What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Not All Free Anti-Virus Software Is Created Equal view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
458 Comments
- inactive, on 09/14/2009, -19/+243I'm small business and for the public option.
We can’t survive any more increases and stay open.
The cost of being insured is killing us.
I have seen them deny my father after 20 years of paying insurance.
20 years then ***** you no coverage for a heart surgery.
I have seen them deny my little sister for pre-existing ***** and now because she can't get any insurance she has to game the system to stay on Medicare and so limits her unlimited potential to stay within the rules.
And I watch these insurance companies pay off our government and now gin up these grasshole parties...
And it’s pretty clear to me that the only way to keep the insurance companies in line is to make something they CAN NOT get around.
Glad to see the medical profession agrees. - meese, on 09/14/2009, -20/+20463% support a public option and another 10% support a single-payer insurance system. So a full 73% of doctors support a partially or fully government-run insurance option.
Don't let those socialist doctors get between you and your insurance company!!!1!
Can we really trust doctors to practice medicine? Next we'll hear both sides of the story. - Cerin, on 09/14/2009, -5/+124I agree. We should let the gigantic insurance companies stand between us and our doctor!
- Kahnza, on 09/15/2009, -12/+115Most people don't understand the meaning of the word "option". They think it means mandatory.
- aoolmos1949, on 09/14/2009, -35/+116The Public Option Is A WIN WIN SOLUTION For SMALL BUSINESS; small business must join me in support of the PUBLIC OPTION it will make your grow................
- m3arvk, on 09/15/2009, -11/+79Trillions of dollars for baseless war? Check.
Trillions of dollars to insure the less fortunate? Get *****.
I <3 conservatives. - novenator, on 09/15/2009, -12/+79physicians take a Hippocratic Oath, so they know that there are tens of millions of Americans who simply cannot afford basic health care. Their duty to healing people leads them to do the compassionate and reasonable thing.
- ChiaGod, on 09/15/2009, -6/+62For those that will autobury this for being HuffPo:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMp0908 ...
Straight from the horses mouth. - Garbl, on 09/15/2009, -10/+50A study published in Monday's New England Journal of Medicine shows that 63 percent of physicians support a health reform proposal that includes both a public option and traditional private insurance. Only 27 percent support a private-only reform that would provide subsidies for low-income individuals to purchase private insurance.
- pintomp3, on 09/15/2009, -2/+40Letting people die because they don't have money is right? Creating loopholes in order to deny coverage is right?
- coraleaterlinda, on 09/15/2009, -12/+49I think i'm going to go with the doctors on this one.
- Kaegro, on 09/15/2009, -6/+42you got proof to back your numbers there buddy?
- meese, on 09/15/2009, -13/+47Folks need to be calling their senators and representatives and telling them that 73% of doctors want partially or fully government-run insurance and congress needs to listen to those who know the most about the system: the doctors.
Here's the directory of senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ ... - inactive, on 09/15/2009, -1/+32My sisters’ issue is nerve damage in her foot, sounds crazy I know but I am not a doctor here, which without the proper and very expensive medication causes her otherwise very mild epilepsy to go nuts keeping her in seizures every few days.
So here we have a very smart, very talented really kind decent super person who the insurance companies first dropped and now won't cover and is now living with her 15? year long relationship mate rather then getting married as if she did Medicare would drop her and his insurance won't take her...
No getting married or you live as a sweating seizure ridden mass of exhaustion over some ***** pills that insurance companies refuse to cover and how does that impact the decision to have kids then do you suppose?
But you won’t see that would you? you disgusting excuse for a person…
So for all you traditional protect marriage ***** who don’t want the health care fixed either…. how do you fuknuts answer that one with your bigotry and bibles?
Anyway, those who would suggest something like report her I say…you ***** raging flaming Fox sucking Limbaugh loving right wing stooge...you tell me who to report for what.
How about I report you for terminal ignorance?
Course no point to that it is? You report yourself don’t you? - Michael9636, on 09/15/2009, -13/+43FTA
"62.9 percent of physicians nationwide support proposals to expand health care coverage that include both public and private insurance options—where people under the age of 65 would have the choice of enrolling in a new public health insurance plan... (like Medicare) or in private plans.... just 27.3 percent of physicians support a new program that does not include a public option.... 9.6 percent of doctors nationwide support a system where a Medicare-like public program is created in lieu of any private insurance."
So why on earth does it appear the Democrats, and Obama, are back down from a public health insurance option? This is infuriating! - Kaegro, on 09/15/2009, -9/+37What does a doctor know about health care and costs and what the public is going through anyways?
/s so the repudiggers know. - Gemfinder, on 09/15/2009, -9/+36Sorry, but this small business is backing single-payer. I can't wait four years for the Insurance Exchange to go live.
- rkthoadan, on 09/15/2009, -6/+33Buried because the public option as currently written does not get any tax money and is required to be fully funded by premiums.
Buried because judging by every other country in the world more government in healthcare would be a good thing anyway. - Kahnza, on 09/15/2009, -7/+33You have to pay taxes on everything else. What difference does it make? If we stop paying for an unjust war we'd have plenty of money for healthcare. The amount this government pays for its military is retarded.
- Rub3do, on 09/15/2009, -1/+27This must be the compassionate conservatism I hear so much about.
- DOCNM, on 09/14/2009, -29/+55Now let me hear you say "don't let the government stand between you and your doctor!"
- aychseven, on 09/15/2009, -9/+35down with the nazi socialist doctors!
/s
how much you wanna bet this info doesn't get on the main stream news, especially fox? and then if it did, how long do you think it'd be before those nutjobs in glenn beck's army start harassing their own doctors for supporting a public option? - caramba421, on 09/15/2009, -2/+22More lies from the New England Journal of Medicine...
Jackass. - Ohnossocialism, on 09/15/2009, -3/+22Welcome to Statistics 101.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
Using this calculator I found an error rate of 2.1%, so 63% of doctor +-2.1% (so if you're being conservative, 60.2% of doctors) support it.
http://www.dssresearch.com/toolkit/secalc/error.as ... - DiomedesTydeus, on 09/15/2009, -1/+20I hate wading into these threads, but you're leaving off a bit, part of the argument is that insurance companies act as an oligopoly controlling an inelastic demand (i.e. something you need no matter how expensive). As insurance premiums skyrocket, the theory is that if there was real competition they'd come down. That's part of the "win" for small businesses is that the policy would cost a lot less. Another part of it is that you're paying for uninsured people already via ER care with your taxes...
So it's not quite as simple as "you'll pay more taxes" it's a "probably some extra taxes going there, but also health insurance prices declining".
I'd love it if the debate focused and some of the tougher issues like quantifying exactly how much might be saved from reduced ER visits, how much might come from taxes, etc. All I ever hear from either side is vastly inflated numbers presented as "new taxes here to steal from you!" or "billions saved via this system!" depending on who is doing the reporting.
And I hear very very little about how patient treatment might change... right now I have expensive insurance and I still feel like I'm shuffled through the doctor's office like a case number with no real understanding of my medical history or issues. These are the discussions I'd love to be having.
I think I'm rambling, my apologies. - MWeather, on 09/15/2009, -2/+20Yeah, the AMA isn't doing a good job representing it's members.
- colincornaby, on 09/15/2009, -0/+18"Actually, since the government promotes the use of insurance rather than direct payment by making insurance premiums tax deductible when given as compensation, the government is standing between you and your doctor."
The government doesn't have any problem with cash being used as payment. What they do have a problem with is people getting major medical bills without insurance that they cannot pay, and then the government has to pick up the tab. This is why the government is pushing for everyone to get insurance. - scottc, on 09/15/2009, -0/+18Because they take bribes - uh, campaign donations - from the insurance companies too.
- woofers07, on 09/15/2009, -4/+22PSHHHHHH, Doctors, what do they know about health care reform. I'll continue listening to ass-hat pundits on Fox News.
- inactive, on 09/15/2009, -1/+19Sometimes a good conscience means more than pay.
- bigbadgoat, on 09/15/2009, -1/+19Its because of people like TypicalDiggeral that I'm very glad I'm a Canadian. itofts father and sister would get the care they needed, no questions asked. Regardless of cost, regardless of wealth, NO human life is worth more than another. Everyone has a right to live. Your current system is so *****. The fact that anyone can think that it's okay to make a profit off of human suffering (since the less they pay, the less care is given, the more profit they make) is ***** disturbing.
Take itofts's sister. Lets say for example her medication costs are retarded, at $15000 a year. Say her condition, unmedicated, was so bad it prevented her from working or just working full-time, and thus was on social assistance, which is entirely possible. It is not her fault she's ***** epileptic and has nerve damage, she's not lazy, she wants to contribute to society, but can't because it might prevent an insurance company from recording yet another year or record profit.
So instead, it costs the government about 30-40K a year to give that woman food and shelter, along with the administrative costs of running the assistance program, all because an insurance company decided that their profits are more valuable than a person's quality of life.
So tell me, what affects your bottom line more, you selfish pricks? Since it's always about you, does swallowing that fraction of $15000 a year in your insurance premiums or swallowing that 30-40K a year in increased taxes sound better to you? It might end up to be the same since more people are taxes than insured, but in one instance, this woman has a quality of life, and the other, she has to live in absolute ***** misery. You should be ***** ashamed of yourself that someone even has to asks these questions. Why don't you have a bit of compassion and decency towards your neighbors, and I dunno, do the right thing for once?
I'm pretty sure in one of your documents it says people have the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Tell me how itofts's sister is able to pursue happiness if she has a debilitating medical condition that can be fixed? You think nerve damage and seisures sound like good times to you? Real ***** happiness there, asshats.
I heard a saying once "there are no athiests in a fox hole". Something tells me that all of you would be singing a different tune if you developed an "expensive" medical condition and your insurance company decided to drop you rather than pay. Find me just one person, who had their or a loved one's insurance dropped over some obvious *****, and is now suffering or dying, that thinks this current system you have is the best in the world. - VaderCatLover, on 09/15/2009, -4/+21These are ***** smart doctors. Damn, get these people in the townhalls and kick those nutjobs out!
- Maddoktor2, on 09/15/2009, -3/+20Nurses have an oath as well:
http://www.nursingworld.org/FunctionalMenuCategori ... - MWeather, on 09/15/2009, -1/+17"I really don't know."
I do. I read the article. - topgigmedia, on 09/15/2009, -1/+17Jesus is my Doctor and he wasn't polled. /s
- RennyB, on 09/15/2009, -1/+16@Bagos!,
I've not seen any official statement from the AMA opposing the public option, but I do know that they support HR 3200 which includes provisions for a public plan. - Lomstradamus, on 09/15/2009, -2/+17are you ***** kidding? Why in the hell should insurers who do nothing get paid billions of dollars and Doctors and nurses who do everything not get paid?
Wake the hell up! - RennyB, on 09/15/2009, -2/+17@TypicalDiggeral,
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. People "game" the system every day just to stay alive. My bother was diagnosed with brain cancer while he was unemployed and therefore without insurance. No private insurer would now touch him with a ten foot pole. In order to qualify for Medicaid to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatments he has to have an income of essentially zero. Unfortunately his condition has deteriorated to the point where he truly is disabled, but for several years post diagnosis he could have made an income, but then he would no longer qualify for Medicaid. The system is set up to force people to "game" it. The system is broken and I want to help fix it. - Elranzer, on 09/15/2009, -1/+16Iamacyborg: Yeah, let's not trust doctors when it comes to healthcare. Clearly, big business and Republican politicians know more on the subject.
- kjava206, on 09/15/2009, -1/+16@TD: ***** You!
- GorfTron, on 09/15/2009, -0/+15Those poor nations probably have some form of public health care, too. Even the bushies who designed the new Iraqi government included public healthcare. This is not that difficult.
- meese, on 09/15/2009, -1/+16Actually, with or without a public option, there would be subsidies for insurance. (In fact, that's what insurers want: subsidies for private insurance.)
The public option won't raise wages for doctors, but it will decrease bureaucratic hassles and let them focus on treatment instead of billing. - buzaman, on 09/15/2009, -2/+17One of the hardest things is getting paid and establishing a solid cash flow, especially for independent doctors. It often takes weeks to months to get paid for treatment, either from the government or from private insurers.
- wolf3685, on 09/15/2009, -1/+15My father had his own practice...and paying for the difference of insurance payouts really bleed the practice dry. The companies really don't think about the small business owners.
Also I know this isn't part of the issue; a private practice doctor paying their own malpractice insurance was even worst. As an anesthesiologist, you could expect your premium being nearly $40,000 USD and this was 8 years ago.
That's more than I make in a year!! - ferret15, on 09/15/2009, -5/+18"Don't let those socialist doctors get between you and your insurance company!!!1!"
ha, excellent quote - kingflasher, on 09/15/2009, -1/+14Your sister had a prostate? *****, man, what sort of family are you from?
- makkaveli19, on 09/15/2009, -1/+14WTF!! i thought you reps were saying doctors salaries will be lower!
It really is true, you guys flip flop to fit your agenda. - thegsa, on 09/15/2009, -0/+13At least he didn't quote the heritage foundation.
Everyone knows how unbiased they are.
/sarcasm - Velnich, on 09/15/2009, -5/+18pft, Doctors... What do they know?
- BoneheadFarker, on 09/15/2009, -4/+17Oh please...private providers won't magically disappear if there's still a demand. Plus costs rose substantially while quality suffered when the insurance companies got a strangle-hold on the industry. Maybe this will force them to compete better. And you know what...you're already paying taxes for healthcare. It's called insurance premiums, and it's not guarenteed to pay for your health care costs. Plus you still have to spend money on the co-pay when you see a doctor anyways.
You're already paying out the ass and getting nothing in return. At least if the government is running it, you know your money isn't going into some useless CEO's golden parachute... -
Show 51 - 100 of 466 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is