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.
147 Comments
- colberrep, on 10/12/2007, -27/+92Finally, the richest nation in the world will give it's citizenry universal health care. We might be last industrialized nation to do so, but better late than never.
- Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -8/+43Wait, I think the question some here wish to ask, "Should we be trying to instate universal healthcare when there's still somewhere we haven't tried to impose a democracy, or someone we disagree with that we haven't killed yet?"
Of course not!
/Colbert
= ) - Cutkomp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+40@guardianzero
Hmm... which president was that? Kennedy getting shot had nothing to do with socialism. All presidents that have gotten shot had one thing in common, opposition to the moneychangers. - jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41Christ. The ignorance here...
To the obviously retarded (*Cough* m4 *Cough*)
The united states is not a 100% capitalist country.
The united states is not a 100% socialist country.
I know it's difficult to comprehend for people who only understand extremes, but It's both. For those who say you want a 100% capitalist system, I ask: Do you think the pet food melamine gaffe was bad? What if there were no FDA? Do you like not having mercury in your water supply, or that the ISPs are not allowed to censor the internet? Do you enjoy having schools that aren't owned by Microsoft of Exxon?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, please open your mind enough to attempt to understand the concept that we live in a mixed economy.
We already have a large health care system, but unfortunately it's also massively inefficient with much of the cost taken up by middle men, and such a lack of transparency that insurance companies and hospitals can gouge people at every stage. '
Fixing that gives a lot more room for other stuff. Personally I also like the oregon system. ALL children should have acess to healthcare. Child procedures are cheap and save multitudes of money later on. Old people's million-dollar procedure that will save one year of life, however, SHOULD NOT BE SUBSIDIZED. Controversial, but I think that's fair enough. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+51"Universal health Care is Socialism"
So?
It's much better than the ***** fest we have now.
Have you ever had to use your insurance for something more than a routine checkup? If you answered yes, then you'll noticed all the ***** that ensued afterwards with your insurance company trying to pin the bill on YOU, when in reality they should be picking it up.
See, the whole POINT of insurance is "in case ***** happens", and when ***** does happen, the next year or two after your surgery, treatment, or whatever is spent bickering back and forth with them, "we don't cover this" "well you should "okay, we'll cover 70%" If something happens to me that's near death, I shouldn't have to pay for it. "Who covers the bill?" you ask? Insurance. Trust me, they can afford it with the way they're milking everyone today.
That and when you speak of monetary issues in dealing with medicine.. it becomes greedy. Doctors aren't in it for the money, but because they want to help people. Getting paid should be last priority when it comes to their line of work.
It's all ***** nonsense. While it's partially true that the quality of care will go down, it's much better than being up to your neck in tens of thousands of dollars in debt because the very insurance you were paying for didn't come through for you in the end. - Yang1205, on 10/12/2007, -10/+30Tell your momma, I'm voting for Obama
- Paroparo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24M4tt3r:
So people who don't like the way America is shouldn't try to change it, but leave? I recall something about the entire damn country being founded on completely opposite beliefs. - zieski, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20They're only talking about *important* Bush supporters, ones who give lots of money.
- Paroparo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22So the United States of America is *by definition* opposed to universal health care? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Painting contrasting views as unpatriotic is the last thing one should be doing in a modern western country.
- PixelVision, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Providing those yellow school buses for kids is socialism, not to mention their education! Some people hear a word and automatically associate it with "the enemy" and then make a dumbass out of themselves
- fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Do you know a statistically significant number of Bush supporters?
- MSF2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Are you joking? At this point Hillary is the only person who could lose to the Republicans. By 2008 they'll be lucky to have 20% of the vote thanks to Bush.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20"It's as simple as that."
Not really.
Read my post above.
When private practice becomes manipulative and overpowering to the point where people are helpless to them, then the government needs to step in and do something about it. Whether it's universal healthcare or limiting insurance companies, it doesn't matter.
It might not be so bad if ONE of them did it, because then people would choose another, but they're all doing it. The whole medical insurance system is a huge rip off. Like I said, if you ever had treatment done above a typical office exam, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about, unless your parents or someone else happened to pay for your services.
Something *has* to be done because at this point a universal healthcare system is infinitely better than what we have now. - saintdesy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14I think the problem is that there is such thing as a million dollar procedure. There is nothing medical that can take 8 hours and legitimately cost that much to perform. Are we replacing people's organs with huge chunks of solid gold?! No! Its that there are ripoffs in the system.
When I was $14, I had a procedure done to correct a crooked toe. It took 30 minutes, and I was out of the hospital in under 2 hours. The surgeon was paid $3K. In addition, when my parents received an itemized bill from the hospital for $27,000 (luckily everything was covered by insurance). There were misc. expenses listed like "supplies" that were several thousand dollars each. The only "supplies" used was the OR, the IV, gauze, stitches, and scissors/scalpel etc
Now, tell me, what the ***** could have possibly cost $27K?!
That is what is wrong with the medical system. And that is why decent health insurance costs three thousand dollars per person per month. - warriorscot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13The UK health system isn't in a great state but its nowhere near that bad and im from a fairly well off family and we don't have health insurance and none of my family does and none of my friends or there families that i know of. I don't know of anyone that died on a waiting list in a long while there are waiting list problems but its mostly the little things that take forever and allot of the waiting times on the most important things have gotten allot better. The conservatives let the NHS get in a complete state and when they tried to fix it they threw money at it and tried to hire more and more "experts" that didnt know what they were doing, its a completely different situation someone screwed with the British health system and costs of medications skyrocketed thanks to the US system that exacerbated the problem.
The UK health system is a damn sight better than most other health systems and a hell of allot better than the US one which even my small experience of i never want to ever be involved in. Peoples health should never be a commercial exercise, and people that complain about it being socialist are brain washed idiots who dont seem to understand what socialism is and that some "socialist" concepts are fundamental to any government and in my opinion i would never ever live in a country with a government that thinks socialism and any of its concepts are stupid or ineffective.
Just as pure socialism doesn't work, pure capitalism doesn't either its just that simple. And a good Universal health care systems is something every civilised nation should have, Health care is a right its not something you should have to purchase. - TomJx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11These ex-supporters of President Bush include major strategists and fundraisers who have now switched to either outright support or general praise for Barack Obama - Tom Bernstein, Matthew Dowd, Robert Kagan and John Canning. Story also appeared in The Australian as http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,21680676-2703,00.html
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Advice from a Canadian: don't try socialized medecine, you'll hate it and you'll never be able to get rid of it (it takes 48% of our provincial budget and growing).
Instead you should want a totally privatized health care and insurance with absolutely NO government involvement, it's the only way you will be able to get better health care at better prices. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@flink405
Nicolas Sarkozy, Frances new president, is probably more liberal than Obama. We have a very skewed view of Right/Left in the US.
He vowed to make the fight against climate change France's No. 1 priority and urged a reluctant America to take the lead in this battle because "the future of humanity is at stake." - imnojezus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Democrats for Bush" was a group of old school Dixiecrats headed by Zell Miller. They were about as polarized as a group could be, and not to the left. There are a lot of misnomers in politics these days.
- slezzzter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8American politics are far too polarized to ever be united under one man. That's the problem with giving the president alone so much power.
I would be against Obama because I believe that socialism is a greater long-term threat to this country than terrorism.
Bush has succeeded in uniting this country. 72% of the people are together against him! - Adelhas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Im really excited about Obama. To me, this is the first presidential material who actually has a chance that I've seen running in the US in decades.
I'd like to see Obama VS Ron Paul. - allan17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5>If Clinton wins I´m moving to France....now that it has a new conservative government.
>Funnny how all the European countries are booting out the left wing candidates.
Most conservatives in Europe are further to the left than most of the Democrats are in the US. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"When profit is sought, you get people seeking improvements, better technology and better living."
Yes, and you also get the common man being manipulated and a victim of price gouging. That's the main issue here.
So in the hypothetical situation where you were hit by a car randomly.. and were fixed up... but also had this ENORMOUS debt hanging over your head that you couldn't remotely afford, you'd be fine with that? On top of having insurance that you pay out for monthly, who won't help you? Who nitpick every statement about what they will and will not cover? You see nothing at all wrong with that?
I understand perfectly well about what you're saying in regards to improvements, but you're also ignoring the opposite side. What good are the improvements in healthcare if everyone is a slave to the debt they're in as a result of them? Yeah, great, you can get a new heart, but it also costs $200,000. Enjoy. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I doubt the headline. It should be, "Republicans defect from neocons, and they still hate liberals."
- AydenV2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sorry, but none of the current candidates have previous presidential experience.
- wipis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Bush lost a lot of support over the years and I believe many republicans are getting disillusioned with the party in general. I know a number of people personally who voted for Bush and are registered republicans but lately they have lost a lot of faith in their party.
A large part of this is people realizing the party is getting populated by neocons not republicans and are looking to new places for leadership. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Maybe in your mind.
I just hope you realize that there are things to the left of socialism and to the right of conservatism. - MSF2, on 10/12/2007, -13/+17Finally we will have a President who can unify America instead of further dividing it.
- BrewmasterC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6He voted no on net neutrality bills because current RICO statutes should protect VOIP providers. The problem is that the justice department won't enforce them. As president I am sure Ron Paul would lean on the justice department to investigate any abuse by the telcos.
- MSF2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@cutkomp
I found this on Google a few days ago:
http://www.republicansforobama.org/
Just because you don't support Obama doesn't mean that no-one does. - MSF2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Obama was a constitutional law professor. As far as I'm concerned that means he's better qualified then any of the other top candidates.
- DiggCommando, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Healthcare is outrageously expensive today for a variety of reasons, and socialized medicine is not going to fix anything. The healthy will be taxed in order to maintain alive those who take no care of their bodies. Although Obama comes across to me as a charismatic charlatan, that has nothing to do with my fundamental opposition to increasing government bloat. Government must have a limited role in preserving liberty and a fertile environment for commerce and trade (legal and ecological). Occasional intervention through market methods may be justified when Monopolies undermine the proper functioning of the free market.
The problem is that so many people blame free markets for the ills that are, in truth, caused by the maw of inefficiency that is government. - SammyJr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3People like flux are seem to be unaware that socialism is alive and well right here in America in the form of the post office, the military, public schools, public universities, social security, and corporate welfare, to name a few.
- hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Why can't Americans elected someone based on their beliefs and their knowledge? Obama is not the best choice. There are candidates being totally ignored by the media like Ron Paul and Mike Gravel that would be far better choices than the so-called "front runners". You should see some of the people Canadians have elected as leaders, we don't usually elect based on superficial criteria, our leaders are usually down right funny looking.
- harksaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What really makes me laugh is that Obama is more liberal than Hillary Clinton, and Republicans' rabid irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton is going to wind them up with an even more liberal President. I don't understand why you'd hate Hillary but prefer Obama.
But I guess there is more to a President than their platform. - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"If I'm not mistaken, the government is in place to protect its citizens whether it's from a physical threat or fraud."
Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled that government has no duty to protect its citizens. - Infinite84, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Ron Paul in '08
- tsf5000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4FTA:
"Obama at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was “pure John Kennedy”, a neocon hero of the cold war."
Can anybody explain this? I assume that its just a cultural misunderstanding. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Really, where are all of these places that socialism has failed? Please do not name communist countries.
- modelcadet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I would buy this, save the fact that if indeed the republicans wanted to influence the Democratic primaries, they'd instead support Clinton. Although having Hillary Clinton in the White House would be much, much worse for the Republicans (and America), the Republicans actually have a valid shot of beating Hillary in '08. If I MC Rove and company, I'd do my damnedest to make sure Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, then step back and watch her self-destruct in front of the American people.
- imnojezus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Or they think he's the Anti-Christ and want him in power as one more step toward the Apocalypse. One more step in the crazy Neocon Plan!
OR, maybe they honestly like him. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8You seem to be hung up on political labels instead of addressing the issue at hand.
No one said it had to be a replica of Canada's system. There *are* other ways to go about a progressive change that can benefit everyone.
You keep missing the point that even if the alternate solution changes how we go to the doctors today, it's much better than what we currently have to deal with. What difference is there in waiting longer to get proper treatment then, say, getting immediate treatment, but being up to your neck in debt because of the ridiculous charges that come from it? Oh, you'll be alive? Yeah, but half your salary goes to someone else now, so what's the point? - Cutkomp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Most 'republicans' don't even realize that they aren't even republicans any longer, just big gov't enablers. Same goes for Dems.
- thekronz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If Clinton wins, I'm moving to Britain.
- raoulduke87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So basically what you're saying is we should rule out nuclear defence against Iran? Obviously you don't mind the idea of nuclear winter.
I guess I could be categorized as a socialist and I oppose war under almost any circumstances but if there's an impending nuclear strike, I don't want to sit around and wait for the ***** to come down. What other options are there other than a first strike against an aggressive nation? You have to kick the enemy's knees out from under him in that case. What do you propose? - bg785, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2you do not want to get sick in france????? why? oh im sure your going to say their health system is *****. and maybe there is some truth to that. but at least everyone gets healthcare. in america, if you don't have enough money, you don't get ANY healthcare or medicine. i would rather take some form of healthcare than none at all.
- stealthc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can't believe somebody got dugg up for claiming the FDA makes the food supply safer.
There's mercury in our children's vaccines.
There's a weird neurotoxin in our "artificial sweetners."
Almost nothing is sweetened with just sugar anymore but instead some artificial chemical made out of corn and a dozen enzymes.
We have a vast amount of genetically modified crops now that grow pesticides within themselves, so you can't wash the poisons off your food, you have no choice but to eat it. What do you think is making the bees disappear? Our plants have poisons in them!
And the vast majority of the time, knowledge of this is completely buried because the FDA is politically motivated. Somehow we've developed a cult-like belief in whatever the FDA tells us, whether they are right or wrong.
A free and open market would increase the transparency because independent watchdog companies would spring up ala Consumer Reports without government imposing itself, and there would be more choices, more competition, resulting in the best, cheapest, healthiest possible food for the greatest number of people. You liberals are into utilitarianism, so you should like that. - endustry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wonder if McCain will crawl out of Bush's ass and join the exodus. No, wait, he's running again this year. My bad.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What scares me is the ability to swing so far across the politicial spectrum, demonstrating why the processes and rationale (they) used to select Mr. Bush and company to represent them in the first place are so very, very suspect. And, this article suggests they are doing it again...
- Hillsfar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4MORAL HAZARD?
You people who talk about health care as a "moral hazard" don't know what you're talking about. And I say this as a person who DOES NOT believe that health care is a human right nor something everyone is entitled to.
When people don't have health insurance, moral hazardists argue, then they will only go see a doctor when it's really necessary. The problem with that argument is, poor people skip the preventative checkups and lose out on the benefits of early detection. By the time there are obvious symptoms, they flood the emergency rooms and guess who picks up the tab? Us taxpayers. When private hospitals close their emergency rooms and trauma centers in response, leaving public hospitals to pick up the tab, gues who picks up the tab? Us taxpayers.
LONG WAITING PERIODS?
There are people who say the British NHS or the Canadian system is bad. People wait long periods for needed surgeries, etc. Yeah? For the 40 million Americans without health insurance, long waiting periods sure is better than NOTHING. Think about that before you spew off about how national health systems suck.
PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS
Regardless of your frickin' politics (and I loathe both socialists and moral hazardists alike), here are some practical solutions to think about that don't have to deal with the subject of universal health coverage:
1. Bill the frickin' Mexican federales for hospital services provided to their citizens. They all got a Matricular Consular card, after all, which are identification cards issued by the Mexican government to mainly illegal immigrants living in the United States. Our banks accept them. Why not hospitals? Won't pay up? Restrict Mexican imports into the U.S. until the Mexican government and tax the billions in remittances sent home by Mexicans. (And while you're at it, abolish de solis citizenship. Too many pregnant women are coming into our countries to give birth and get benefits - all at taxpayer expense.)
2. Allow American hospitals and institutions to purchase pharmaceuticals from Canada and abroad, so our people aren't subsidizing the cost of drugs for the rest of the world. (Sorry Bush, but your collusioning with Big Pharma sickens me. Especially the part about deliberately not allowing Medicare to save money by buying in bulk. There's no reason for that except for the health and safety of the pharmaceutical corporations' wallets.)
3. Stop farm subsidies on grain and shift them to farm subsidies of locally-grown vegetables. That'll make corn syrup and grain-fed meat more expensive, while making healthy vegetables cheaper. The poor will eat better and cut down on sugars, carbs, and fats. (Sorry, farm states, but your "farmers" are really corporate agribusinesses, not family farmers who grow vegetables to sell at the local farmers' market.)
4. Mandatory exercise for those on welfare - show up for manual labor at the city's sanitation and parks and recreation departments. Walk around picking up roadside litter if you can walk. Do the same with a stick and a bag if you're in a wheelchair. Use a paint roller if you only have one arm. Now that's killing two birds with one stone: obesity and urban blight! -
Show 51 - 100 of 147 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is