnat, on 09/29/2009, -5/+16gehlm: "Give historical evidence, of a single, cost efficient, government-run program."
OK, how about the health care plans in every other civilized country? They're all paying less than half per person what we spend on health care yet are getting better results (lower infant mortality rates, higher longevity, more "functional" years, higher satisfaction, etc).
Unless you're claiming that all those evil socialist governments are far more efficient than ours. - EtherGnat, on 09/29/2009, -2/+13@gehlm
Add in what we pay for medical care in this country to make it a fair comparison and your numbers will look a lot different. Sean, Rush, Laura, and Mark keep pointing out healthcare is 1/6 of our economy. Add 17% to the US numbers and you get 52%.
I don't care how you slice it, we're paying two to five times as much as other countries for health care yet we rank 37th according to your own figures. I think we can do far better. - endlessirony, on 09/29/2009, -3/+14Wow you are so clueless it's not even funny, panels that decide who the best candidates are for transplants already exist in our current system. The reason for them is because there is a shortage of organs but that in itself is flawed as rich people simply apply to multiple states to increase their odds or give donations. You have had death panels for years it's called the private insurance companies you know the people who cut off your insurance for spelling something wrong when you get really sick.
There is nothing in any of the bills about anything you say, it's simply fox news talking points. If you had said Baucus plan with the mandate is wrong or you hate the way they want to found a co-op. There are many good conservative talking points but none of you seem to want to bother with facts or even try to have an intellectual debates. Instead you have a lot of conservatives simply talking out of their a** trying to make a point.
It's a shame what republicans have become nowadays, you guys are at the same level as UFO nut cases. - Expl0siv0, on 09/29/2009, -1/+12"Their arguments are akin to a 5 year old holding their breath until they get their way"
Well said. - TheSwashbuckler, on 09/29/2009, -5/+16"it pales in comparison to yours..."
They say a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Good to know that nothing was wasted in your case... - TVarmy, on 09/29/2009, -6/+16So... what's your plan to get more doctors in the short term? And how is this worse than the current system where poor people end up using the emergency room and costing the public more in the end? It's only reality that care is rationed. In the current system, it's plutocratic, meaning that it's all determined by how much money you have. Why not have a democratic system where a government that answers to the people by design organizes and funds care?
- LinuxLars, on 09/29/2009, -1/+11Anyone remember the Willie Horton ads? This is nothing new for the Republicant party.
- rblancarte, on 09/29/2009, -2/+12This is my biggest problem with the GOP right now. I know there are a lot of solid, sound and good reasons to not want health care right now. Even I question if it is the right time to tackle this issue. I have said it before, I will say it again, there is nothing wrong with being against health care.
However, where the right is off their rocker is in their spreading of outright lies and stances on insane things like "death panels". I mean seriously. Their arguments are akin to a 5 year old holding their breath until they get their way. In the end they just look dumb because:
a. in terms of the lies, they get caught up in the lies, when exposed they look more very foolish
b. in terms of lame stances like death panels - they just plain look dumb.
It is true, this party needs an overhaul. The direction it has gone the past 15 years or so ha sold the soul of the party to a faction that I want nothing to do with government. If the party was still the party of the 80s, maybe, the party of the 90s and 2000s? No F-in' way. - thaman02, on 09/29/2009, -2/+11It must be nice to be a doctor with enough savings to retire early if everyone becomes insured under a government plan. According to the Right, every doctor in private practice can just retire if they become unhappy.
- KJSatz, on 09/29/2009, -1/+10If a majority oppose it, I would posit that that is largely because of the lies (real anti-facts) being perpetuated by the right (e.g., death panels).
-
Show 51 - 100 of 303 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is