McCain Campaign Protests YouTube's DMCA Policy

Colz Grigor writes "It appears that CBS and Fox have submitted DMCA takedown notices to YouTube for videos from the McCain campaign. The campaign is now complaining about YouTube's DMCA policy making it too easy for copyright holders to remove fair-use videos. I hope they pursue this by addressing flaws in the DMCA."

Comments

We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[eldavojohn]

Is it wrong for me to hope that the same thing happens to Obama so that when either of them win, they remember the idiocy that is the DMCA and reform it?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[bigstrat2003]

Is it wrong for me to hope that the same thing happens to Obama so that when either of them win...

No, it isn't.

they remember the idiocy that is the DMCA and reform it?

It is naive of you to hope for this part, though. Good luck with that.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[theilliterate]

Not according to TFA, but there was AFA http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/15/mccain_campaign_wants_youtube_dmca_special_treatment/ which held that everyone was suffering from this. And yeah, it would be nice if the rules that John Mccain voted for were different, right?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it wrong for me to hope that the same thing happens to Obama so that when either of them win, they remember the idiocy that is the DMCA and reform it?

Only in as much as it is wrong to wish harm on others.

Seriously, though, the Republicans are simply reaping what they've sown. if the law is broke, fix it. ... Though they'll probably fix it by putting in an exception for political campaigns, like they did with do-not-call.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Tx]

The sad thing is they won't. Here they have clear and direct personal experience of the DMCA as currently implemented preventing legitimate content from being posted. You'd think that would do it. But they're* pleading special case for politicians, rather than calling for reform of the DMCA as a whole. And if they're taking that stance now, while the issue is hot and they might win a few votes for challenging an unpopular law, there's little chance of them turning around and calling for reform later.

*I say they, I'll pretty much bet the Obama camp takes a similar stance to the McCain camp, I guess we'll see.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[neoform]

If anything happens, they'll just see to it that the DMCA doesn't apply to political ads.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[CrackerJackz]

I think its a higher likelihood of 'loopholes' being added for 'political ads / content' (just like the National Do not Call list.

There is simply to much lobbyist $ rolling around to hope for an outright repeal.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

CBS and FOX won't do it to Obama because they *like* Obama. They don't mind if Obama uses their videos to help him win the election.

>>>I hope they pursue this by addressing flaws in the DMCA.

Since McCain is not going to win (the economy is down & people blame Republicans*), he won't be able to do much about reforming DMCA. He'll just be one of one hundred senators.

*
* (The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis. But the media is being hush-hush about that. Don't want to risk losing the Obama election.)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[cduffy]

It's completely different provisions that make the DMCA unpopular.

Shielding service providers as long as they promptly process takedowns and put content back up on counter-notices is a Good Thing; without it YouTube wouldn't exist. Moreover, the DMCA provides for legal penalties if misused -- if a supposed copyright holder has something taken back down after the person who posted it gave a counter-notice, they're on the hook if such was done wrongly.

The McCain campaign is presumably whining about the process because the information they're trying to promulgate is time-sensitive (only relevant up to the election) and they don't want the downtime it takes to provide counter-notices -- but once they do provide counter-notices, CBS/NBC/whoever won't be able to have it taken back down without risking their own necks. It's a good process, though, and I don't see any reason to fill it with loopholes.

The parts of the DMCA that make it illegal to circumvent the dongle check in the 15-year-old piece of accounting software my consulting client's small business uses (company long out of business, dongle recently broken) are complete BS, but the takedown and counter-notice process is reasonable.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Atzanteol]

Gawd I wish you weren't right... :-(

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Elemenope]

CBS and FOX won't do it to Obama because they *like* Obama. They don't mind if Obama uses their videos to help him win the election.

Yeah, FOX *loves* Obama.

What, are you stoned?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[devman]

CBS and FOX won't do it to Obama because they *like* Obama.

You and I apparently don't watch the same FOX.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[IndustrialComplex]

*I say they, I'll pretty much bet the Obama camp takes a similar stance to the McCain camp, I guess we'll see.

Well, one way to hold Obama's feet to the fire is to say that you will vote for McCain if Obama doesn't say that he will reform the DCMA.

Here is the thing, if this issue really is that important to you, then you must be willing to make sacrifices (Voting for McCain if you were planning to vote Obama, or the reverse). They need to know that their position, or lack thereof is worse than people not voting for them, they are actively voting against them. It is a bitter pill to swallow, for them and us. Who will blink first?

This holds true for whatever candidate you support. Threaten to withdraw that support, and mean it, if there are issues you need addressed. The other candidate may not be what you prefer, but you can be damned sure that all promises made to special interests will be forgotten if keeping them means costing them the actual election. If there is one thing that politicians like more than lobbyist money, it is winning the election in the first place.

If IP/copyright reform is as important to Slashdotters as we claim, then you HAVE to take positions like this to force it to be a real issue. Again, a bitter pill, and not for everyone, but you have to ask yourself, how important is copyright reform to me?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Wildclaw]

he DMCA as currently implemented preventing legitimate content from being posted.

One problem with the US law is that fair use is in no way accuratly defined. It is in fact about as vague as you can get for a law.

First of all, the list of things failing under fair use is incomplete by using the phrase "for purposes such as". Secondly, even though something belongs to the list it can still be infringement because of the part "the factors to be considered shall include", which btw doesn't say anything about how the four listed factors should be considered.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[MyLongNickName]

* (The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis. But the media is being hush-hush about that. Don't want to risk losing the Obama election.)

Continue to believe what you want to believe. But the repeal of this act had nothing to do with the current crash. The majority of this can be put onto bad lending practices and the bundling and selling of these loans. The repeal of the GS Act of 1933 did not allow for 125% LTV loans to folks who did not substantiate their income. It did not cause banks to ignore credit risk. That was just greed. And the fact is that the Fair Credit Act specifically required that banks take into account borrowers' ability to repay when making loans. Had existing regulation been enforced, none of this crap would have come to pass.

I am a fiscal conservative, and hate to see government regulation when it isn't necessary. What I see coming to pass is a lot more feel good legislation, and lax enforcement. We have the proper level of regulation in place right now, but when it is not enforced, it is worthless.

But, hey, good job trying to pass the buck. Of course, prefacing it with "FOX luvs the Democrats!!!111!" kinda outs you right off the bat.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis

Presidents do not repeal acts. They only sign legislation after it has been passed through two houses of corrupt politicians. So blaming a president for legislation is not completely correct, especially when that the party of said president only had a minority in both houses, i.e. the legislation was produced by the opposing party.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[aproposofwhat]

No, but please let the rest of us enjoy the Schadenfreude that results from seeing politicians getting bitten by their own legislation :-)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Danse]

CBS and FOX won't do it to Obama because they *like* Obama. They don't mind if Obama uses their videos to help him win the election.

>>>I hope they pursue this by addressing flaws in the DMCA.

Do you actually know that Obama's campaign hasn't had takedowns used against them, or are you assuming?

** (The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis. But the media is being hush-hush about that. Don't want to risk losing the Obama election.)

Sure. I'm sure that a single piece of legislation caused the whole thing. I notice that you conveniently forget that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was sponsored by republicans (Phil Gramm strikes again), and passed the senate on a party-line vote with only one democrat crossing over. But sure, you go right ahead and believe that the Republicans are in no way responsible for our situation.

I notice also that you neglect to take any notice of other things that contributed quite a bit to our situation, such as the Commodity and Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (more of Phil Gramm's handiwork). This was also a republican bill, but it was supported by a few dems as well. You might want to look into how this relates to the AIG situation and how that affected the banks.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[hedwards]

I strongly disagree, that's a strong point. We don't need legislators to muck about in laws every time that there's a change needed the judicial branch can handle most of that. Law makers don't have to become involved unless the new interpretation is incorrect or is not made in the way that the American people want.

Well, that's the theory, the only problem is that the legislature is allowed to consider lobbyists before the citizenry. But realistically it's far better than what happens in many other parts of the world. These bumps are relatively minor compared to the very scary situation in many parts of Europe.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Dare to hope. Prepare to be disappointed.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

he repeal of the GS Act of 1933 did not allow for 125% LTV loans to folks who did not substantiate their income. It did not cause banks to ignore credit risk.

You're forgetting a key point - banks would not have made those loans if they couldn't sell them off to investment houses. If there was no market for those loans, they would not have made them because the risk was too high.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

The parts of the DMCA that make it illegal to circumvent the dongle check in the 15-year-old piece of accounting software my consulting client's small business uses (company long out of business, dongle recently broken) are complete BS,

I don't have the article handy, but that scenario was exempted from DMCA in the last year - basically any software that required hardware dongles to use that software, when that software or hardware is no longer marketed.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Alsee]

they'll just see to it that the DMCA doesn't apply to political ads.

McCain looks and acts like a 300 year old vampire. Obama is gonna give him an ass kicking Blade style!

AdObama4Pres-Blade1.torrent 619.43 MB

----------------------

McCain is 72 years young, and as strong and healthy as when he was 20!

AdMcCainYoungAndVigorous-Cocoon.torrent 601.45 MB

-

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[MyLongNickName]

I believe that the reselling of such mortgages existed well before the 90's as the ggp poster indicated. If I am wrong, please point me to a source. I will try to carve out some time to research tonight.

However, I still maintain that existing regulation should have prevented the shenanigans that went on with this housing market. The fact that ggp wants to absolve the Republicans who had control of both the White House and Congress from 2001-2006 is appalling. If they saw something wrong, they had a free hand. Can you see the Democrats filibustering a bank regulation bill? Maybe on the Onion, but not in real life.

I voted Republican through 2000. I voted third party in the 2004 elections. I will actually break down and voted for the big O in 2008 (and I even donated to the campaign). We cannot afford four more years of this.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[wronskyMan]

The takedown provision is also unpopular; while the shield is good, it should be extended similar to the protection of the phone company (instead of the current "information provider" vs "common carrier" dichotomy). Youtube is merely a conduit for you to post your videos, since it is hosted on their server w/o human intervention. If I set up a call center for telemarketing fraud, the authorities will come after ME if it is justified rather than trying to sue the phone company and having my service cut off.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[SupremoMan]

You and I apparently don't watch the same FOX.

LOL you watch FOX ;)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Rogerborg]

Is it wrong for me to hope that the same thing happens to Obama so that when either of them win, they remember the idiocy that is the DMCA and reform it?

Obama was 8* when the DMCA was passed. McCain voted for it. I know which one I'd rather see burned by it now.

* Some rounding is involved here.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? What is this crap? Fox broadcasting: down 8.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

They will make an exception for political campaigning but keep the DMCA otherwise.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[pmbasehore]

OK, at the risk of sounding reasonable (and losing karma) I think we need to put the blame where blame is due.

As a conservative, I generally vote Republican. However, I am mature enough to recognize that many of the elected officials in the Republican party have directly or indirectly caused the current economic situation. I am also knowledgeable enough to recognize that the elected officials in the Democratic party are equally to blame.

The blame lies with Republicans, Democrats, the Legislative branch, and the Executive branch. (I don't have enough information to blame the Judicial branch for anything.) ALL are equally guilty, and BOTH parties make equally valid statements about the other's responsibility.

Yes, Clinton's fiscal decisions (Glass-Steagall act repealed, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, others) had their hand in creating this downturn. Yes, Republican legislation (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) and partisanship also had their hand in creating this downturn.

Skip the partisanship. Give the blame where it is due--not with the party that differs with your own viewpoint (whichever party that may be), but the elected officials sitting in the Senate, the House, and Pennsylvania Avenue.

Let's be a little more reasonable here, OK?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

FOX is less socialist than NBC, CBS, ABC, et cetera, but they are still socialist. They still air reports about why the government should provide Uncle Sam Healthcare.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. But that vagueness was previously okay, because it would lead copyright holders to decide whether they *really* wanted to waste the time and money to pursue a copyright infringement case -- was it worth the trouble? They might lose. Likewise, users of copyrighted material that would be infringing would want to be sure the use clearly fell under as many of the conditions for "fair use" as possible, lest they be sued over it. Settling the question of who was right under the law would be properly decided by a court of law (rather than, say, stupid technical means = DRM), but only if necessary/important enough to the two parties to make a case of it.

You're right that there are lots of details left out, but that's kind of the point -- it depends greatly on circumstances. If you read any of the cases on the subject it isn't simple. So, if you are a user, make sure you qualify for as many of the factors as possible and always use the minimum material necessary. Then you are in a good position if a copyright holder does complain, and you can tell them to take a hike or take you to court.

With the DMCA, SO much power is placed in the hands of the copyright holders that the negative effect on users is obvious. It's automatically assumed the infringer is wrong unless the infringer offers some rationale to oppose the DMCA takedown notice, and although the entity issuing the takedown notice is supposed to swear they are the copyright holder or their representative, we know that often isn't the case and they're unlikely to be countersued for misrepresentation. In short, the copyright holders (or illegitimate interests claiming to be) have little legal risk by issuing huge numbers of bogus takedown notices. That asymmetry has a serious chilling effect. And now the politicians are complaining about it when it affects them.

Good.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

The repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in 1999 was signed into law by then president Bill Clinton after the Republican-controlled congress created and passed it.

Since the bill was passed by more than a 70% margin, it was veto-proof.

It's so predictable that the Republicans would blame this on Clinton, heck, they blame everything else on Clinton, why not blame him for an economic crisis that occurred almost a decade after he left office?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[sglider]

If you look at the Wikipedia page you linked to for the Gramm Act, it even says that it passed 90-8 in the senate, and 362-67 in the house. Not exactly a 'party line vote'.

A little of your own revisionist history?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I will actually break down and voted for the big O in 2008

That is about as far from fiscal conservative as you can get. If actions speak louder than words, O's actions dictate he is a very, very liberal democrat. McCain - while not my choice - is far closer to the center than Obama.

There are a few considerations: McCain as pres, Dem congress, likely nothing interesting happens in four years. Obama pres, Dem congress with Republicans potantially with no filibuster, you get shafted in every way (judge appointments, pet Dem projects, taxes - because someone has to pay for all their programs, etc.

You almost sound reasonable, but drift into "blame the sitting president for all your woes" rather quickly. And yes, I can see Dems blocking bank regulations which would restrict Fannie and/or Freddie when they are in bed - in the 90's sometimes literally - with them. Ultimately I blame peoples vanity for the problems we have. All the dirty loan deals couldn't have happened if someone didn't want to believe what they were being told.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>Republicans who had control of both the White House and Congress from 2001-2006 is appalling. If they saw something wrong, they had a free hand

THE DEMOCRATS had control of Congress from 2007-8. If they saw something wrong, they had a free hand to correct it. (For that matter, Democratic president Clinton could have vetoed the bill in 1999, and thereby kept Glass-Steagall in full force.)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox != FoxNews
Fox is far more liberal than FoxNews (I don't care if they _do_ share a parent company...)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Rogerborg]

FOX won't do it to Obama because they *like* Obama.

You are Karl Rove, and I claim my £5.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

FOX is less socialist than NBC, CBS, ABC, et cetera, but they are still socialist.

Best. Joke. Ever.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>notice that you conveniently forget that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [wikipedia.org] was sponsored by republicans (Phil Gramm strikes again),

And I notice that you conveniently forget about the "Anti-Bankruptcy Bill" that was sponsored by Vice-President nominee JOE BIDEN. This bill prevented homeowners from appealing to the courts for help (Chapter 11 debt restructuring), and forced millions to default on their loans, thereby creating the first step towards collapse.

Read more here. Or just google. There are dozens of similar articles: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/biden-bill-to-blame-for-foreclosure-crisis

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[thrillseeker]

and shit rolls downhill

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Danse]

If you look at the Wikipedia page you linked to for the Gramm Act, it even says that it passed 90-8 in the senate, and 362-67 in the house. Not exactly a 'party line vote'.

A little of your own revisionist history?

True. I should have said that as well. I was referring to the initial version, before they added the sweetener for democrats of strengthening the CRA (which I also consider to be misguided legislation).

I'm not trying to lay all the blame on republicans. I was just trying to explain to the gp poster that he was misguided in trying to lay it all on the dems.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[flitty]

Three things come up in my head from this story:
1. Wasn't everyone ok with the takedown/repost way that Youtube handled other potential copyrighted videos a few months back? Yes, it sucks that they take them down, but they go back up eventually. With the volume of videos going through youtube, 10 days is pretty damn fast to investigate potential copyright infringement. (as if a fragmented pixellated 320x240 10 minute flash video could be considered infringement, but that's neither here nor there for this conversation)
2. So McCain's camp wants special hosting treatment from youtube for their campaign videos? If ANYTHING changes about DMCA coming from john mccain, it will be that Politicians get special treatment hosting their videos and a loophole for politicans to use that exempts them from the DMCA. John McCain has been a vocal supporter of the MPAA and RIAA and the new Copyright Czar. (even if he has used several campaign songs without permission from the owners.)
3. Is John McCain's Campaign really this hard up for cash? Sheesh man, when your campaign is relying on a free video hosting service to get your message out, you can't exactly bitch about not getting your money's worth. Pay for your own damned video bandwith if you want constant reliable service.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

(For that matter, Democratic president Clinton could have vetoed the bill in 1999, and thereby kept Glass-Steagall in full force.)

Look it up: any bill passed by more than two thirds is veto-proof.

I do blame the Republicans as well as the Democrats in congress for passing the bill, but we have bank lobbyists to thank for that!

In case you are forgetting, the senate currently has 51 democratic senators, not nearly enough to override Bush's inevitable veto.

Next time you contribute, please at least try to educate yourself on the basic principles of our government.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[iminplaya]

Yes, and who can we blame for the fact that most of them still sit in the senate, the house, and Pennsylvania Avenue?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Danse]

Skip the partisanship. Give the blame where it is due--not with the party that differs with your own viewpoint (whichever party that may be), but the elected officials sitting in the Senate, the House, and Pennsylvania Avenue.

Let's be a little more reasonable here, OK?

That was really my point. The gp poster was trying to tie all of our problems around the necks of the dems, so I pointed out that the republicans had a hand in it as well. Both sides have caved to the financial industry in a lot of ways and let them run wild. Trying to point at one or the other is oversimplifying in the extreme.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need legislators to muck about in laws every time that there's a change needed the judicial branch can handle most of that.

Except this means I never can know if an action is going to break that law before I do it or invest huge sums of money in a business. All law used to be decided by judges and that was a big mess. Codifying law was a major advance in civilization. Sadly, now I need a huge library for the law and a library 10x it's size for the rulings that "explain" the law. This is insanity, not a strong point.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[midicase]

How about Democratic statement on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act from the very Wikipedia page cited?

President Clinton himself stated:
"I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill ... On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence."

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Veretax]

Let's not forget the community reinvestment act (my lord that's been active wikipedia article) As has the one on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.... Interesting.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

"I believe that the reselling of such mortgages existed well before the 90's as the ggp poster indicated. If I am wrong, please point me to a source. I will try to carve out some time to research tonight."

All types of mortgages/loans have been resold for many years. The market for subprime mortgages was reasonably small until recently. What happened was some financial engineers came up with a way of taking a bunch of subprime mortgages, slicing and dicing them in interesting ways and creating securities with different levels of risks and rewards. These are the mortgage backed securities that people are talking about. The risk/reward models were all based on past statistics of subprime mortgages and did not take into account the changes in the market that the creation of the mortgage back securities created.

The creation of the mortgage backed securities increased the market for subprime mortgages. Sine the demand for such mortgages increased, banks started making more of them.

Here's where things began to break down. Capitalism is powered by greed, and works well so long as people make money by increasing the value of the company they work for or supply capital to companies to make more money. Capitalism breaks down when people are paid to do something else. For example when you pay your employees more when they cost you more rather than when they make you more, you are going to go out of business.

The mortgages brokers were not paid to make good loans, or loans that would be paid back. They were paid to make loans, good or bad. They made more money by making bad loans than good loans, so more bad loans than good ones were made. Some mortgage brokers were just crooked and actively scammed their customers. Others were just deluded and thought there was nothing wrong with the loans they made. Any that really understood probably lost their jobs because they didn't go along and make more loans. The government also got involved and encouraged bad loans so that low income people could buy houses.

Meanwhile, most of the investors just assumed that the loans were being made the same way they always were and continued to use the same risk models. So they ended up taking far more risk than they thought. This changed all the risk/reward models for credit.

All was well and good so long as there were no bumps in the road. As soon as something went wrong, everyone suddenly understood they did not know what they were investing in and panic set in. The markets for anything mortgage or credit related dried up and even companies that had only good mortgages had trouble. Then it became difficult to value any mortgages and banks hand to write down more then they could afford. There are also credit default swaps which are basically phony insurance on credit that is suppose to pay off if people don't pay their loans, but has turned into a shell game.

So the root causes of the problem were investors not really understanding what they were investing in, and mortgage brokers being payed to make bad loans. To prevent this from happening again, we don't need a lot of government regulation on the markets. What we need is a law making investors responsible for any financial consequences of wrong doing in what they are investing in. I.E. the investors at the top of the food chain would lose their shirts, because of the fraud committed by the mortgage brokers. Then all the investors will require insurance on their investments before they buy them and the insurance companies will make and enforce rules and regulations that should limit the fraud and delusions and the lowest level.

The government does need to regulate insurance companies to make sure they can and do pay off when they are suppose to. It would likely require something like the FDIC set up for insurance companies and for insurance companies to be regulated like banks. If done properly, the government could turn a profit. I doubt the government could do it properly though.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Hognoxious]

Shielding service providers as long as they promptly process takedowns and put content back up on counter-notices is a Good Thing

How about if the takedown notice had to stand up to some form of scrutiny[1] to be valid in the first place - wouldn't that be a Better Thing?

[1] Something similar to "probable cause" for a warrant. If anybody can remember that far back.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[zenyu]

It's completely different provisions that make the DMCA unpopular.

The take down process and it's liability shield is probably the only half way decent part of an extremely flawed bill. But that does not mean that it is a "Good Thing", I've had my internet and phone service interrupted because of the "take it down and ask questions later" culture it has spawned at ISPs. In my case it was due to a bogus DMCA complaint from EMI on an IP address in a block that had been allocated to me, but hadn't even been placed into service yet. Maybe I could have sued for loss of business, but just starting that suit would have cost more than six days of lost business with very dubious chances of success.

In the eight years since the day the phones went dead I haven't had any more full interruptions, but enough close calls -- literally, the ISPs that I've paid a bit of a premium for since call me before breaking the link (and Verizon is long gone from the picture) -- that I really have no love for any of the DMCA. That someone who voted for the bill might lose his presidential bid in part due to it fills me the glee! That his proposed solution to YouTube is a special exemption for himself is funny and sad at the same time.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialised healthcare? MADNESS, and it'll never work anyways. Name at least one first world country that has public health care!

Oh, wait... All of them, sans the US.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[flyingbuttressman]

Dude, don't be dissing FOX, they're on your side! Where else are you going to find conservotard pundits with no basis in reality? Also, don't be dissing socialism. Is there any other word that so perfectly describes the government subsidies for oil, chemical, and pharmaceutical companies? Oh! And now you can add BANKS to that list of businesses that Republicans have donated buckets of taxpayer cash to.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I am, and even I can see the majority loves obama(msnbc, cnn, cbs, comedy central, abc, ummmm is there anyone else?)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[SQLGuru]

My preference is for Congress and the Presidency to be of different parties (doesn't matter which is which). Sure, it's boring, but things get less screwed up during that time. It's when both agree that the real trouble happens......sure, there is the occasional fix, but more often than not, it just gets worse.

Layne

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>The majority of this can be put onto bad lending practices and the bundling and selling of these loans.

Yes that still would have happened, but the Glass-Steagall Act would have blocked banks from investing into those "mortgage securities", and therefore the banks would have been stable. Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers would still be alive today with solid assets propping them up.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[megamerican]

Glass-Steagal has everything to do with the current crisis. Without its repeal there wouldn't be a quadrillion in derivatives (of course no one knows the real value of that). That is the big black hole that is causing this entire mess. It is why gold and other commodities were going down even though the FED was pumping in 100's of billions of dollars. People were liquidating their paper assets of gold because they had no physical gold to cover their positions.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

In 1933, Senator Carter Glass (D-Va.) and Congressman Henry Steagall (D-Ala.) introduce the historic legislation that bears their name, seeking to limit the conflicts of interest created when commercial banks are permitted to underwrite stocks or bonds. In the early part of the century, individual investors were seriously hurt by banks whose overriding interest was promoting stocks of interest and benefit to the banks, rather than to individual investors. The new law bans commercial banks from underwriting securities, forcing banks to choose between being a simple lender or an underwriter (brokerage).

After 12 attempts in 25 years, Congress finally repeals Glass-Steagall, rewarding financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts. Supporters hail the change as the long-overdue demise of a Depression-era relic.

On Oct. 21, with the House-Senate conference committee deadlocked after marathon negotiations, the main sticking point is partisan bickering over the bill's effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, which sets rules for lending to poor communities. Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any difference in precipitating a deal is unclear.

On Oct. 22, Weill and John Reed issue a statement congratulating Congress and President Clinton, including 19 administration officials and lawmakers by name. The House and Senate approve a final version of the bill on Nov. 4, and Clinton signs it into law later that month.

Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"

I suggest reading the whole history on the link I provided. You can't blame just one party for it. Had the Republicans been completely against it it would have never passed. Had Clinton vetoed it, it wouldn't have been overridden. Alan Greenspan is also to blame.

In December 1996, with the support of Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Board issues a precedent-shattering decision permitting bank holding companies to own investment bank affiliates with up to 25 percent of their business in securities underwriting (up from 10 percent).

This expansion of the loophole created by the Fed's 1987 reinterpretation of Section 20 of Glass-Steagall effectively renders Glass-Steagall obsolete. Virtually any bank holding company wanting to engage in securities business would be able to stay under the 25 percent limit on revenue. However, the law remains on the books, and along with the Bank Hol

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Junior J. Junior III]

It's not just political ads, though. It's political segments on talk shows, excerpted for purposes of quotation.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Ralph Spoilsport]

FOX is less socialist than NBC, CBS, ABC, et cetera, but they are still socialist. BWAHAHAHAAAA!!!! You're a troll. But a funny troll. Assuming you're not a troll, and you actually believe that, here's a clue: They Are All Giant Corporations. PRIVATE Corporations. Run for PROFIT and in the interest of their Owner (in the case of Fox) or the shareholders of the Conglomerates that own them (the rest).

They are NOT Socialist. If they were SOCIALIST they would be run by and for the workers on a non-profit basis.

Oh - and by the way - re: Healthcare - the only major (G7 or G8) industrialised nation that DOESN'T have national health is the USA, and all the health statistics for the USA are behind everyone else except a few stats where Russia and China are behind.

So, assuming you're a troll - thanks - that was really funny. Fox... Socialist.

BWAHAHAAaaaa!!! Who'd-a-thunk-it? Awesome. What an idiot.

RS

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it hasn't worked anywhere. Here's how it doesn't work in the U.K.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/health/3188745/NHS-trust-spends-12000-treating-staff-privately.html

Maybe you like waiting in line for health care. I don't.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Misch]

That's incorrect. The act in the Senate was passed on a basically straight party line vote. See 106th Congress, Senate Roll Call Vote 105 54-44. 53 Republicans voted for the bill, 1 Deomcrat. 44 Democrats voted against the bill.

You're looking at the Senate accepting the conference report, which was the 90-8 vote. (106th Congress, Senate Roll Call Vote 354).

My search-fu is sort of weak, but the last time I could find that the Senate outright rejected a Conference Report (filibusters excluded) was in 1918.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[bmorton]

According to this, Obama has been facing similar problems. That link comes from an article from the EFF.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Give the blame where it is due-

YES!!! Blame what needs to be blamed: Capitalism itself! SMASH THE STATE!!!! DESTROY the bourgeoisie! WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!!!

Short of that - hang all Republicans. It's a start.

Short of that, wine about it all on Slashdot...

RS

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[the_skywise]

You vote for Obama and you WILL get 4 more years of this. Pelosi has already floated plans of spending another 150 billion in "economic incentives" if Obama wins.

And YES the Democrats DID filibuster a bank regulation bill. When the Republicans tried to put in more regulation on the FHA and Fannie Mae corporations.

And do you know how Obama voted when that legislation came up for a vote?

Present.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[vishbar]

Yep. The DMCA passed with a unanimous vote in the senate. Senator McCain voted for it...hope he enjoys seeing his policies in action.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[LWATCDR]

I am sure they do. Obama makes Fox lots of money.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

Maybe you like waiting in line for health care. I don't.

Mind telling me where in the United States you can get health care without waiting in line? In my town a 10am appointment means sitting in the waiting room until at least 11am.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

No I don't define "turning away patients because they are too costly" as a good Government/socialized health system.

And since the government is the only providers, where else do you turn??? At least here in the U.S. if one provider sucks, you have a million others to choose from. Private healthcare is PRO-choice.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[dachshund]

Skip the partisanship. Give the blame where it is due--not with the party that differs with your own viewpoint (whichever party that may be), but the elected officials sitting in the Senate, the House, and Pennsylvania Avenue. Let's be a little more reasonable here, OK?

Unfortunately, our electoral system does not have a "throw the bums out and replace them with good, solid human beings" lever. So, with due respect, your analysis doesn't actually help us do anything about the situation.

Sure, let's say all politicians are to blame. What then? I mean, we can vote against the incumbent in every election, but mostly that just means some other party-supported figure gets in, and that's that. We could try to vote third party (where there are even serious candidates) but it's mostly a losing proposition. This country has a winner-take-all approach to running elections that fundamentally makes it difficult to elect parties outside of the big two.

You're not going to get a perfect outcome no matter what you do, so here are the practical measures I'm taking:

1. I think deregulation has a lot to do with the financial meltdown, so I'm voting for the candidates (and parties) that seem most likely to bring back sane regulation. I'm not expecting perfection (unfortunately), but I'm going to be as pragmatic as I can.

2. Within the national party that I choose, I'm going to contribute to and vote for candidates that even further support that approach.

3. I'm going to strongly work for campaign finance reform laws, because I think that a lot of the compromises we've seen in Washington have been transparent sellouts for campaign contribution.

4. I'm going to try to identify /which/ party really stands behind each piece of bad legislation (i.e., if all members from party A voted for it, and 10% of party B did, then I'm going to identify party B as the one I'm most likely to be able to influence and I'm going to support certain candidates within that party).

I don't think these are going to be perfect, but if enough people take action, I believe we'll make things substantially better. Unfortunately, complaining about "all the bums" in DC is just a great way to make sure they get to keep doing what they're doing.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>PRIVATE Corporations. Run for PROFIT and in the interest of their Owner

But corporations are run by college-educated persons, most of whom are Democrat or liberal, and espouse their views across the television. Plus corporations benefit from a strong, central, socialist government that can be easily bribed to give-away, say, 700 billion dollar bailouts.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[SQLGuru]

I believe that the President can still veto the law and then Congress must then override the veto. There is always the chance that some convincing could sway those on the fence.

From Wikipedia, the final vote was (Senate: 90-8-1, House: 362-57-15), so in this case, it would have taken a lot of skill to achieve, but it would still have been possible.

Layne

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote for an independent. I hate to break it to you and sadly, it is the only chance of making it possible for anything improve at this point. Vote for the two party status quo and expect more of the same.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Tanktalus]

* (The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis. But the media is being hush-hush about that. Don't want to risk losing the Obama election.)

Odd, I'd blame the banks for their crisis by investing stupidly. I guess it's like a kid who just turned legal, going out, getting entirely plastered, driving home, and hitting nearly everyone they see on their way. Except that here mommy and daddy have to pay about $700B for bailing them out.

Mind you, I'm on the House and Senate Republicans' side on this one. They took the risk, they should pay for it. If they don't, and see that mommy and daddy will always bail them out, will they ever learn?

Maybe the US needs a constitutional amendment to make these bailouts illegal. Then maybe corporations will learn to take reasonable risks - ones that, if they should fail, won't put them under. And then pass a law requiring that 95% of board members' pay (and that should include all chief officers) are in the form of stock and stock options: 10% stock, 90% stock options (none of which can vest in less than 5 years). Then they'll take the long-term view of their corporations.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[flyingbuttressman]

I'm so glad that I can *choose* which health-care provider to go to, which means that I have a choice between *0* different health-care programs that I can afford.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

O's actions dictate he is a very, very liberal democrat

Which actions would those be? His reversal on FISA or his endorsement of the Paulson rescue plan that was largely opposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus? I don't think Obama is nearly as liberal as you seem to think. He has liberal leanings but his actual decisions seem to be grounded in pragmatism more than anything else.

McCain as pres, Dem congress, likely nothing interesting happens in four years

Do you think we can afford four more years of doing nothing on energy policy, education or health care? Ignoring the first two is going to put us at a serious disadvantage in the 21st century global economy. You could also tie them into national security -- a weak economic power is a weak military power. Ignoring the last one is also an economic issue -- our companies aren't as competitive as many foreign companies because of the costs of health care.

Obama pres, Dem congress with Republicans potantially with no filibuster, you get shafted in every way (judge appointments, pet Dem projects, taxes - because someone has to pay for all their programs, etc.

As opposed to being shafted by the first six years of the GWB administration and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress?

And yes, I can see Dems blocking bank regulations which would restrict Fannie and/or Freddie when they are in bed - in the 90's sometimes literally - with them

Fannie and Freddie are only part of the problem. The unregulated $65,000,000,000 (yes, trillion) market for credit default swaps deserves some mention.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

There was nothing they COULD enforce they were REQUIRED to give out many of those loans. When banks saw the cash being 'generated' (by the reloan effect) they went bonkers.

The rate of reloan was set lower. There was very little oversight and all hell broke loose. When the banks finaly said 'oh our bad those awesome returns we were getting were actually made up'.

Those laws from the 30s were put in place for a REASON. They were removed 'to reduce paper work'. That paper work was the oversight that investors used to decide if a bank was doing stupid things. Remove that and you can 'cook the books'. Which is exactly what they did to cover up all the bad loans they were making and required to make.

There is no 'silver bullet' that caused the whole thing other than greed.

When I see videos of congress critters going 'there is no problems at fannie and freddie' from 2004 and others going 'hey this could get MUCH worse very quickly' then they both did NOTHING I have very little respect for them.

And fox loves Obama is going to keep me laughing all day.

Also the last few elections were about 'change' we sure as hell got that...

In 2000 the Republicans were going to change the world, in 2004 the Democrats were going to change the world, in 2008 both are going to change the world. I am not sure I want either parties 'change' at this point.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

Yes, and who can we blame for the fact that most of them still sit in the senate, the house, and Pennsylvania Avenue?

Well, in the house you can blame your state legislators who went out of their way to draw districts that aren't competitive (unless you live in Iowa) and which all but ensure the re-election of the incumbent.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[LWATCDR]

The system is also to blame in general.
When Clinton was in the White House we had a stock bubble. That administration should have increased interest rates to try and control the bubble. The problem is no politico will do that because they love the "booming" economy. So they just pray that it lasts until they are out of office.
Well Bush gets into office just as that bubble bursts but a new bubble forms in the housing market. Again nobody is going to try and cool off a bubble.
As far as being reasonable? I wish. Frankly I don't like Obama because he doesn't support nuclear power as much as McCain and is not for nuclear fuel recycling. In general I feel that Obama's energy policy is very much wishful thinking.
I am not fond of McCain's tax plan.
But then I don't like the big tax lie. Which is that giving more tax credits too people that already pay zero or get more money back than they put is a "tax cut".
You can not cut somebody's taxes below zero!
That is a grant and or welfare. I don't have a problem with grants or welfare for people that need it BUT it sure isn't "cutting" their taxes.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[aronschatz]

Democrats had their hand in the cookie jar just the same as Republicans.

Think with your head, not your heart.

Issues need to be focused on, not have gut reactions.

Looks like we're going to have another Carter Administration :(.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[gitarman]

* (The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis. But the media is being hush-hush about that. Don't want to risk losing the Obama election.)

I find it interesting that the president takes the "blame" for a legislation that 8 of 535 representatives passed. does anyone think that a veto would work in this case? It sounds to me that a great many of our representatives (and society in general) drank the reganesque policies of trickle-down and voodoo economics, possibly because the economy looked so good at the time, possibly for other reasons as well.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[aardwolf64]

I submit as evidence the following list of videos posted by Obama's official campaign including CBS footage:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=obama+cbs++BarackObamadotcom&as=1&and_queries=obama+cbs++BarackObamadotcom&exact_query=&or_queries=&negative_queries=&geo_name=&geo_latlong=&search_duration=&search_hl=&search_category_type=all&search_sort=&uploaded=

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

If certain persons (cough democrats) can give praise to Clinton "Because he created the wonderful economy of the 1990s"
then I certainly think it's fair to blame Clinton when he repeals Glass-Steagall.

Turn on CSPAN. What do you hear? "Bush is at fault... Bush did this wrong... Bush's policies made the stock market fail," and on and on and on. I'm just playing the game that the Congress people are playing. If they can lay all the blame/praise on a single president, then I can COPY the "esteemed representatives" and do the same thing.

It seems fair to emulate what I see inside the Congress.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[sumdumass]

Lol.. Waiting one hour is no where near the same as waiting 5 or 6 hours or the dreaded waits of days and years that cause people to shop other countries for health care that they can get for free in their own countries. India has a pretty thriving medical tourism industry specifically because of flaws and waits in other countries. You don't seriously think someone would jump a flight to india to see the doctor one hour sooner do you?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[ari_j]

It's a matter of degree. In Canada, the average waiting time for a necessary surgery is 18 weeks. Having your appointment happen an hour late isn't even close.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

And I notice that you conveniently forget about the "Anti-Bankruptcy Bill" that was sponsored by Vice-President nominee JOE BIDEN. This bill prevented homeowners from appealing to the courts for help

Umm, at least learn about the bankruptcy bill before you blame it for all of our problems. I've been through bankruptcy -- all the bankruptcy "reform" bill did was add a litmus test that may (depending on a lot of different factors) force people into Chapter-13s (repayment over a period of 5 years) instead of Chapter-7s (liquidation).

The bankruptcy reform bill has little to do with foreclosures because most people would typically have to file a Ch-13 anyway to keep their home. In a Ch-7 you'll lose it unless you are current on the payments AND live in a state with a large enough home exemption. If you are behind on the payments and/or have more equity than the amount of your states exemption (in New York it's only $10,000) you'll almost always lose it under a Ch-7 filing.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[spun]

Haha, nice one. You really don't understand what 'socialist' means, do you? What form of government is the collusion of large business and government, with nationalist and religious sentiments? Fascism, not socialism.

Second, you are terribly confused. Corporations are run by graduates of ivy league schools, who come from wealthy families and are not at all liberal.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[geminidomino]

*wipes eyes* 10/10 for style (minus several million for good sense). Masterfully done. Not even any typos.

Remember, my vacuous trolling friend, the opposite of "intellectual elite" is "ignorant peasant."

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[sumdumass]

You can afford socialized health care either. Europe couldn't afford it if it wasn't for the US keeping a military presence there since WWII because of the cold war. The biggest difference between then and now is that they have controlled some costs that we couldn't in America. If we went to a socialized health care system in America, the only real difference you would have is your option to have health care at all.

Today, the majority of people who claim they can't afford health care actually could if they were more reasonable about their spending choices in other areas. I'm willing to bet that unless your a single male, you are already either covered by some medical plan offered by the state or that your claim to not being able to afford it is directly related to your new car payments or a larger apartment or house then you need. With socialized medicine, you won't have those choices because your taxes will be increased and you won't have the money to spend how you chose to any more.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

and with socialized health care it's more like get there 10/10/2008 and get served 11/10/2008.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[spun]

First, I don't know of any countries with socialized medicine where the government is the only provider. Second, our system turns away people all the time. Third, there aren't a million healthcare companies, and what few there are would rather collude than compete, making our health care some of the most expensive and least effective in the first world.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

No they're not, they don't have any provisions for fair use. Until this is explicitly written in (or DMCA is abolished) this law will be abused again and again. McCain is making himself look like a real piece of crap for voting for the DMCA, then wanting to just carve an exemption out for himself and other politicians rather than fixing the law. (I'm not going to give Obama mad props, he just wasn't in Congress to vote on it back then. I'm voting libertarian.)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>I'm so glad that I can *choose* which health-care provider to go to, which means that I have a choice between *0* different health-care programs that I can afford.
>>>

Maybe you should stop wasting money on $1000 a year Cable TV, or $900 a year Internet access, or $700 a year cellphone connections, or buying a new $2000 laptop every other year.

Maybe then you could afford the healthcare. Let me introduce you to new words: "self-sacrifice" "self-help" and "self-responsibility/initiative". I pay $0 on cable, $180 on internet, and I haven't bought a new computer in six years. As a result of this self-sacrifice, I have saved 1/2 a million in just five years, and I can EASILY afford a doctor's visit at any of a hundred hospitals within driving distance. (Pro-Choice.)

You could afford it too if you had SAVED your money, instead of demanding your neighbors' pay the bill for you (tax their paychecks & give the money to you).

.

I'm sorry if this message comes-across as angry. But I'm sick of this "gimme gimme gimme" entitlement society. If you SAVED your money, instead of wasting it on non-important trivia, you wouldn't have to hold your hand out. You'd be able to pay your own bills.

IMHO the only people who should receive handouts are the handicapped, or children.
Able-bodied people should pay their own bills with their OWN money, not raid their neighbors' wallets.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish i was rich enough to shop around for health care. Lucky bastards.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[mweather]

And what's the waiting time for that same surgery in the US if you have no money to pay for it?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm. you think a government run healthcare system would end up with less waiting?

I'm sure your insurance (if you're lucky enough to have it) has more than one approved healthcare provider in your area. Maybe its time to act like a good consumer and go somewhere else where you would be more satisfied with the service? Perhaps you should speak with your physician about the length of wait and possibly ask for a recommendation to go to an alternatiev caregiver?

What does this have to do with DMCA, anyhow?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[aproposofwhat]

Bollocks.

The linked article is about a NHS trust using its money wisely by ensuring that staff with musculo-skeletal injuries are able to return to work sooner than they otherwise would.

12 grand over a year to save many more thousands in locum nurse costs is a sensible use of resources.

There are many things wrong with the NHS (poor and over-heavy management, government mandated targets causing patient care to suffer, poor management of IT programmes, etc.), but it is still free at the point of use, even if it is frustrating to have to wait to see a specialist.

Speaking as someone with a disabled partner and a severely disabled stepson, I'm grateful that the system exists at all, despite all its faults.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

P.S.

>>>I pay $0 on cable, $180 on internet, and I haven't bought a new computer in six years.

And my cellphone is only $60 a year. Why most people pay ten times that amount makes absolutely no sense to me. It's like they don't know how to handle money or look for bargains.

>>>I have saved 1/2 a million in just five years,

That should have been ten years. Not because I'm rich, but just because I don't waste my money on things I don't need. (Try reading Brokaw's book about the Greatest Generation of WW2. They know all about self-sacrifice and self-reliance.)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is some Straight take for a Change we can all count on.

The Lobbyist pay both sides, the media does not have to support anyone, no matter who gets in office the lobbyist will already have their candidate in their pockets. Because the media companies, oil companies, energy companies, and just about every other business believes we (the people) do not know what is good for business and therefore we do not know what is good for ourselves.

Saying Barack Obama is for net neutrality is all well and good, but that doesn't mean he will fight for it. Or when the bill comes down that he will support it, or oppose it. Democrats and Republicans are all paid for already. The only method of protest we have is to vote them out, and based on the polls it would appear that we as Americans still do not have a clue what we are doing when it comes to Democracy.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[jtev]

It's not veto proof. There is a seperate vote to override a veto. Often deals are made for votes, and seperate deals have to be made for the votes to override a veto. Or, seperate deals may be made for enough votes NOT to override the veto, if the minority side can swing the political capital. Heck, sometimes law makers even just change their mind, and vote their concience. By the way, be aware of the procedures before you rag on someone next time.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the US system is so much better where 15% of the population has no insurance at all,
and those that do have it are frequently trapped by it.

How many more entrapenures would we have if people were not tied to their insurance policy?
How many small businesses would be competative if access to insurance was a level playing field.

(Oh, and my last medical proceedure took a month and a half, four appointments, and a hundred dollars in co-pays to get a shot of cortesone that was obvious to everyone concerned was needed from the start... and national health will be worse? spare me.)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

It's a matter of degree. In Canada, the average waiting time for a necessary surgery is 18 weeks [www.cbc.ca].

And how is that relevant to Obama's health care plan? He hasn't purposed a single-payer Gov't sponsored system.

Having your appointment happen an hour late isn't even close.

No, it's not, but the point is that health care in this country is already broken. Pointing to other countries where it's broken more doesn't justify leaving our existing system in place.

We don't have enough primary care doctors because they don't make as much money as specialists yet have the same costs of doing business (malpractice insurance being the big one). Ditto for OB/GYNs. Our insurance system sucks -- what's the point of having insurance if you wind up paying out more money than you can afford in deductibles and co-payments? Isn't insurance supposed to protect you from financial disaster? What's the point of having insurance if you have to argue with them on your death bed to get them to pay the bills? Why can my car insurance company offer a simple deductible after which all damage is fully covered but no health insurance provider can?

Our pharmaceutical industry sucks -- why can they profitably sell drugs in Canada at cheaper prices than they can in the United States? Why do they get away with making minor reformulations of their product (typically an "extended release" version) to extend/get new patents and shut out generics? Why do they spend more on marketing than they do on research? Shouldn't life-saving drugs sell themselves?

We need solutions from both sides of the aisle to fix this problem. The insurance and pharmaceutical companies need to be reined in and regulated better (typically a democratic solution). Scum-sucking ambulance chasers need to be reined in (typically a republican solution). Punitive damages shouldn't be allowed unless the health care provider was grossly negligent -- if he/she wasn't than you shouldn't be able to collect more than your actual damages.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[geminidomino]

Hey, I like House! So sue me!

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>FOX News. Where else are you going to find conservotard pundits with no basis in reality?

First off, I don't have cable so no FOX News. Second: AM radio. The only ones I can stomach are Glen Beck and Walter E. Williams (a black man who dislikes Obama). Rush Limbaugh and the rest are way too looney for me.

I am more Jeffersonian in my beliefs, but unfortunately neither the Democrats nor the Republicans really represent that view.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[iminplaya]

I simply cannot accept these excuses. Unless there is a gun to your head, there is always a way to vote these people out.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

I'm sure your insurance (if you're lucky enough to have it) has more than one approved healthcare provider in your area. Maybe its time to act like a good consumer and go somewhere else where you would be more satisfied with the service?

Umm, there are three health care providers in my area and they all have the same problems, so try again. There's a shortage of primary care providers in this country because it doesn't pay as well as being a specialist yet has the same overhead in malpractice insurance and other costs.

Ummm. you think a government run healthcare system would end up with less waiting?

Did I say that?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[flyingbuttressman]

I agree with you on principle, but the problem lies with low wages and the habit of companies like Wal-Mart of keeping their employees part-time, un-unionized, and reliant on government assistance. If you want to take the steps to increase the minimum wage to a decent living wage and improve workers' rights then I'm 100% behind you. As far as health care goes, the first thing we need to do is end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and genetic risk. I don't think socialism is perfect, but it would improve the standard of living across the board.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

I simply cannot accept these excuses. Unless there is a gun to your head, there is always a way to vote these people out.

That's a laudable idea in theory but you try voting out a Democrat in a district that has 10% more Democrats than Republicans. Short of the Congressman being caught having sex with underage pages his re-election is all but guaranteed.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

And since most people were forced into "repayment plans" that they couldn't afford, they just abandoned ship. They left behind empty houses and banks were left in dire straits.

Under the old bill, that would not have happened.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[ptbarnett]

I was referring to the initial version, before they added the sweetener for democrats of strengthening the CRA (which I also consider to be misguided legislation).

The changes to the CRA were more than just misguided: they were a contributing factor.

While I don't subscribe to the current right-wing talking point that the CRA was the triggering factor, it almost certainly added to the problem by forcing banks to relax their lending standards (under threat of being sued for "red-lining").

Add in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's willingness to fund or buy mortgages with practically no lending standards, and it created a perverse incentive for mortgage lenders: they could write a loan, pocket the fees, then sell the loan to someone else. With no risk of default before they sold the mortgage, they were willing loan money to anyone that could fog a mirror.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[d3ac0n]

Skip the partisanship. Give the blame where it is due--not with the party that differs with your own viewpoint (whichever party that may be), but the elected officials sitting in the Senate, the House, and Pennsylvania Avenue.

I wish it was that easy.

While I will agree, there is more than enough blame to go around, we must also look at this from a factual standpoint. Yes, Republicans are partly to blame. However, the blame that rests with Republicans is largely one of inaction. IE: they sat there like a bunch of facking idiots with their thumbs up their asses. Let me tell you NOBODY is more pissed off about that than I. Fortunately, many of those inactive RINO's (for those wondering, RINO = Republican In Name Only. Leftist GOP members.) got booted out of office in 2006. Interestingly, Many of the RINO's were replaced with "Blue Dog" Democrats (Rightist Dems).

For the Democrats from that era though, the problem is more serious. Many of them, including Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, were ACTIVELY blocking ANY reform of the banking system. There are ethical issues as well, as it turns out Barney Frank was actually DATING the head of Fannie and Freddie during that time. Chris Dodd, the head of the House Banking committee, received more money than anyone other than Barack Obama from Fannie and Freddie. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have DEEP ethical and corruption problems surrounding the financial meltdown. This is NOT a partisan issue, but an Ethics and Legal one. That transcends party loyalties. Or, at least, it SHOULD.

Unfortunately, it appears that, rather than honestly accept responsibility for their active blocking of needed reform, many of the Democrats are playing the CYA game, and trying to shift responsibility to the Republicans. Not only is this disingenuous, it belies the factual history of the meltdown. This is what gets so many Conservatives up in arms. Yes, Republicans should have done more, but the Democrats were the ones actually BLOCKING a fix. A fix proposed and supported by none other than John McCain.

This is why I'm voting for McCain. He saw this problem coming, and tried to stop it. Prescience is a quality we need in a President.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Falstius]

No, buy many Americans jump on a plane to India because they can't afford to get their treatment in the US. It is common to have to wait months to see a specialist in the US. The difference is, when you do get to see them it can bankrupt you (even if you thought you had insurance).

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

How about being mature enough to stop trying to convince yourself that your not to blame. (yes i blame YOU)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[mosch]

Do you actually know that Obama's campaign hasn't had takedowns used against them, or are you assuming?

I have to say, looking at youtomb, it's really hard to figure out what McCain is complaining about.

Even if you just search on McCain, the only takedowns I see are Daily Show clips, making fun of him.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

SOLUTION:

Just pay cash. If you pay cash, you don't need to lay there and argue with the insurance or HMO. You just hand-over the cash and you're done.

Before you say this doesn't work, there are lots of us who do exactly what I just described.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[MrMunkey]

The problem here is with emergency situations. Any normal person would be freaked out, and the last thing on their mind would be money. Now with worrying about living they have to deal with the insurance company stating that some procedure won't be covered, but they're being told that this procedure is the best chance they have. Why should anyone have to make their case to live?

I used to be against a socialized medical system, but over the years I have come to realize that health care should be a right, and not a privilege.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[mdwh2]

Well I have cable, Internet access, cell phone, and two computers bought in the last two years. And I can get public healthcare whenever I want.

You could afford it too if you had SAVED your money, instead of demanding your neighbors' pay the bill for you (tax their paychecks & give the money to you).

What country do you live in where you get to have tax paid for you by your neighbour? I pay taxes too.

There are arguments for public healthcare that are nothing to do with whether we should have welfare for the poor:

* Everyone benefits from a healthy society, such as stopping contagious diseases, and having a healthy workforce.

* Private companies tend to discriminate, making it unfair to anyone with any pre-existing conditions for example. I'm happy to pay for costs myself (whether towards a policy, or taxation), but I'd rather not gamble my health with the private insurance companies, thanks.

The US has state schools does it not? Surely we should privatise schools instead of having this "socialist" schooling system? And what about the military, what's this nonsense about Government funded defence? Anyone who suggests otherwise has a "gimme gimme gimme" attitude, and they want to "raid their neighbors' wallets", right?

You see, even if the US, there are lots of things where things are funded by the Government, and it is sensible to do so. My views lean towards right-wing pro-capitalist, but this doesn't mean that we have to have an entirely 100% laissez-faire capitalist society. I find this attitude that any kind of regulation amounts to "socialism" rather odd, especially since the US clearly isn't anywhere near a 100% laissez-faire capitalist society, anyway.

(I'm also curious how you manage to save 1/2 a million in just five years just by not having cable etc?)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[sumdumass]

First of all, an vote that could pass a veto doesn't mean that it will. The veto itself will wake people up to why there should be opposition to something. The bill then needs to be scheduled for another vote which would have allowed more time for people to raise the alarm with their congress critters. It's entirely possible that a bill with unanimous consent from both houses of congress would fail to override a veto.

Second, who cares if Bush would veto something. At least then we would know where who stands in congress. It is actually doubtful that Bush would have vetoed anything though, he had already cam out in support for more regulation of the GSEs and related entities, caused an investigation that resulted in the realization that Fannie Mae was missing millions of dollars and senate republicans attempted to introduce bills in 2005 and again in 2007 to deal with what became the mortgage and financial meltdown.

But the reason I posted is this insistence that I keep hearing. You not the first one to put it forth, your just the latest one I have seen. Who cares is there is only 51 democrats. It isn't a situation of all or nothing. They are elected to do something and they aren't even trying. Can you imagine our space program if someone said it's impossible to get that much weight into orbit so no one ever attempted to use stages on a rocket to reduce weight at critical altitudes? After all, this is what your saying, "well it doesn't look like anything will pass so why introduce something?" or Well, it won't work so why try at all.

Jesus Christ, would anything ever get done if everyone always agreed with the popular or prevailing opinion and never tried anything contrary to it? Bush has pushed through and passed some shit that most senators would cringe from if they thought of it on their own. And he has managed to do this with democrats in control while they and some republicans were loudly expressing opposition for the legislation. If bush can outsmart the democrats and republicans in office and make them go along with stuff he knows they don't support, then why is this cop out by democrats "well, there are only so many of us and it might not work" such a valid argument? Is it that they want problems to surface so they can grab onto some political advantage? I mean George W. Bush is outsmarting them for crying out loud and they are sitting there saying we can't do anything, elect more of us.

It's no wonder why congress's approval ratings are worse then Bush's and the worst in the history of congress. At least Bush has double digits in his approval ratings which even if that equates to IQ, would mean he has more room to brag then the democrats in control of congress.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

Most Walmart employees *give themselves raises*. They move to better jobs.

Although this is one area where both I and Obama agree - Walmart should be required to give benefits to ALL their employees, whether they work 40 hours or just 4 hour per week. I prefer a competitive, private solution versus a government one.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[flyingbuttressman]

I agree with you on principle, but the problem lies with low wages and the habit of companies like Wal-Mart of keeping their employees part-time, un-unionized, and reliant on government assistance. If you want to take the steps to increase the minimum wage to a decent living wage and improve workers' rights then I'm 100% behind you. As far as health care goes, the first thing we need to do is end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and genetic risk. I don't think socialism is perfect, but it would improve the standard of living across the board.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[reeeh2000]

The amazing fact here is that John McCain voted for the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It astounds me that he just now finally recognizes the dangers caused by the DMCA.
Obama has proved himself to be a friend of the internet community. Yes, he voted for the new FISA bill, but he did change some of the language of the bill. It is this new language that enabled the major lawsuit that the EFF has filed. It is my belief that Obama knew this bill would pass and made it so that the telecom immunity would not apply to enable the EFF suit.
On another important issue Barack Obama is for Net Neutrality, John McCain is against it.
It is obvious to me and probably a large majority of Slashdot users that John McCain doesn't actually care about how easy DMCA take downs are to file, but rather that his own videos should be immune to them.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Spice Consumer]

Most likely if there is any pending hearings on such cases they will be dropped once either of them are elected.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your call for reason, and think it's well deserved....

but give me a motherfucking break. If you're going to ask people to be reasonable, can you at least be factually accurate?

If a Repulbican congress passes something by a veto-proof majority, that's NOT Clinton's fault.

It's nice that you're trying to be reasonable, but it's still clear you're living in an idiotic information bubble. please pop it.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Volante3192]

Fortunatly, socialized health care is used often in countries that use DD/MM/YY. Sweet, one day wait!

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>I don't know of any countries with socialized medicine where the government is the only provider.

Canada. If a Canadian wants service from someone other than the Ottawa Parliament, then they have to come south to the U.S.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[nedwidek]

I agree with you in spirit. Too bad that idea ends up taking the economy completely out. Hey, we'll be eating dog food on the streets, but we showed them they needed to take responsibility for their actions. What we have here is a lose-lose-lose situation.

Still bad mortgages should never have been allowed to be rolled up into hedged funds and then given a AAA rating. Amazing how the private industry that does so well at regulating itself and making sure bad things don't happen missed that one. Then again the government actively voted against regulating such things so they're not a better choice. Unfortunately people are just plain stupid and greedy.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[aproposofwhat]

Lol, Pinky :P

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

Before you say this doesn't work, there are lots of us who do exactly what I just described.

There are lots more of us who don't have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars lying around.

Your idea would also work with car insurance as well -- it'd be much easier to just pay for that totaled car out of pocket rather than fight with an insurance company -- but isn't the whole point of insurance to avoid financial disaster?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have saved 1/2 a million in just five years" That should pay for a few weeks of cancer treatment.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Or forever if you don't have health insurance...

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[radarjd]

Mind telling me where in the United States you can get health care without waiting in line? In my town a 10am appointment means sitting in the waiting room until at least 11am.

Find a new doctor! In my town (a relatively large midwestern city), I've never waited that long, even for specialists. Fifteen minutes, sure, but not an hour.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>What form of government is the collusion of large business and government, with nationalist and religious sentiments?

Or "Democrat" for ease of pronunciation. Democrats, just like Republicans, get billions in corporate donations every year. You think they are not colluding? You think NBC, ABC, and other television corporations are not just drooling to see Obama win this year?

They know he's going to be giving them more money. $500 per new job created in fact. Plus another bailout.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly...

not sure if GP has waited 6 hours in an emergency room for major head trauma, but maybe that's an ideal system...

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[ari_j]

Not to get side-tracked, but first off do you know of a jurisdiction within the United States that allows punitive damages for regular negligence? I am not aware of one, but I haven't exactly looked into all of them.

You do ask a lot of good questions. Do you know of a place in the world that has answered these questions? Do you know what Obama has actually proposed? It mostly consists of tax credits and requiring insurance companies to do things like cover preexisting conditions.

Do you know what that actually means? It means that, not only does the government increase taxes on the wealthy to pay for private health insurance for the poor, but the insurance companies can and will increase their rates for all people because of the increased risk they are bearing. The alternative to that result is that insurance is no longer a profitable business and companies will get out of it.

As to doctors not making enough in the primary care market, I know a lot of them who do just fine. As a matter of fact, quite a few have immigrated from Canada, where the government decides how much doctors should be paid and where that number is simply not high enough to motivate a good doctor to stay.

The health care system is not perfect. It could be improved. Forcing private businesses to engage in unprofitable activity and forcing both types of premium increases on wealthier taxpayers is indistinguishable from socialism and nobody has stood up with any convincing evidence that it will work in the long term.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[ultranova]

Maybe you like waiting in line for health care. I don't.

Waiting in line for a while is better than not getting healthcare ever. And if you could afford healthcare in a private system, you can simply use the same money for bribes or private clinic.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

In Canada you can go to the hospital freely which increases the likelihood that they will detect possible causes for surgery in advance; and then when you have the surgery, your wallet isn't short some $20,000.

In America you'll be healthy, because you can't even get a diagnosis that says otherwise if you're not a card carrying member.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Just Some Guy]

In my town a 10am appointment means sitting in the waiting room until at least 11am.

With all respect, you meant to say "at my doctor". My family practice guy usually sees me on time, or even a few minutes early. Orthopedic guy? I'm usually done and leaving within 15 minutes of my scheduled appointment. On the other hand, I bring reading material when the kids go to their pediatrician because I know I'll be there a while.

Now, that's not to say that there isn't a "culture of lateness" in your particular town, especially if it's not a large city with lots of doctors to choose from. It's still an issue with those particular doctors and not a symptom of the American medical system.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Mr. Slippery]

Plus corporations benefit from a strong, central, socialist government

For-profit corporations owned by capitalist stockholders can benefit from a strong, central government that works on behalf of capitalists. That's what we've had at least since the 1950s rise of the "military industrial complex".

They would not benefit from a socialist government.

The problem here is that you - like many Americans - are operating under an incorrect definition of socialism. Since the Red Scares of the early 1900s, it's been just about impossible to have a reasonable discussion of socialism in the U.S., until it's reached the point that a large number of people think socialism, communism, and Stalinism are the same thing, and that the only possible alternative to being fucked over by capitalist robber-barons is to be fucked over by a Stalinist state.

Socialism is orthogonal to the size and strength of government. Socialism means an economic system based on the exchange of labor and the democratic control of capital by those who do the work. It contrasts with capitalism, an economic system based on the control of capital by a state-backed minority class of "owners".

Both can be found in free-market and in command economy forms, and both can co-exist with authoritarian or with libertarian policies on social issues. For examples of free-market socialism, consult your local libertarian socialist, a.k.a. anarchist; for command economy capitalism, review the U.S. during WWII.

If control of capital is concentrated into the hands of a few, you've got capitalism; if it's spread out democratically, you've got socialism. Slapping a few regulations on a capitalist system does not make it socialist, any more than installing a speed governor on a northbound train makes it head south.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[gnuASM]

Yes, and who can we blame for the fact that most of them still sit in the senate, the house, and Pennsylvania Avenue?

Diebold, maybe?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[the_arrow]

Today, the majority of people who claim they can't afford health care actually could if they were more reasonable about their spending choices in other areas.

Yes, like spending less on food maybe? There are lot of people who can barely afford to feed themselves or their children, maybe you have any ideas on how they should handle their economy to afford good health care?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[beckje01]

I'll wait in line for free health care. This is only bad if you have enough money to afford health care / decent insurance on your own. I currently don't fit this category so I'm all for the health care. But as soon as I have enough money I'm switching parties and complaining about wait in the lines.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Just Some Guy]

Punitive damages shouldn't be allowed unless the health care provider was grossly negligent

I'll go one further - punitive damages should be taxed at 100%. You should be able to sue for them to truly punish those who deserve punishment, but they should never be seen as a source of income. That's what the actual damange payout is for: to reimburse you for your lost time and money.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Simon Brooke]

No I don't define "turning away patients because they are too costly" as a good Government/socialized health system.

And since the government is the only providers, where else do you turn??? At least here in the U.S. if one provider sucks, you have a million others to choose from. Private healthcare is PRO-choice.

Name any country anywhere in the world where the Government are the only providers of health care. It isn't true anywhere in Europe, it isn't true in China, it isn't even true in North Korea - so where is this communist paradise where all health care is government-provided?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>There are lots more of us who don't have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars lying around.

And whose fault is that? Maybe you should stop wasting money on $1000 a year Cable TV, or $900 a year Internet access, or $700 a year cellphone connections, or buying a new $2000 laptop every other year. ----- Maybe then you could afford the healthcare. Let me introduce you to new words: "self-sacrifice" "self-help" and "self-responsibility/initiative".

>>>Your idea would also work with car insurance as well -- it'd be much easier to just pay for that totaled car out of pocket rather than fight with an insurance company --
>>>

Funny you mention this example, because that's EXACTLY what I do. In the event of an accident, buying a used car for $3000-$5000 makes a whole lot more sense than paying ~$15,000 per decade to the insurance rapists. I have the state-required minimum, but I do not insure my car. It's cheaper to just junk it, and buy a used one.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

if you cant pay for it, why should you get it?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[gnuASM]

Well, one way to hold Obama's feet to the fire is to say that you will vote for McCain if Obama doesn't say that he will reform the DCMA.

Any candidate can say whatever they like. It makes no difference. What matters is what they DO when they are in office. Seeing the voting record of both "major" candidates should tell everyone that it is pure stupidity to vote for either of them.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

It's still an issue with those particular doctors and not a symptom of the American medical system.

To an extent it is though. There is a primary care shortage in this country. It's caused by a number of different factors -- PCPs get paid less than most specialists yet have many of the same costs (malpractice insurance).

It's great that you can see your family practice guy on time but do you actually get to talk with him? Build a patient-doctor relationship with him? In my area even if you get to see the doctor on time you never get a chance to really talk with them -- and it's like this at every single health care provider in my town. Too many patients and too few providers.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[exabrial]

Obama can't make up his mind on anything... like fisa. So good luck, but hey, Obama says you can *always* hope :D

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[JCSoRocks]

It is naive of you to hope for this part, though. Good luck with that.

No doubt man... presidential candidates never even keep the hundreds of promises they throw out there while they're actually speaking. Getting them to actually do something about a minor annoyance that affected them for all of a few months while they were running - not likely. We can dream though I suppose...

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[melstav]

The repeal of Glass-Steagall wasn't Clinton's fault.

The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15.

( Source )

In the United States, Congress can override a presidential veto by having a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and Senate, thus enacting the bill into law despite the president's veto.

( Source )

As you can see, because the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (which was responsible for the repeal of Glass-Steagall) had more than 2/3 of both the House and Senate voting for it, there really wasn't anything Clinton could have done about it, even if he wanted to.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think we can afford four more years of doing nothing on energy policy, education or health care?

I fucking hate Bush, but statements like this are the reason we end up with crappy presidents like him.

We haven't had inaction on energy policy. We've had destructive action instead. Bush has agreed to subsidize all sorts of crazy energy stuff. He had even sent the military to the Persian Gulf region, so that we can protect the oil companies operations at taxpayer expense. If we ended the subsidies and left energy prices to the free market, we might not be burning oil any more. The last thing you should be asking for, is a president to "do something." Presidents doing things is what causes problems.

And as for education and healthcare, if you don't think you can afford more inaction, then write your state legislature and governor. WTF does any of that have to do with presidents? If you ask a president to deal with this shit, then you're just going to end up sending more tax money to Washington and hoping that your state meets are the bizarre and arbitrary requirements for getting a portion of it back. Telling presidents to fix education is the most anti-education thing you can possibly do, unless you tell them to fix it by butting out. Send your money to your state capitol or better yet, your city government, and your chances of it being spent on education, and being spent in a sane manner, are maximized.

Think about who represents you. Who can you realistically fire? The president answers to 300M citizens. How many citizens does your state district House member represent? About 28000 in my case. It's pretty clear who should have the power to "do something."

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

no where near the same as waiting 5 or 6 hours or the dreaded waits of days and years

Try getting employed by a company that sticks you on an HMO then.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[pmbasehore]

You are absolutely right. However, I was not trying to solve anything. I just wanted to make sure that all the blame that is flying around hits the correct people, that's all.

Unfortunately, by doing so I have fallen in the trap that the American media and many politicians (on both sides of the aisle) have fallen into--assigning blame instead of finding/debating solutions. I would apologize for that, but I am a programmer, not an economist. If someone gives me an example of a solution, I would only agree or disagree based on my gut reaction, no education.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[BLKMGK]

But who would be responsible for the scrutiny and what level of responsibility would we place upon them to do that job correctly? If they are going to be held accountable at all for having reviewed the notice then chances are they will agree with the take-down all the time just to avoid the possibility of being wrong. I do not see this solving the issue, only putting additional responsibility on the hosting service which they are trying hard to avoid now as it is.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[cliffski]

Sounds like you are not in a business that generates IP.
Ip-production businesses like movies, music,software and games suffer way worse problems than the minuscule proportion of DMCA takedowns that are illegit or done in error.
You can't even issue a DMCA notice without signing that you state under penalty of perjury that the information is accurate.

The ISP hosting the copyrighted data then deliberately drags their feet to remove the content, and once it's removed, its re-uploaded by the same user 5 minutes later.
The problem with the DMCA is it does nothing to prevent the widespread abuse of anonymous filehosting. The DMCA needs teeth to actually prosecute uploaders, rather than just weak half-assed requirements that the ISPS get around to eventually removing content temporarily when they feel like it.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Cutting back on lottery tickets, liquor and cigarettes would be a start.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Celarnor]

I have fibromyalgia. This requires me to take 300mg of preglabin a day. There is no generic. A five day supply, if I didn't have insurance, would cost me a little over $200. That's $1200 a month. I'm a college student, I certainly can't find that kind of money.

Earlier this month, I had a kidneystone; three ER visits before it got under control. ($4,151 each, according to the bill): $12,453 The surgery was $7,162. The surgery to remove the stent they had put in was $6,812.

So, this month, healthcare has cost me $27,627. I can barely afford my deductible; you really think people can pay that kind of cash out of pocket?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[DM9290]

It's a matter of degree. In Canada, the average waiting time for a necessary surgery is 18 weeks. Having your appointment happen an hour late isn't even close.

the Fraiser Institute is a right wing think tank and is masterful at twisting statistics to seem to mean something they don't actually mean. they have a long history of railing against the government providing services to taxpayers on a non-profit basis.

if we bothered to get their raw data, the flaw in their analysis would no doubt reveal itself.

And where does the article say "necessary"?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

And whose fault is that? Maybe you should stop wasting money on $1000 a year Cable TV, or $900 a year Internet access, or $700 a year cellphone connections, or buying a new $2000 laptop every other year. ----- Maybe then you could afford the healthcare. Let me introduce you to new words: "self-sacrifice" "self-help" and "self-responsibility/initiative".

Oh, blow it out your fucking ass with the self-responsibility bullshit. I don't waste money on any of those things that you mentioned and I have a pretty decent chunk of change tucked away (six months of my income). In spite of all of that I still couldn't afford a major medical diagnosis without insurance. It would bankrupt me.

Ever known anyone that got cancer? Those bills run into the hundreds of thousands. Mind telling me how someone who is making middle class wages can afford to take a hit like that?

Funny you mention this example, because that's EXACTLY what I do. In the event of an accident, buying a used car for $3000-$5000 makes a whole lot more sense than paying ~$15,000 per decade to the insurance rapists. I have the state-required minimum, but I do not insure my car. It's cheaper to just junk it, and buy a used one.

Well kudos to you for being financially responsible. Next time my wife gets sick I'll tell her it's cheaper to just junk her and find a new one.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>>>You could afford it too if you had SAVED your money, instead of demanding your neighbors' pay the bill for you (tax their paychecks & give the money to you).

>What country do you live in where you get to have tax paid for you by your neighbour? I pay taxes too.

I know you're more intelligent than that. Here's how "free" government, socialized healthcare works:

- I smoke. I destroy my lungs.
- Thanks to the miracle of technology, I can get new lungs from a deceased donor.
- This procedure costs ~$100,000 per lung.
- Who pays the bill?
- Not me!
- My neighbors have to pay the bill for MY stupid smoking habit. And they pay that bill via taxation. In essence, I have *stolen* money (and labor) from my neighbors to enrich myself, which makes me no better than the old Southern Plantation masters.

>>>Surely we should privatise schools instead of having this "socialist" schooling system?

Yes we should, because the government monopoly has created only stagnation, whereas competition breeds innovation. This has been demonstrated at the college level & now it's time to apply the same principles at the high school level. ----- We have also seen this with socialized mail delivery. The competitive UPSes and FedExes of the world are much better than the old U.S. Government monopoly.

Competition and Pro-Choice (put power in the hands of the individual) are the way to go.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Volante3192]

THE DEMOCRATS had control of Congress from 2007-8. If they saw something wrong, they had a free hand to correct it.

Wow, you make it sound like a 51-49 Senate with an executive of the opposite party constitutes a nationwide mandate.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[russotto]

I hate to say it, but Clinton is right. It wasn't commercial bank forays into securities which brought the 13 (14 if you count Wachovia) banks down this year -- it was ordinary bad mortgage lending. Glass-Steagall wouldn't prevent that. Nor would it prevent the banks from obtaining mortgage guarantees; in fact, Fannie Mae was created as a governemnt agency in the 1930s to do just that. The institutions which have failed due to exposure to derivatives have been investment banks, which, again, Glass-Steagall would not have prevented. And, as he points out, Glass-Steagall would have prevented the sale of Merril Lynch (an investment bank) to Bank of America (a commercial bank).

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Just Some Guy]

I know my FP pretty well. I know the pediatrician even better ("hey, Ed! Grab a beer and help me grill the burgers."). Our experiences really do seem to be culturally based.

I agree with the rest about doctors getting driven out. My wife's a specialist who sees a lot of Medicare patients by nature of her practice. Over the summer, Medicare decided to cut their reimbursements by 10%. The medical association stepped in and pressured them to at least keep the current levels, but we were looking at a 10% pay cut (and corresponding expense increases because the cost of providing Medicare services is monotonically increasing), which would have been financially devastating.

And along the same lines, she now only sees Medicaid patients by direct referral from another physician. That's because her reimbursement for seeing those patients is less than the cost of the medical supplies required to treat them. Ignoring stuff like opportunity costs, she directly loses money on each patient. That's just not sustainable.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, our choice is between Obama and McCain.

I personally believe Obama's policies will be a disaster if he follows through on them.

On the other hand, McCain has recently shown a total lack of leadership that I think will be far worse.

So I'm voting for Obama and hoping he suddenly gets a whole lot more pragmatic. At least with Obama, we don't know he will be an utter failure as a leader.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

So, this month, healthcare has cost me $27,627. I can barely afford my deductible; you really think people can pay that kind of cash out of pocket?

Dude, just get rid of your $1,000/yr cable bill as electrictroy suggests. You'll be able to pay off those medical bills in 27 years if you do that!

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Kandenshi]

I'm no expert in Game Theory, but it seems to me that the sensible choice would be to send Obama a letter or call him or talk to him on the trail, explain that you want change made to the DMCA. Explain that this is a very important thing to your way of looking at it, and that the DMCA stifles creativity, economy, etc... In fact, it's so important that you'll vote for McCain if Obama doesn't work on the DMCA.

There's something to be said for being honest and actually following through with your plan to vote for McCain, but the more pragmatic, realist side of me says that's not a wise move. It's a secret ballot system and it's not like Obama can check if you actually DID vote for McCain. To my mind it'd make more sense to vote for a Third Party candidate that supports your views. Then after the election the strategists for the Dems/Reps can see the actual number of votes that are being "lost" that they could gain if they adopted policies similar to those of that third party.

IndustrialComplex got 430,000 votes? hmm. Since those people voted for someone who had very little chance of getting in, they clearly care about the actual policies and are highly involved in the political scene(hence more likely to donate money/volunteer). Maybe we should see how we could lure those people away to our side, they'd be a useful tool.

When voting for a third party that you can believe in you don't lend direct support to someone you never wanted to vote for in the first place. If you vote for McCain, then you're publicly telling the entire world that you want McCain. The world is indeed watching, and the US needs the world just as much as we need the US.

tl;dr I'll agree that we HAVE to take positions on issues like this, but I disagree with you on tactics. Tell Obama you'll vote for his Enemy #1 to scare him and try to blackmail him, but then vote for someone that you actually like.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[DM9290]

Ummm. you think a government run healthcare system would end up with less waiting?

I'm sure your insurance (if you're lucky enough to have it) has more than one approved healthcare provider in your area. Maybe its time to act like a good consumer and go somewhere else where you would be more satisfied with the service? Perhaps you should speak with your physician about the length of wait and possibly ask for a recommendation to go to an alternatiev caregiver?

You can do the same thing in Canada. The government doesn't tell you what doctor you have to see.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[ukemike]

The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 w

The majority of this can be put onto bad lending practices and the bundling and selling of these loans.

Actually both of you are right. The market deregulation that passed in Nov of 1999, and was signed by Clinton, allowed these financial institutions to speculate with near unlimited leveraging in the derivatives market (particularly the credit default swaps). That is what built the house of cards which is currently falling on our heads. The totally insane lending and even crazier repackaging of bad loans as AAA rated securities is what lead to the bottom level of cards being yanked out.

Incidentally had the 1999 market deregulation not passed that year, it would have reared it's ugly head again the next and it would certainly have been full of even more deregulation madness.
Watch your heads, there are something like 60 trillion dollars of impossible to value credit default swaps hanging out there waiting to come crashing down on us. Makes the $0.7 trillion bailout seem paltry. And that's nothing compared to the over one half quadrillion market for derivatives, that is equally shaky. Most of those derivatives are leveraged to the tune of 60:1. Leveraging in the range of 10:1 to 20:1 is what lead to the stock market crash of 1929. This ain't anywhere near being over with.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[mosch]

> Well, one way to hold Obama's feet to the fire is to say that you will vote for McCain if Obama doesn't say that he will reform the DCMA.

Sure. This makes sense if you believe the DMCA is more important than differing stances on foreign policy, education, science, health care, economic policy, neocolonialism, women's rights, etc, etc....

Personally I have trouble imagining anybody, from either party, switching their affiliation based on the DMCA.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Silverstrike]

I pay $0 on cable, $180 on internet, and I haven't bought a new computer in six years. As a result of this self-sacrifice, I have saved 1/2 a million in just five years, and I can EASILY afford a doctor's visit at any of a hundred hospitals within driving distance.

Given your estimates, you'd have saved $18,000 in 5 years. Your ability to save $500,000 in five years is helped by your frugality, but your frugality is certainly not the reason for your ability to save. Your above average income is.

If you SAVED your money, instead of wasting it on non-important trivia, you wouldn't have to hold your hand out. You'd be able to pay your own bills.

Yea, that's a really arrogant statement coming from someone who obviously is able to make $100,000+/year. I grew up the only son of a Bartender(mother) and a non-Union(Unions are evil through, right?) Bricklayer(father). Obviously, we did not have health insurance. I distinctly remember weeks of ramen and huge pots of homemade soup after I came down with strep throat, because the doctor's appointment and prescribed amoxicillian depleted the family budget for the month. This draconian cost cutting would happen anytime I got sick a as child. Can you even imagine how that made a young sick child feel? To know that his illness is essentially bankrupting the family?

Its not about "raiding" your wallet. Its about the acknowledging the value of human life and human dignity. Entitlement programs aren't there to keep fat rednecks on their couches in trailer parks. Yes, those people exist, and yes they do take advantage of government programs. But that is simply part of the cost. It can be mitigated with good regulation, and it can be controlled with good planning and thoughtful program design. But these programs are there there for people like my parents. Who built your house, served your beer, and who the rest of the world has to stand on top of to be "wealthy".

Because you can't on the top of the pile without standing on all the people underneath.

And to the GP: Don't worry. Obama's proposals will let you keep your employer coverage you covet. So you don't have to stand in line with the "Rabble".

One last thing, before you dismiss me as a poor parasite who wants to take your money away too. I'm a Sr. Software Engineer at a major development house, and I also run a consulting company. I will clear over $200,000 this year. I will pay for these programs too -- probably more than you will.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Em Ellel]

Socialised healthcare? MADNESS, and it'll never work anyways. Name at least one first world country that has public health care!

Oh, wait... All of them, sans the US.

I know I am feeding a troll, but as someone who has lived in countries with "socialized healthcare" I can say - there is a REASON I live in US now. Sounds good on paper, but in practice you get bare minimum and if you want any sort of REAL healthcare you have to pay insane money out of pocket, often under the table.

Know anyone with Medicare? Ask them how they like it and how come most doctors won't accept it.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Sancho]

If you want to take the steps to increase the minimum wage to a decent living wage and improve workers' rights then I'm 100% behind you.

Why do you think that a minimum wage does anything more than increase the costs for everyone? Do you think that businesses paying minimum wage employees are just going to suck up the added employment costs?

The company will want to make the same profits, so they're either going to raise prices or cut employees in order to pay the new wage.

It's really a tough problem, because increasing taxes in order to pay for socialized medicine effectively does the same thing. Either the taxes hit the working class (meaning the quality of life goes down) or they hit businesses (meaning they raise prices, to the same effect) or both. Or in an extreme case, the business may leave the country to avoid taxes. These things may not happen immediately, but it's an inevitable result of capitalism and the human condition. People want wealth, and if the government tries to take away their wealth, they'll try to get it back.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[spun]

Citation needed.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[spun]

Hey, look, if you are arguing that most politicians, regardless of party, are in the pockets of big business, I'm right with you. But you are trying to pin it all on the Democrats, and right now, they are BY FAR the lesser of two evils. The Republicans have turned into a sad parody of their true ideals.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

You don't have a right to live forever. What you are asking for is an impossibility. (You also don't have a right to steal other people's money or labor to pay your bills.) And, as I said elsewhere, "I'm paying cash" is often the best way to deal with situations. That way the insurance or HMO is no longer an issue. It's just you dealing *directly* with your doctor.

If you can afford to buy a $2000 computer every year, $1000 of cable tv, $900 on internet, $700 cellphone service, and so on... (cumulative cost of ~$50,000 per decade)..... then surely you can afford to buy the relatively-small cost (~$5000) of a pacemaker if the need arises.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[the_skywise]

So you're going to vote for a guy whose policies you claim will be a disaster on the hope that he doesn't implement what he promises he wants to do?!

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Dekortage]

Do you actually know that Obama's campaign hasn't had takedowns used against them, or are you assuming?

He's just assuming.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have $100,000/yr in discretionary income then you're not the target demographic that's complaining about having health care.

The previous posters are right, but not for you. You're at a minimum, upper-middle class (and might be lower-upper class). Look at the middle class, lower-middle class, and below. They can't give up the $2,000/yr laptop purchases because they aren't making them. They're also not spending $180 a month on cable, although they might be getting cheapo cable at $30/month.

At those rates, it might be possible to save $20,000/yr to $30,000/yr if you really cut out every optional expenditure. As long as you only get one family member sick every five years, you might be able to afford your health care, at the expense of affording anything else.

The real culprit is the health care costs. In the U.S. of A. we have a system that's business driven, so profit has to be present for it to survive and growing for it to thrive. The number of ill people shouldn't grow in a proper health care system, so the prices have to go up to account for all the thousands of little companies that are trying to grow (medical equipment, lab work companies, medical garment manufactures, etc). Since the hospital is a business, they do what businesses do, pass the cost to the consumer.

This wouldn't be a big deal, except that when you opt out of health care, you die. That wrinkle questions whether the health care industry should be allowed to run as a typical corporation.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>That's $1200 a month. I'm a college student, I certainly can't find that kind of money.

Your parents can afford it. And even if they couldn't, I support Welfare for children, which would cover your expenses in the event your parents were too poor.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Austerity Empowers]

Health care in the US is socialized, health care wants to be socialized. You get it from your company, where you pay in to a system that may or may not pay out for you as much as you put in, either in the short run or the long run.

You can pay for it privately, but it's still socialized, most insurance is socialized. You aren't investing in a fund that you manage, and can elect to spend the invested money on something else. Your insurance is doing a lot for you, it's giving you buying power when you go to a doctor, for one. Your fellow man is helping you get a better deal than the doctor might otherwise want to offer. In some sense, this is legalized price fixing, in your favor.

The only question about health care is who manages it. Corporations or the government. Republicans are quick to point out how poorly the government does...everything. Democrats are quick to point out how self serving corporations are, and thus how poorly they handle health care.

Meanwhile, we all see that the health care system is broken in various ways. The only question is who is working on fixing it. I hear a lot more from the democrats than the republicans. I haven't heard a good solution yet, I've heard a lot of bitching and moaning from the republicans, and a lot of hearts bleeding from the democrats. But the democrats do have it somewhere on their agenda, even if it rates beneath irate bullshitting for no purpose on the taxpayer dime.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[DM9290]

>>>I don't know of any countries with socialized medicine where the government is the only provider.

Canada. If a Canadian wants service from someone other than the Ottawa Parliament, then they have to come south to the U.S.

Wrong: Healthcare is provided at the provincial level. And virtually all hospitals and doctors operate privately. The only difference is that the rates for various services are fixed by law, and it is illegal to directly bill the patient for any medically necessary service. They must bill the province.

The government acts as a single BUYER of healthcare services, not a single provider.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Mister Whirly]

And where does that leave the millions that are also spending zero on cable, zero on cell phone bills, and have no computer but STILL can't afford health care? Do you honestly think the poor spend all that money on middle class technology luxuries? Not everyone who can't get coverage is a spoiled middle class brat who doesn't know what a budget is. Yours is a gross oversimplification of the problem.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry if I come off sounding angry, but if you managed to save $500,000 dollars in five years you are not the average family and have no idea what some of us go through. If I saved every penny I earned and made 25% interest on it I still would not have $500,000 dollars after five years. Don't give me that crap that if you can work you can afford health care bull. You are amoung the elite whether you want to admit it or not so shut your pie hole before someone shuts it for you.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Inda]

Aren't you the lucky one. Born with a siver spoon up your arse too, I would think.

I smoke and all those people in hospital at the moment are getting free health care because of the huge amount of tax I pay on each packet. Good luck to them. I hope they all get better soon.

OhI live in the UK where we try and look after our own.

I hate you and your attitude.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[wclacy]

Sounds like you had to deal with bad insurance and bad health care facilities. I have had a much different experience with my insurance and health care provider. I think you will find that there are some bad health care providers that stay in business because most of their patients are paid for by either Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP or Insurance. None of which actually had to go into the hospital and get the procedure. Health Care in the US has gotten worse with increased Government say in the matter (since they pay for millions of patients every year)

More Government involvement in Health Care will make it that much worse.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

"1000 a year Cable TV, or $900 a year Internet access, or $700 a year cellphone connections, or buying a new $2000 laptop every other year."

"As a result of this self-sacrifice, I have saved 1/2 a million in just five years"

Wow, so ($1,000+$900+$700+$2,000/2)*5=$500,000?
Hmm ... no, just $18,000; about half the cost of a single surgery.

Mind telling me what else I should cut out of my expenses to save an extra $96,400 a year?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[E 99]

Sure. I'm sure that a single piece of legislation caused the whole thing. I notice that you conveniently forget that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was sponsored by republicans (Phil Gramm strikes again), and passed the senate on a party-line vote with only one democrat crossing over. But sure, you go right ahead and believe that the Republicans are in no way responsible for our situation.

Try again. The final version of the bill passed 90-8 (and was signed into law by Bill Clinton).

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Curunir_wolf]

And what's the waiting time for that same surgery in the US if you have no money to pay for it?

Ok, if you are going to go there, please name 1 case of life-saving surgery that some US citizen required but they were denied because they couldn't afford it. Just 1, please.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[foo fighter]

That's great. Good for you.

So you get cancer or have a freak accident and your entire savings are wiped out anyway.

And people without a half-million bankroll get to go bankrupt, destroying not only their finances but the future they've been trying to create for their children.

Excuse me for thinking your lack of empathy for fellow humans makes you an asshole.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[steelfood]

I have saved 1/2 a million in just five years

That says it all right there.

Not everyone earns as much as you. So your take-home income after taxes is over $100K. Of course you can pay for healthcare.

What about the people whose take-home income after taxes is $20K? $15K? Then they have to pay rent and food, and sometimes have to provide for a child or more than one child. And yes, I'm talking about single parents. What about gas to get to work? Most people will only be able to save perhaps $5K, at most $10K a year, even if they are d on nothing more than necessary expenses, and even then, pay only for the cheapest. I know quite a few such people. They might hope to save up $250K in a lifetime, a lifetime not 2.5 years like you.

Without medical insurance, which most of these same people don't have, those savings will be wiped out with one hospital trip, if not outright put these people into the red.

Just because you've made it and are being paid $175K+ a year doesn't mean the rest of the country is getting paid that much. That you would use yourself as an example of how people can afford health care if they tried shows just how out of touch with reality you and people like you are.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Hognoxious]

Some third party. In the same way as neither police officers nor suspects are the ones who issue warrants. Of course the hosting service is doing the right thing for their own protection, given the current state of the law. But I think the law in this situation is ass-backwards.

It's like injunctions, they aren't granted on a whim; whoever requests it must show some reason for it to be granted.

I guess I'm saying "up until proven it should be down" rather than "down until it can be proven that it should stay up".

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Glendale2x]

I can only speak from experience with the Canadian system because my dad's side of the family is Canadian.

* One of my relatives had a stroke. They live in Ontario. The hospital in Windsor was too full and had no beds left, so they had to go across to Detroit.

* My Aunt needed a CT scan and the waiting list in her province was over 6 months long because of how equipment is distributed. Again, had to come here to the USA to get a CT scan sooner.

These are only two I can remember offhand. Sure, this is only two examples of being raped by the medical system in Canada, but quality healthcare is certainly not accessible nor available to everyone under such a system. It just forces people who can afford it to come here where there aren't any government restrictions.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

Well, around here everything is run through clinics. There aren't any real independent practices left (* that are accepting new patients). When you go to the clinic for a scheduled appointment (i.e: annual physical) you'll get to see your listed doctor (though even then you'll only get five or ten minutes with him or her). Any other time you'll get stuck with whomever is free -- and odds are that's going to be a Physicians Assistant or Nurse Practitioner. So you don't even get to see a real MD yet the office visit charge is still the same. What's wrong with that picture?

Granted, I don't have a problem seeing the Nurse Practitioner (I do refuse to see the PA if they try to shove him off on me). This whole setup just bothers me on many levels -- I never get to see my real doctor when I need to and I'm always in the position of having to explain my medical history to someone I've never seen before (and whom I'll likely never see again). Health care shouldn't be treated like an assembly line, IMHO.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[cduffy]

I don't have the article handy, but that scenario was exempted from DMCA in the last year - basically any software that required hardware dongles to use that software, when that software or hardware is no longer marketed.

Good to hear. That said, the consulting gig in question is actually one I had before the DMCA went into effect -- so it was legal when I did it, but something that later made a great example of the unintended effects of poorly-thought-out legislation when the DMCA was young.

(These days the effects that concern me more are along the lines of not being able to build-your-own-TiVO with digital broadcasts and the like).

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

THE DEMOCRATS had control of Congress from 2007-8. If they saw something wrong, they had a free hand to correct it.

Wow, you make it sound like a 51-49 Senate with an executive of the opposite party constitutes a nationwide mandate.

What a coincidence! So did the Democrats.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

BS.

Democrats at fault = ZOMG DEMS AT FAULT BARACK "HUSSEIN" OBAMA.

Republicans at fault = "The blame lies with Republicans, Democrats, the Legislative branch, and the Executive branch"

in other words:

fuck you.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[mrdoogee]

My insurance has 2 health care options:

1: Relatively cheap HMO. My coverage is free (that is, it is covered by my employer, not free as in speech) But to add my wife, it costs us $318 a month. If we had kids, that number would balloon to almost $800.

2: More expensive PPO. Once again, my coverage is fully covered by my benefits allotment, but the wife would cost over $500. Plus as a PPO it kind of sucks because the Hospital closest to my work just de-listed them as an accepted provider.

Now, I doubt the gov't will fix this at all, but that doesn't change the fact that the current system is crap as well. I think Chris Rock said it best when he said that we should pay Doctors like we pay Preachers, Pass the hat around and whatever you get, you keep. After all they're both doing god's work, right?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>Ever known anyone that got cancer? Those bills run into the hundreds of thousands.

Yes my friend. He died in his mid-50s and chose to accept his death rather than fight it. If I had been in his shoes, I would have done the same. It is far wiser to accept death, than to live in denial about the inevitable. No matter how rich you are, or how much "free" healthcare your government gives you, you will not live forever. It is pointless to try.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[E 99]

There are arguments for public healthcare that are nothing to do with whether we should have welfare for the poor:

* Everyone benefits from a healthy society, such as stopping contagious diseases, and having a healthy workforce.

So if something benefits the public, it should be nationalized??? Great, we just need to put everything into two buckets: If it's beneficial, nationalize it. If it's not, outlaw it. Enjoy your worker's paradise.

* Private companies tend to discriminate, making it unfair to anyone with any pre-existing conditions for example. I'm happy to pay for costs myself (whether towards a policy, or taxation), but I'd rather not gamble my health with the private insurance companies, thanks.

Exactly, private companies tend to discriminate. And the government is utterly incapable of performing any task which requires discrimination... like insurance. Take fire insurance. The more of your house is engulfed in flames, the more you need fire insurance. Yet these greedy, rich, corporate, evil, insurance companies will deny you fire insurance if your house has a pre-existing condition of being ablaze at the time you're applying for coverage. You'll get no such bigotry from the government!

The US has state schools does it not? Surely we should privatise schools instead of having this "socialist" schooling system?

That is correct. That's why our higher education system is the envy of the rest of the world, and our secondary education system is the joke of the rest of the world.

And what about the military, what's this nonsense about Government funded defence? Anyone who suggests otherwise has a "gimme gimme gimme" attitude, and they want to "raid their neighbors' wallets", right?

Here you're wrong. While diversity makes almost all types of things thrive, including insurance and education, the opposite is true for an army to provide a common defense of a country. That's why it's one of the only roles, along with supplying a uniform currency, which is entrusted to the federal government by the Constitution.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

Yes my friend. He died in his mid-50s and chose to accept his death rather than fight it. If I had been in his shoes, I would have done the same. It is far wiser to accept death, than to live in denial about the inevitable. No matter how rich you are, or how much "free" healthcare your government gives you, you will not live forever. It is pointless to try.

You realize that not all cancer is an automatic death sentence, right? I might accept death if it was something incurable and treatment was only going to buy me a few months (I watched someone go through pancreatic cancer -- miserable way to go and the "treatment" seemed worse than the disease) but if it was something that could be treated and cured then I'd be damned if I was going to meekly accept death.

A friend of mine went through non-hodgkin lymphoma a few years back. Her first round of treatment cost over $120,000. Her second round over $80,000. I'd really like to hear how you think cutting out the cable bill would enable someone making a middle class salary to save up that kind of money.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

What a wonderfull strawman you have there. Tell me, did you build it yourself or was a political party giving them out at one of their rallies?

For every self entitled jackass that you think should sit and stew in their own mess, how many innocents are you willing to sacrifice on your schedenfraudal altar of just deserts? How many single parents are you willing to throw in the charnel pits, how many immigrants must be swept into the gutters just so you can mutter to yourself 'Those low earner high spending poster children got what they deserved'. I've got some self words for you as well 'self-satisfaction', 'self-love', 'selfishness', and 'self delusional'. There is a real world out there, not a fantasy one. You don't get to paint an entire class of people suffering under the current socialtal system with that push broom of a brush you're lugging around.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[gknoy]

If you knew that you would die (unless you got a certain medical procedure), but that the procedure that could save your life was not covered by your insurance, and to pay out of pocket would be so expensive as to bankrupt your family, what would you do? I don't think it would be ethical to destroy my family's future in such a case. I've read of several families (which sadly I can't reference for you) whose medical bills were sufficient to bankrupt them.

When people are unable to get necessary medical coverage without bankrupting themselves, I see that as a failure of our nation's health care system.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[the_macman]

SOLUTION:

Just pay cash. If you pay cash, you don't need to lay there and argue with the insurance or HMO. You just hand-over the cash and you're done.

Before you say this doesn't work, there are lots of us who do exactly what I just described.

You do realize medical costs for something serious can easily pass $250k and the $1 million mark. Sorry your proposal is ridiculous.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[ari_j]

It was cleverly hidden in the second paragraph. "[T]he average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required[.]" To be fair, 'necessary' was not the actual word used - synonyms don't destroy the point. Do you know of any information that points to a conclusion different than the Fraser one cited in that CBC article?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[ari_j]

That's what I do for eye and dental care, because I have healthy teeth and predictable eyes. Why pay someone else to bear a risk that I can already calculate, cutting out the middle man? Insurance isn't about paying for everything, it is about transfer of risk.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis.

You mean the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? The "veto-proof" legislation sponsored by two Republicans, and supported by all Senate Republicans and only 1 Senate Democrat?

Yeah, Clinton surely is to blame for that one!

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[ari_j]

No, the point of insurance is to transfer risk. The reason that liability insurance on vehicles is required in most (all?) states is that the person whose risk is protected indirectly by the insurance is not the person paying for it.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[fugue]

Why is it that whenever Americans use the word "socialist" it sounds like they think it's a bad thing? I can't put my finger on it, but somehow you don't sound like you believe socialism could have a good side. I can only assume you've never lived outside the USA?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[word munger]

It often takes many weeks to see a specialist in the U.S. as well, and many weeks after that to schedule surgery, depending on how urgent the surgery is. I'd be interested to see a similar report on the U.S. system.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Theoboley]

*to the tune of the village people* It's fun to complain about the D M C A!!! IT's fun to complain about the D m c A..

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>Given your estimates, you'd have saved $18,000 in 5 years.

I made a typo - it should have been 1/2 million collected in my bank over ten years, and that's around $50,000 saved from not buying $1000 a year cable, $900 a year internet, a new Lexus every other year, et cetera. That ~$50,000 is MORE than enough to buy most medical procedures. (Example: A ~$5000 pacemaker implant.) Which goes back to my point: Virtually everybody CAN afford these procedures IF they don't waste their cash on trivial nonsense.

When most (not all, but most) people say, "I can't afford that" what they really mean is, "I could afford it, but I squandered my money on stupid stuff."

>
>>>Its not about "raiding" your wallet. Its about the acknowledging the value of human life and human dignity.
>

We should also acknowledge the predestined endpoint of human life - death. No matter how rich you are, or how much money the government gives you, you can not live forever. Even the UK government acknowledges this by placing a limit on how much a patient may receive in so-called "free" government healthcare. If the procedure is outrageously expensive (typically $1 million or more pounds), the patient gets turned-down.

And then the patients are left arguing with the Parliament about why the denial should be reversed. Me, I'd rather just pay cash, and avoid the whole mess. I can afford the ~$5000 for a new pacemaker. So too can almost-everyone.

Nearly-everyone has the ability to stand-on their own two feet. They don't need help. Like Barak Obama said, "I grew up believing in self-reliance, hard work, and individual responsibility." - current ad running on television.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[scot4875]

You saved $500,000 in 5 years by saving $1000/year on cable, $1600/year in communications, and $1000/year on laptops? Seems to me that the reason you were able to save that much is *probably* because you make more than enough money to begin with.

Explain to me how someone making $16,000/yr is going to save up these piles of cash that you seem to advocate to pay for all their medical expenses. My guess is that they won't be able to, and so they'll go to the emergency room (where they can't be denied care), then not be able to pay for it, which will drive the overall cost of health care up to cover it, which all ends up back on *us,* the paying customers, anyway.

So, one way or the other, we get to pay for it. Would you rather pay for a $75 office visit (covered by their evil socialist healthcare plan -- i.e. us), or a $750 emergency room visit (covered by ... us)?

--Jeremy

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Zader]

You may wait months to see a specialist, but not when it's a life threatening emergency. I have to schedule visits to my cardiologist months in advance, but I had immediate access to him when I had to have a cardiac cath and bypass surgery. (That's part of the reason you have to schedule far in advance - for the people who need urgent care.)

As far as the "bankrupt you even if you thought you had insurance" comment goes - no idea. We had excellent coverage at my employer up until this year. My out of pocket for a quad heart bypass was $100 for the ambulance ride.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>'Those low earner high spending poster children got what they deserved'

I support free healthcare for children. They can't fend for themselves or work to earn money. But YOU can. YOU can pay your own bills, and there's no reason for you to go-around siphoning money from your neighbors. None at all.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Fastolfe]

If you knew that you would die (unless you got a certain medical procedure), but that the procedure that could save your life was not covered by your insurance, and to pay out of pocket would be so expensive as to bankrupt your family, what would you do?

This actually happens all the time. People that can't afford insurance are the same people that can't afford medical procedures. These people wait until their condition constitutes a near-emergency and go to the ER, where the EMTALA requires that they be treated, and get the procedure done. The hospital may be perfectly aware that they won't get reimbursed, so they'll try to get some of the money, but generally will write it off. (EMTALA doesn't allow ERs to get reimbursed through taxes, so this is essentially mandatory charity care.)

Yes, they will "owe", and if the hospital were aggressive about pursuing the bills, bankruptcy would be the reasonable outcome, but I don't think it usually gets that far.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Tanktalus]

I am, unfortunately, not really recommending the above measures for this time because, as you point out, it'll take out too many other people with it. People whose stupidity was their only real fault, whose greed was nearly non-existent (wanting to own your own home isn't greedy - it's a smart move; it's the banks' greed that drove up house prices so fast and so the people hurt here are just the ones that weren't smart enough to realise that they couldn't really afford such a house in that market). There needs to be some repercussions for these people, but I admit that wrecking their lives over it seems to be a disproportional result for their actions.

The only problem with the bailout still is teaching bankers that they can be greedy and still come out ahead even when they screw up because Uncle Sam will help. A constitutional amendment prohibiting such action in the future will, I hope, dissuade them of this notion right quick. Something the Libertarians can cling to and launch a quick court battle should any future presidency desire to do something like this again. Realising that their necks are on the line, they may protect themselves better.

Yes, we need credit. We need the banks to take risks with entrepreneurs. We even need banks to take risks with ordinary people on their houses/condos/whatever. But what we also need is the banks to take reasonable risks. Will some people no longer be able to afford houses? Absolutely. They'll have to keep renting until they can afford a house. It'll keep houses from going absolutely stupid crazy in the first place, which helps keep inflation down. Which is far better than a recession. The banks should have a free hand to make big risks. But, just as they can profit hugely from those risks, they need to know that they can lose big time.

And maybe, just maybe, their insurance companies will pay more attention, too.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>as someone who has lived in countries with "socialized healthcare" I can say - there is a REASON I live in US now. Sounds good on paper, but in practice you get bare minimum

Quoted for truth.

But nobody wants to hear the dark side of government healthcare - which is about as good as attending school in downtown Baltimore or Philly or L.A. (i.e. lousy)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[ari_j]

There are basically three approaches:

1. No regulation, allow health insurance companies to set premiums for each policyholder based on risk. The disadvantage here is that the poor can't get insurance and have to rely on the government to provide for their necessary health care outside of the insurance system.

2. The Canada plan, provide health insurance for every citizen but do a bad job of it. The disadvantage here is that the really wealthy will accept that their taxes are higher and that they get no benefit for it since they just go to another country to get prompt, quality health care services.

3. The Obama plan, force insurance companies to cover additional risks and thus to increase their premiums for all customers, provide tax credits to the poor so they can afford those increased premiums, and double-tax the rich by making them pay not only higher insurance premiums to cover pre-existing conditions but also increased taxes to cover all those tax credits to the poor.

The real disadvantage with Obama's plan is that, unlike the Canada plan, the wealthy people can opt out of having health insurance altogether, which will decrease the pool of risk and thus increase the risk to the insurance companies, which will further increase their rates. The wealthy will go to other countries to get their care, if needed, and American doctors will make less money and either go out of business or leave the country for greener pastures, just as many Canadian doctors come to the US. You end up with the same problems Canada has, except without the financial stability.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[colinbrash]

>>>Ever known anyone that got cancer? Those bills run into the hundreds of thousands.

Yes my friend. He died in his mid-50s and chose to accept his death rather than fight it. If I had been in his shoes, I would have done the same. It is far wiser to accept death, than to live in denial about the inevitable. No matter how rich you are, or how much "free" healthcare your government gives you, you will not live forever. It is pointless to try.

Interesting perspective. I wonder how far you actually take it. Surely if you get an infected wound, you treat it rather than "accept death." It sounds as if you are promoting "accepting death" solely for financial reasons.

FWIW, I know several people who got cancer, got treatement, and are now living healthy, normal lives. They are not going to live forever, but they have lived, and presumably will continue to live, for quite some time. Do you believe these people should have just "accepted death"?

While death may be inevitable, there is nothing inevitable about dying at a particular point in time, unless you choose to do nothing about it. If you are at the bottom of a pit, do you accept the inevitable and starve to death, rather than climb the rope that is being offered to you?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in a major metro area in the US with more than fifty hospitals and hundreds of smaller medical offices. In fact, my city is known as a center of medical care. Do you know how long it takes me to get an appointment with my PCP, or any other general practitioner for that matter? Two months. There was a newspaper article recently about emergency rooms being overworked; people have to go there for things as simple as the flu, because they can't get to see their doctors in any reasonable time frame. Don't tell me that socialized medicine is the problem here.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anpheus]

Or everyone can just drive used POS cars and not care when they total another one.

Man, the whole world would be like a destruction derby. Isn't that a future you would hope for too?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

$65,000,000,000 (yes, trillion)

Check your zeros!

(ac, nothing intelligent to add)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[mrdoogee]

To use a metaphor:

Clinton steered the ship toward the rocks. Bush spent 7 1/2 years with the rocks in the front window and did nothing about it. Both seem to be to blame, but you have to hold the guy who's watch it happened on more responsible.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anpheus]

You have no idea what his situation is, and you assumed that he could save money just like you. That's asinine. If he's guilty of feeling entitled, you're guilty of believing that everyone down on their luck is that way because they're worthless.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

By not spending it on cigarettes and alcohol and less commonly - crack?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Youtube is merely a conduit for you to post your videos, since it is hosted on their server w/o human intervention.

The thing is, the sort of common-carrier argument that has been useful in the past doesn't necessarily give a fair balance in an era when the potential damage caused by using such a technology is disproportionate. To extend your analogy somewhat, if a phone service provided a means by which a fraudulent telemarketer could automatically dial millions of households simultaneously for near zero cost, I think you'd soon find people started taking a dim view of the service that meant their evening got disrupted every five minutes, and the facts that they are "only acting as a common carrier" and "technology is neutral" and it's the fraudsters who are originating the specific harm would probably hold about as much water as a leaky sieve.

As I've noted before, I believe in the right of free citizens to arm themselves commensurate with both self defence and, ultimately, compelling governments to accept their wishes by force if things get bad enough. However, I do not support giving every citizen a red button that nukes their entire city. There are too many people screwed up enough to do it, and the consequences are disproportionate to the benefits. It is sufficient that individuals can protect themselves from other individuals and that citizens collectively can protect themselves against their government.

So I think it goes with on-line media distribution. A service that fundamentally relies on large numbers of people breaking the law for its business model shouldn't be able to just shift the blame and get a free pass on some "neutral platform" argument. I'm not sure whether YouTube would qualify as such a service, but it's certainly in a moral and legal grey area.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>Socialism is orthogonal to the size and strength of government. Socialism means an economic system based on the exchange of labor and the democratic control of capital by those who do the work.
>>>

In no socialist country has this EVER been true. You can define "socialism" however you want, but the reality is that Socialism leads to a strong central government that takes away your money, and hands it off to somebody else. I don't enjoy working my ass off just to hand 50% of it away to somebody else.

It makes me feel like I'm back in 1808 (a slave).

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously never had a serious injury or ailment with no or inadequate insurance, sitting for 12+ hours to get into the LA County General emergency room. Lucky for you.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on the modern history of the Presidency, that's a pretty safe bet.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[zenyu]

Sounds like you are not in a business that generates IP.
My business generates nothing but copyrighted software, but I'm glad you put copyright outside the ill concieved IP umbrella.

You can't even issue a DMCA notice without signing that you state under penalty of perjury that the information is accurate.
How many millions of prosecutions have been carried out? How many millennia have the serial abusers of the DMCA been forced to cease operations due to their recklessness?

The ISP hosting the copyrighted data then deliberately drags their feet to remove the content, and once it's removed, its re-uploaded by the same user 5 minutes later.
Here you have something I can agree with you on, the DMCA is ineffective when issued without any of the due diligence you are required to do before issuing the DMCA take down notice. If DMCA take-down notice abusers were prosecuted and their business operations shut down by the US Justice department, I believe you might see both DMCA notices fall in number and gain greater effect. A properly issued DMCA notice wouldn't be issued until enough evidence was collected to allow the copyright holder to follow up with the user that reposts the material five minutes later with a lawsuit. As it is DMCA notices are a drain on all legitimate economic activity and a joke for file sharer.

The problem with the DMCA is it does nothing to prevent the widespread abuse of anonymous filehosting.
Heh, if you think that is the only or even major problem with the DMCA you haven't been paying attention. The DMCA kills oodles of competition in the tech sector and has cost trillions to the world economy since it was passed. Exempting the media sector of the economy from copyright protection at all would have had trivial economic cost in comparison.

The DMCA needs teeth to actually prosecute uploaders, rather than just weak half-assed requirements that the ISPS get around to eventually removing content temporarily when they feel like it.
Seriously? This provision needs teeth, but to prosecute the DMCA issuers for their abuses. For instance $5,000,000 should be required to be placed in escrow before a DMCA notice is issued, and another $2,000,000 by the ISP who takes action on the notice, and statutory damages should be made available to the victim. Victims like John McCain could then receive either receive statutory damages of say $100,000 a day plus legal expenses by filing simple form, or receive actual damages by taking the abuser to court. No party other than the victim should be able to cash out the escrow without all parties' agreement or the on the order of the court, the victim seeking only statutory and legal consultation expenses should only be required to bring or mail standard response forms to their local county clerk and wait one or two business days. This would allow the DMCA to work without requiring the the Justice Department to actively prosecute the likes of EMI, which they have failed to do in hundreds of thousands of cases of abuse by the serial abusers of the DMCA.

All the provisions of the DMCA are ill conceived and there is no baby to worry about in throwing out this bathwater. Copyright regulations need to be replaced, but we need to rewind to 1790 and start patching these regulations to fit into the modern world. For one thing 14 year exclusivity terms are way to long in this world of instant communications and cheap copies. Make it 2-3 years of exclusivity instead, but make it iron tight in those years; then add some years of compulsory licensing where I don't have exclusivity, but can profit off the "Barnes and Noble" edition or the translation or anything else where someone else is profiting of my work. With effective means of collecting these royalties, effective meaning not tied to the copy but to the access and use of the material. And yes, I know this is incompatible with Berne and TRIPS. Toss em! After we have figured out a system of regulations that actually *work* we can start convincing the rest of the world to reform their regulatory systems to replace copyright with a more modern and effective set of regulatory income protections for creators.

Heh, gotta get back to work. You just got my goat with that post!

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[vux984]

It's a matter of degree. In Canada, the average waiting time for a necessary surgery is 18 weeks. Having your appointment happen an hour late isn't even close.

Necessary surgery != Surgery you need today.

In Canada, its a perpetual system of triage. People who need the surgery most get it first.

That combined with budget limitations means that there are a lot of people who 'need' surgery but have to wait a long time to get it. In some cases they are perfectly fine, other times they are in discomfort or pain until they get it but their lives aren't at risk, and the condition isn't likely to worsen while they wait. And so these people end up waiting an unfortunately long time creating the long average times.

But if you need surgery now, its an immediate threat, or they expect your condition is going to worsen, you are moved up to the front of the queue. If its serious people get surgery within hours of showing up at the doctor.

So yeah, the Canadian system is a bummer for people who 'need surgery soon', because they usually have to wait a few months.

But contrasted with the American system, and I'm not sure what you are so smug about. Millions of uninsured people can't get the surgery at all. Millions of insured people are 'under insured' and won't get the surgery, millions more have adequate insurance and their insurance company still elects not to approve the procedure... "18 weeks" vs "No".

By any metrics Canada is healthier than the US. Lower infant mortality, longer life expectancy, better overall health. The majority of americans would actually be better off under the Canadian system than the American system, yet the wealthy elite have convinced them otherwise. Suckers.

Doubly so, because the wealthy elite are never subject to the system anyway, they can ALWAYS fly to Cuba or wherever to get some procedure or other done tomorrow, so by keeping unified health care out they aren't even protecting themselves from 'long wait times' because they'd never be subject to them anyway. They'd just rather see millions of their fellow american's die in the street than pay more taxes.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>Name any country anywhere in the world where the Government are the only providers of health care

Canada. If you want a doctor who's not being controlled by the Parliament's purse-strings, you have to drive south-of-the-border to the United States. Many Canadians flee south to getaway from their Parliament's lousy healthcare.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Or "Democrat" for ease of pronunciation. Democrats, just like Republicans, get billions in corporate donations every year. You think they are not colluding? You think NBC, ABC, and other television corporations are not just drooling to see Obama win this year?

Oh, I see, so the Media (run by Giant International Conglomerates) are colluding with the Democratic Party to get Obama in, and that's Socialism. Beyond the obvious stupidity and ignorance of your position... Oh, but that's right - you're a troll, and Trolls don't have to think clearly or stay on topic - they just have to spew their idiocy and watch everyone react.

You're an idiot. And a Troll.

RS

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Foolicious]

No, buy many Americans jump on a plane to India because they can't afford to get their treatment in the US.

No. No no no. This is terribly and awfully anecdotal. You cannot just sling around words like "common" and "many" without providing even minor evidence of such. You need to provide evidence of the number of Americans that actually travel to India and then conduct a discussion around whether or not this number would qualify as "many" Americans. You cannot take something you read in a magazine or saw on 20/20 and start formulating policy based on that.

If we could see evidence that -- just for sake of discussion -- 0.1% of (just guessing) 200 million insured people had to go to India for a procedure they could not afford in the US, there'd be some merit to your argument. Otherwise, you're just telling stories that may tug at the heart strings, but aren't at all useful for the purpose of making broad decisions.

Again, how many is many?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>Yes, like spending less on food maybe? There are lot of people who can barely afford to feed themselves

And yet when I drive downtown, or directly talk to these people, I discover cellphones hanging off their hips and they tell me they have cable television, or how they just bought new clothes.

So they can afford to spend ~$700 on cell and ~$700 on cable tv each year, plus XXX on new clothes, but they can't afford food????? I'm not buying it.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[MrMunkey]

I never said anything about living forever, that's an absurd expectancy. I would not consider (under normal circumstances) that a socialized health care system is "stealing". Most people would be contributing to the system. The people who couldn't afford health care before were still receiving basic care at a cost to the hospitals and state anyway.

I currently work for a hospital, and I can confirm that the cost of the pacemaker itself is about $3,500 to $5,000, but you also have the hospital stay (a day or two), the cost of the other equipment, the cost of the doctors, etc. You're looking at about $10,000+ for the implant. A bi-ventricular implant will run about $20,000+.

I, just like you, have not purchased a new computer in about 6 years. I've saved up a fairly decent amount of money, and I could afford a hospital stay or two. My wife and I just had a new baby boy about 5 months ago. We had planned a home birth for personal and financial reasons (a midwife is a lot less expensive than a hospital birth). We live just a few blocks from the hospital, so if something came up, we knew we'd have adequate medical care. When the baby did come, my wife labored for about 24 hours until we decided it was time to go the hospital. To make a long story short, my son ended up in the NICU for a few days and my wife had an unplanned cesarean. Without insurance, I would have had to pay about $25,000. I do have insurance through my employer, so I was lucky in that regard, but if I was poor and didn't have as good an insurance plan (or none at all), then I would have basically been screwed. Medical costs are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in America (a little old, but I think it's still the case).

I think the doctors deserve to be paid well, but people also deserve to have medical care. I also think that the cost of a socialized health care system is a hard pill to swallow, but I'm currently paying a "tax" into my insurance plan anyway (total cost is over $12,000/yr including what the employer pays). Private care could definitely co-exist, but that's getting a little off-topic.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[radio4fan]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it hasn't worked anywhere

Really?

Notwithstanding the problems with the NHS, the UK has longer life expectancy than the US, lower rates of child mortality, and spends less than half as much on healthcare per head as the US.

And don't forget that private healthcare is available (and cheap too) in the UK, so you could spend the extra $3,400 per year per person you're spending on healthcare on private cover in the UK.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Windrip]

bullshit. bullshit. bullshit.
See Wikipedia entry for the Glass-Steagall Act

The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities. Citigroup played a major part in the repeal. Then called Citicorp, the company merged with Travelers Insurance company the year before using loopholes in Glass-Steagall that allowed for temporary exemptions. With lobbying led by Roger Levy, the "finance, insurance and real estate industries together are regularly the largest campaign contributors and biggest spenders on lobbying of all business sectors [in 1999]. They laid out more than $200 million for lobbying in 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics..." These industries succeeded in their two decades long effort to repeal the act.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[sumdumass]

Actually, I would think that most Americans go to Mexico for their medical tourism. The quality isn't much different and the cost is around the same but the travel is shorter and cheaper. When using India as an example, I was really attempting to confer the situations with all the Europeans that have free medical but still go to India or the Philippines to get treatment and procedures faster then what is being offered in their own countries for free.

A common fallacy that people have seems to be that government health care is some social miracle for everything that is wrong with their own situation. It's one of those the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence situations and they totally ignore the cons to the same situation. I have a brother that used to be pro socialized medicine until we took a trip to Canada and he found out that he would have to drastically change his life style in order for government medical. The taxes and costs on everything we take for granted here was sky high up there. Tobacco, alcohol and Gasoline was the worst obvious ones. Our host said it was to pay for social services and that about anything determined to be not good for you had a heavy penalty in taxes and he didn't seem to care because it isn't good for you. BTW, this trip was back when the US dollar was worth more then the Canadian dollar which meant that even with the conversion benefits, it was still outrageous to participate in simple freedoms we have back here. I know some people from the UK who shop in the US twice a year when they visit and claim that everything from cloths to appliances are cheaper here and that's on a dollar to dollar basis without the exchange rate advantage. They always go home with more then they came with because of this.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[ciggieposeur]

Maybe you like waiting in line for health care. I don't.

Where do you go for health care then? Cuz it sure as hell isn't the USA. We Americans wait months and then pay out the nose when the doctors finally deign to see us.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Foobar of Borg]

Canada. If a Canadian wants service from someone other than the Ottawa Parliament, then they have to come south to the U.S.

You're an idiot. Canada uses the Stockholm model of Nationalized health care. It is not socialized medicine. The UK (AFAIK) has socialized medicine, but Canada uses a public-private mix. Try reading a little, preferably something other than factually-challenged Rush Limbaugh quotes. Believe it or not, there are many different ways to nationalize health care, one of which may even work for the conditions the U.S. faces. You see, it helps to consider the present conditions and rationally debate how to handle health care in the U.S. However, you babbling right wing nuts simply screech "Socialism!" "Communism!" "It will never work!" whenever someone suggests any kind of national health care plan.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

In my town a 10am appointment means sitting in the waiting room until at least 11am.

And I've waited 6 months to make an appointment just because I can't justify seeing a doctor for what is currently little more than a nasty cough that wont go away. I'd gladly wait an hour to go in if it wouldnt cost me so much.

Obviously as care becomes available to more people, more people will seek it creating longer waits.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[p0tat03]

(I'm also curious how you manage to save 1/2 a million in just five years just by not having cable etc?)

I don't even make $100K a year after taxes, WTF. Expecting the average American to save $500K in their *lifetime* is difficult enough, let alone 5 years.

One more advantage of public health care is that the government can focus on preventative medicine. No private insurer wants to pick up the tab to make sure the population is healthy enough not to need expensive care once they ARE sick. So in the end health care ends up costing more, people are not as healthy, and everything sucks in general. Here in Canada government agencies spend a *lot* of time educating disease prevention, accident prevention, workplace safety, etc etc, and while I have no numbers, there must be some impact in reducing the *overall* cost of health care.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Yaa 101]

Better wait in line than never get it.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[kelleher]

Yes, like spending less on food maybe? There are lot of people who can barely afford to feed themselves or their children, maybe you have any ideas on how they should handle their economy to afford good health care?

I do - they can stop spending their food stamps on name brands and their welfare checks on designer sneakers.

Growing up I didn't have access to either - my mothers frugality enabled her to pay our bills without government (read: our neighbors) help.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[eam]

Don't worry. They'll reform the DMCA. The new version will be identical except for a provision excluding political campaigns.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Foobar of Borg]

Yes, like spending less on food maybe? There are lot of people who can barely afford to feed themselves or their children, maybe you have any ideas on how they should handle their economy to afford good health care?

The problem is that people like GP think those who are too poor for health care should just die and decrease the surplus population. "Oh, you had an accident at work? Fuck you! Die!" "Oh, you got sick again from some inherited disease or from some disease that has been spreading around? Fuck you! Die!" You can't argue with people like that.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with your assumption that a counter notice will stop the chilling effect the DMCA has on free speech. There are no consequences for making the first false notice, and many people may not fight back with a counter notice. They should add some penalties for making a notice the copyright holder knew or should have known was inappropriate.

I agree that the other parts of the DMCA should be revised too. IP law in this country needs major reform to keep it balanced. Unfortunately, all we get from our elected officials right now are worse laws and a "czar' to pay for. "Reasonable" has nothing to do with it.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[cliffski]

"For instance $5,000,000 should be required to be placed in escrow before a DMCA notice is issued,"

so you only protect the copyright of people with 5 million in the bank?

that will REALLY help innovation.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

(I'm also curious how you manage to save 1/2 a million in just five years just by not having cable etc?)

Guess you don't have Cox Cable. ;)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Denied by insurance?

1. Insurance Denies Life-saving Surgery, Calling it "Cosmetic"

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2008/september/insurance-denies-life-saving-surgery-calling-it-cosmetic.html

Denied by hospital?

Well, if I'm not mistaken, emergency rooms now have to take in folks, regardless of ability to pay, according to Federal law. On an anecdotal note, my insured mother and I went to a hospital ER in Modesto, and we waited two hours while she was screaming in pain. Finally, I took her to another hospital ER, and she was taken care of. Even some hospitals - Memorial Medical Center - have ER waiting rooms that suck.

http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/node

nyd

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Jaeph]

Granted, the republicans sponsored the gramm-leahy legislation that repealed the bulk of the glass-steagal act. And yes, we need to remember democrat legislation pushing banks to make loans to people who were otherwise poor risks. Also, don't forgot the banks that looked past obvious issues to make loans because they knew they would just turn around and sell that loan without a problem.

But let's be fair. If someone breaks a contract, it is *their* fault. I have a mortgage on my house - if I fail to pay I'm the one to blame, not my parents, not the government, not glass, not steagal. ME.

I don't understand why everyone, everywhere, is giving the fiscally irresponsible people who bought houses that they couldn't afford such a pass. They are responsible for their actions, not *us*.

-Jeff

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[saibot834]

Well, it varies of course. Personally, in my experience, the average waiting time is quite low; when there is an appointment, I usually wait no more than 10 minutes.
I am fortunate to live in a country that has free universal health care, and I can only hope that the US realizes that there is no reason for a rich country like theirs, to let people die because they are too poor to "buy" health insurance.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[fscking_coward_2001]

> ~$50,000 is MORE than enough to buy most medical procedures

True, if you're considering the entire range of possible procedures. But if you're looking at the cost of major treatments or the lifetime costs associated with chronic conditions like Type I diabetes, $50,000 falls far short of the required funds.

> ~$5000 for a new pacemaker

Check your numbers on that one. I think you missed a zero. The pacemaker device, maybe you could get one for $5000, but it would be useless without leads, the specialists who insert it and set the parameters, provide followup care, facility charges and all that stuff. What about the other costs? It's likely you'd have other medical costs, past and ongoing, like most cardiac patients. You need to factor in lost wages too.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[johnmortal]

I am a US Citizen that lived two years in Canada under socialized Health Care. The quality of the health care was tremendously worse in Canada. Emergency Rooms and Doctors offices were flooded because it cost individuals nothing to go there. During SARS emergency rooms simply shut down. Whats more it seems common to confuse "social health care" with "free health care". It isn't free, you pay for it with your extraordinarily high taxes (paying taxes in a country with social health care took approximately 1/3 of our income as I recall, and we had Very little money at the time). Thus you actually pay MORE for your health care (because there is no market competition, just government buereaucracy determining costs and being paid), it just comes out through your taxes. So instead of paying a market value for your doctors appointments, you pay way more than market value (did you really think it would cost less to fund a big government organization), you just do it through your taxes. What's more you pay for the average number of appointments a person would make if it costs them nothing to make or go to the appointment, including emergency room visits over nothing.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[keggo]

Precisely. A friend of mine TRIED as he might to make a point, generally speaking that, one would have to wait months for a heart transplant if we had nationalized healthcare... My thought? How long is the wait right now to find a donor that matches all the criteria necessary to make the transplant successful and/or the wait that is lenghthened due to those richies who are bumped up on the organ waiting list with greenbacks in hand? It's all equivalent, except I'd rather pay nominally more in taxes than the several hundred a month I'm paying for 1 HEALTHY adult (me) that's had maybe 1-2 hospital visits in the last 15 years.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Falstius]

Other systems aren't perfect, I've lived in Europe for a few years and am aware the of the costs. But the US system is just about the worst there is. There was a Frontline documentary recently that goes into the pros and cons of different systems very well. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[sumdumass]

All children under 18 have an option for state coverage already. No one is making the choice between food and covering their children unless that choice is self inflicted by a $400 car payment, a boat payment or some other recreational payment, a rental or mortgage payment for a home/apartment larger then they can afford, and some other payments they probably shouldn't have. And even then, the CHIPS programs will cover the children.

Simply being a woman will make you eligible for government health benefits to some degree if you are in a situation where you truly can't afford it. Your comment is as uninformed as Al Gore's comment about a senior who was buying Alpo canned dog food to eat because she couldn't afford her medications. And in case your wondering about that, at the time a can of Dog food was the same price as two cans of Campbell's canned soups of similar size let alone the cost of three to four or more cans of the generic store brand soups. It isn't quite the same any more but it is still close to a dollar per dollar comparison. I can get 10 for $10 of cambell's basci or common cream of whatever soups and chicken noodle soups. That's at $1 a can for 11 ounces that are doubled when prepared. A 22 ounce can of dog food is about 95 cent to $1.15 now is you find them on sale.

The poor are taken care of. The rich don't need taken care off. The people in the middle can usually afford health care coverage if they chose wisely. There is a small percentage of people who can't which I agree should get some coverage help somewhere but all too often the "I can afford health care" cries are from people driving new cars when older and paid off cars would do just fine, it is people living in $300,000 houses that are smaller then an average $150,000 house but have all the nice things added to it. I saw a guy who was complaining about not being able to afford medical coverage when he was "paying" me to connect his brand new 50 inch Plasma TV to his Sony 7.1 surround sound THX certified home theater entertainment system so he could see his 200+ channels of cable in all it's natural clarity. Do you really think someone like that can't afford heath coverage? Give me a break.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

No, the point of insurance is to transfer risk

Umm, that's part of it. The point of insurance is to pool risk so that disasters (i.e: your house burns down) aren't financially devastating. By transferring the risk to the pool you are sharing the risk with that entire pool instead of carrying it yourself.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[imlepid]

Glass-Steagal has everything to do with the current crisis. Without its repeal there wouldn't be a quadrillion in derivatives

I'm sorry but I have to call bull shit on you for that comment. The rest of the world has been operating under a non-Glass-Steagall system for ever and they haven't had crises like this. Glass-Steagall prevented investment banks from operating as deposit-taking banks which has nothing to do with the ability (or inability) of an investment bank from creating new and more exotic (read: complex) derivatives. The repeal of Glass-Steagall is not to blame (at least in isolation).

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mind you, I'm on the House and Senate Republicans' side on this one. They took the risk, they should pay for it. If they don't, and see that mommy and daddy will always bail them out, will they ever learn?"

Please, the only reason the Republicans are "against" this is because they're the minority party right now. They know they don't have the votes to block it so they can vote no and claim they were against an unpopular bailout. If the Democrats had stated from the first that they weren't going to be bailing anyone out the Republicans would be screaming right now that "we have to bail out these banks or the economy will collapse!" or some other such nonsense.

Personally, I think they shouldn't allow these banks to foreclose on home mortgages if the homeowner wants to try to pay. Instead, maybe they should force lenders to renegotiate terms so that these people can afford to pay.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[kmac06]

You don't want to burden your own family with your medical costs, but you're willing to burden every other taxpayer in the country?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Grym]

Ok, if you are going to go there, please name 1 case of life-saving surgery that some US citizen required but they were denied because they couldn't afford it. Just 1, please.

This is a loaded question. To someone outside of the medical community, it might seem fair but it is not. First-hand, objective accounts of such stories are difficult to come by because patient records are confidential and healthcare providers have an ethical obligation (and legal obligation, a la HIPAA regulations) not to speak of such matters without approval from their patients. Plus, the chilling effect of rampant medical malpractice lawsuits has made many doctors silent out of fear of losing their livelihood for speaking the truth.

Another part of the problem with this question is the disparity between how a clinician might define "life-saving" and how the lay-public defines it. When most people think of "life-saving surgery" they often think only of surgical emergencies. It is true, in this respect, surgical emergencies are treated regardless of the ability to pay. But this is only a small aspect of medicine. Something as simple as bariatric surgery could literally be life-saving. A more mature definition of "life-saving surgery" might be: surgery for a medical condition which falls under the accepted standard of medical care and causally prevents death from that medical condition or associated complications. In that sense, the United States medical system frequently fails patients. And this failure is not limited to surgery.

An interesting aspect to all this is that by washing our hands of all non-emergency patients, the health care system may paradoxically end up being more expensive. Consider the hypothetical case of an uninsured heart attack patient who shows up in the emergency room and subsequently receives triple-bypass surgery. The associated costs with such a patient could be enormous. But what if this condition had been prevented by proper screening and preventative treatments like cholesterol or blood pressure reducing medications? In comparison, such expenses are negligible. And yet, hospitals are more likely to eat the cost of the former and not the latter because that is what the law and government incentivizes them to do.

If the sub-prime mortgage crisis is any sign, I think we are reaching a breaking point in our society. Greed and self-interest do not, in most cases, result in maximizing efficiency. It's the prisoner's dilemma and we have chosen self-interest over altruism--paradoxically at our own peril. In my opinion, the quintessential mistake of the past couple decades seems, to be a dogmatic belief that free market capitalism will always prevail in an unregulated environment, regardless of whether the underlying fundamentals to a free-market system are present and irrespective of the context. Medicine is not a widget. Greed is not good. The sooner we come to realize this, the better off we will be.

-Grym

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

It mostly consists of tax credits and requiring insurance companies to do things like cover preexisting conditions.

Well, this isn't exactly a new idea. They are already required to cover preexisting conditions when you get your health insurance through open enrollment at your employer. The people who get fucked on preexisting conditions are those who are buying insurance themselves in the individual market (i.e: those who are unemployed or self-employed).

Forcing private businesses to engage in unprofitable activity and forcing both types of premium increases on wealthier taxpayers is indistinguishable from socialism and nobody has stood up with any convincing evidence that it will work in the long term.

Then come up with a better plan. Doing nothing is not an option here. There is no excuse for why the richest country on Earth can't provide it's citizens with access to affordable health care.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[CorporateSuit]

Ever known anyone that got cancer? Those bills run into the hundreds of thousands. Mind telling me how someone who is making middle class wages can afford to take a hit like that?

My brother had to have open heart surgery and he was without insurance. The operation was estimated at $250K without complications. What he did was go to the doctor and explain his situation. "I need this surgery, and if it bankrupts me, you get screwed and I get screwed. What are my options of how you can get paid, and I can keep my credit?" So he managed to find an insurance company that would pay for it, despite it being an existing condition, (through his university) and the surgery was scheduled for when the policy would come into effect. If you want to play the game, sometimes you have to learn the rules. It's often better to consult with the scorekeepers than the rulebooks.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[adonoman]

I live in Canada, and I can book my kid an appointment with his pediatrician the same day I call, and depend on getting into the office within about 5 minutes of the appointment time. I realize that a lot of clinic or emergency rooms are going to have issues, but it's hardly a requirement of socialized health care to have poor service. It just means that you have one centralized insurance agency that is accountable to the people, as opposed to hundreds of smaller ones that are accountable to shareholders.
You can complain about the ineffiency of a government beurocracy, but the inneffiency of trying to handle so many different insurance companies and private billing is far greater.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[garett_spencley]

I'm a Canadian and I'm not going to tell you that socialized medicine is the problem. However, many doctors here flee to the US where they can charge more, and the ones that stay are forced to take in increased patients if they want to make more money.

So anyway, 2 months to get an appointment with my family doctor sounds about right, and I'm lucky to have one. My daughter was talking before we finally found one, and we only got her because she's my mother's doctor.

Not trying to agrue socialized vs. privatized. It just doesn't seem like there is any side of the fence here where the grass looks greener on this issue.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[electrictroy]

>>>This wouldn't be a big deal, except that when you opt out of health care, you die.

Yes but even if you "opt in" to government healthcare, you're still going to die! Jeez. Why can't people grasp this simple concept? Government healthcare is not some magic panacea that will make you live forever.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd make a better GOP shill someplace where people are less likely to notice that what you're selling is bullshit.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[AK Marc]

I've had my internet and phone service interrupted because of the "take it down and ask questions later" culture it has spawned at ISPs. In my case it was due to a bogus DMCA complaint from EMI on an IP address in a block that had been allocated to me, but hadn't even been placed into service yet.

That can't be DMCA. There are no provisions to "block" access to something because of a supposed violation. They can take down a site, remove content from their sites, and such things. But saying "this IP block is associated with this customer, so we'll disconnect all their services" is not allowed by the DMCA. They can choose to do it if their contract with you allows it, but don't blame the DMCA for your ISP shutting off your service after a non-DMCA complaint. It may have helped lead to that decision by your ISP, but the DMCA isn't the basis for them turning off your service.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

that's what happens when you teach people to go to the doctor for every sniffle or booboo. Flu? go to the doctor. Cold? go to the doc.

People ought to take responsibility and learn to take care of themselves.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[glueball]

Well, an ortho friend was on call for 4 days last week and got 12 cases. Half were non-insured and not likely going to pay. For the patient mix in this county, that's about average.

All had their surgery before the weekend was over and well within the guidelines for treatment.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[IndustrialComplex]

Mind telling me where in the United States you can get health care without waiting in line? In my town a 10am appointment means sitting in the waiting room until at least 11am.

For me, it was simply a matter of calling several doctors until I found one that had some free time to perform a minor surgery in his office. Granted, I'm sure you can do that in Canada, Great Britain, or any other 'socialized medicine' country. (You can, right?)

However, back on topic, the issue with government paid medicine, is that technically you have already paid for it, but now you have to get approval to have it done with the money you have already paid. If you walked out of the Emergency Room in the US, you wouldn't be out of pocket any money.

So the real difference between US healthcare and socialized healthcare, is that while you may wait in the US, you are waiting because of the Triage. In the socialized healthcare world, the waiting you refer to is waiting for the approval to have the procedure performed.

(That is just intended as a very basic clarification of the 'waiting for a procedure' arguement. Every country is different in its implementation) It is not expressing any particular view for, or against socialized medicine.)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Hatta]

Yeah it sucks that your family didn't get prompt treatment. But think about this, all those beds in Canadian hospitals are filled with people actually getting treated. All those empty beds in Detroit are only empty because people couldn't afford treatment. At least you get a chance to get on a list, the uninsured in Detroit just get to fuck off and die.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there sure isn't any real green grass. It sounds like the problem (as somone else mentioned in this thread) is that general practice incurs too much cost, forcing doctors into specialization (or out of the country!), leaving too small a pool for primary (preventative!) care, which increases the burden on emergency services. Maybe we should start socializing doctors' costs: school, _their_ insurance, instead of their income.

An aside: I should have been more clear before, when I said that it took me two months to get an appointment, I am thinking particularly about a situation in which I had taken a fall and possibly torn my rotator cuff. It wasn't quite an emergency (I was definitely at the end of the queue after going through triage at the ER), and I would have really preferred to wait a day or so and see my PCP. I've heard similar from friends. (Of course, anecdotes ain't data.) Two months for a normal check-up appointment is more than reasonable; some might even consider that a rush.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Rakarra]

Dammit of all the days to not have mod points. There's no way the parent comment should stay only at score 3. It very well repudiates not only the original anecdote, but also explains why these common stories are of very little interest when it comes to crafting policy.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[isorox]

I have saved 1/2 a million in just five years

And the 90% of Americans that don't earn anywhere near $100K a year -- even if they saved every penny they earnt.
Average wage in the U.S. is about $45k -- it was under $40k in 2006 http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html

IMHO the only people who should receive handouts are the handicapped, or children.
Able-bodied people should pay their own bills with their OWN money, not raid their neighbors' wallets.

Why should handicapped get handouts? Why should children get anything for free?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Stanislav_J]

Maybe you like waiting in line for health care. I don't.

Those of us who cannot afford insurance nor huge medical bills would gladly stand in line for health care versus having no health care at all. It all depends on where you're coming from. In my conversations, I find that here in the U.S. almost invariably the folks who say "Universal health care won't work...too expensive...long waits...etc." are the ones who already have decent, affordable health insurance, while those who live in dread of an illness or injury bankrupting them with huge bills and/or crippling them because they couldn't afford preventative care and waited too long to address the problem, are all in favor of the idea. Generally, them that has don't care much about them that don't.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Silverstrike]

I can afford the ~$5000 for a new pacemaker. So too can almost-everyone.

Where do you live? And who are the people you know? Holy cow. The median household income in the US in 2007 was $50,233.00 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States). You're talking about 10% of their annual income for an unexpected expenditure.

That's HOUSEHOLD, not person. Meaning that in 10 years, 50% of the households in the US will have made $502,330 or LESS. In total, before taxes. After taxes, federal tax being 25% @ $50k, they'll have $375,000 left. In total, without spending any money on food or shelter. I won't get into the minutiae of rent and food. There's also state, local, and sales tax to consider in most places. Furthermore, the rising cost of fuel has hamstrung most workers and businesses.

I'll stop, as its clear that the "average" American worker can't afford to "pay cash" for any significant medical procedure.

We should also acknowledge the predestined endpoint of human life - death. No matter how rich you are, or how much money the government gives you, you can not live forever.

I'm not sure what to say to that. It almost sounds like you're arguing that, since poor people can't afford health care, we should just let them die. I won't entertain the argument. It's been had before, in the late 19th Century, it was called Social Darwinism. You're welcome to look it up yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism. Abstract: It's bullshit and evil.

For the record, my wealthy "independent" friend, the only one proposing a Britian/Canadian healthcare system for the US was Hillary Clinton. It was a terrible idea for all the points you made. Obama essentially proposes premium subsidies and a government insurance program for all citizens. To prevent another medicaid, he proposes forcing private insurers to negotiate lower costs with doctors and hospitals. No one wants to make you wait in line for 6 months for a pacemaker. Nor does anyone want to stop you from paying cash if you're willing and able.

Please, look up some facts before repeating talking points from stump speeches.

PS: Your estimates are wrong about pacemakers. The device costs $5000. It costs about $35,000 after its actually implanted.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Monsuco]

What country do you live in where you get to have tax paid for you by your neighbour? I pay taxes too.

In our insanely progressive system, about 45% of Americans don't pay a penny in taxes, meanwhile the top 1% pay about 40% of all taxes. This doesn't strike me as fair.

* Private companies tend to discriminate, making it unfair to anyone with any pre-existing conditions for example. I'm happy to pay for costs myself (whether towards a policy, or taxation), but I'd rather not gamble my health with the private insurance companies, thanks.

It's a risk pool, plain and simple. You pay to be covered in case you are sick. The problem lies in the fact that states and the federal government frequently require insurance companies to cover things like prescription drugs or doctor visits, and since this discourages people from shopping around, prices rise. Imagine if your car insurance was legally required to cover your gas, you would never look for cheaper gas and would never cut back on driving. To offset these cost, insurance companies raise prices and if they suspect fraud, they don't pay. Medicare is an example of what happens when someone doesn't care about fraud. It is estimated that about 35% of medicare claims are fraudulent. Most insurance companies still pay over 90% of the time.

The US has state schools does it not? Surely we should privatise schools instead of having this "socialist" schooling system?

Our public schools consistently lag behind those of other nations and our private schools. There have been many reformers calling for things such as school choice or vouchers so that people can take what would have been spent in tax dollars and use it to go to a private school.

And what about the military, what's this nonsense about Government funded defence?

Is this the same military that spent several hundred thousand dollars on a toilet seat? Wasn't it the NSA that was purchasing iPods for their employees claiming they were for "data storage"? You hear about how ineffective Haliburton employees are but the average Haliburton employee was still 3 times more efficient at the construction jobs than the average military employee. Don't get me wrong, our men and women in uniform fight bravely and we need a strong publicly funded and civilian controlled military, but as an organization, the military is far from efficient. If I could think of a safe way to privatize the military I would want it done, but the last thing I want is for the Patriotic Enron Army to turn on us so thus we have a publicly funded military.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Curunir_wolf]

I agree with your analysis, but your conclusions seem seriously misguided. You are absolutely correct that the current system is woefully inefficient, and far more expensive than it needs to be. Treating colds in the emergency room is simply not how things should be done.

However, you have made a couple of serious errors. You conclude that we have chosen self-interest over altruism. That's because, quite simply, people tend to act in their own self-interest, while altruism doesn't exist in the real world. At times, some misunderstood instinct or action taken out of enlightened self-interest may appear to be altruistic, but altruism not only can't be relied upon - it has been shown to be entirely non-existent in the human animal.

Your other error is assuming that there are free-market forces at work in the US Medical industry. There are very few if any. The entire system seems to be made up of a few oligarchical groups battling for slices of the pie, often using legislative variations of one stripe or another. So there are groups lobbying for doctors, there are huge hospital conglomerates, nurses unions, and insurance companies. For the most part, they don't market themselves to the consumers - they lobby Washington for favorable legislation.

Part of the problem with trying to introduce any kind of free market pressures is, as you pointed out, the lack of transparency. When the insurance companies contract with hospitals and doctor groups, and no outcome-based statistics can be found on hospitals and doctors (much less prices), how would consumers even do any comparison shopping for health care?

I don't have any answers to these issues. Disregarding the inefficiency and cost issues, I think the availability of health care in the US is outstanding, if not the best in the world. But the costs of the system will destroy it if we don't do something to fix the overhead and unfairness of the system.

The federal government has shown that they are not competent at solutions for this kind of thing, though. A big new bureaucracy in charge of all that money frankly frightens me, because it will quickly be corrupted.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[isorox]

Here's how "free" government, socialized healthcare works:

- I smoke. I destroy my lungs.
- Thanks to the miracle of technology, I can get new lungs from a deceased donor.
- This procedure costs ~$100,000 per lung.
- Who pays the bill?

In the UK It's the government. Taxation on Smoking raises more than the cost of medical care of smoking.

- Not me!

So you weren't paying taxes while smoking?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Except... not funny? When the least socialist major media TV channel is still socialist, that's no joke, man. Perhaps you should take a more serious look at the world around you.

And moderators, grandparent is mismodded -1 Troll. Please correct. There is nothing trollish about pointing out that even the most conservative of the major news channels has flaws, too. Thanks. And no, it wasn't my post.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Mr. Slippery]

the reality is that Socialism leads to a strong central government

Certainly Marxism does; even though Marx pictured the eventual abolition of the state, he didn't understand that once workers form an almighty government, they're not workers anymore but dictators. Bad on Marx for that one. But Marxism is not all of socialism.

A historical example of libertarian socialism in action can be found during the Spanish Civil War.

that takes away your money

Hmm. Whose money? Who created it? Do you have a printing press in your basement?

All governments tax. When we use the state's marbles as counters in the game, it's hard to see we have much right to complain when the state demands some of those marbles back.

Capitalism (at least, capitalism as we know it) requires a strong government to create money; charter corporations; issue and enforce land and resource deeds, copyrights, and patents; and all the other infrastructure that makes possible the concentration of wealth. You want to talk about a smaller government, let's talk about removing or restricting those powers.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[jvkjvk]

Maybe you should stop wasting money on $1000 a year Cable TV, or $900 a year Internet access, or $700 a year cellphone connections, or buying a new $2000 laptop every other year.

Maybe you should just shut up. Let's take those wastes. Hmm. Totals less than $20K over that five year period.

Let me introduce you to new words: "self-sacrifice" "self-help" and "self-responsibility/initiative"....As a result of this self-sacrifice, I have saved 1/2 a million in just five years,

Let me introduce you to new words:"self-righteous" "self-serving" "egotistical" "uncaring" . The fact that you are saving more than most other people has more to do with your high salary than any other factor.

To save 500K in 10 years breaks down to saving 50K a year. It doesn't take much to see that means your salary is north of that.

You could afford it too if you had SAVED your money, instead of demanding your neighbors' pay the bill for you (tax their paychecks & give the money to you).

Yeah, if I MADE over 100K a year, maybe I could save 50K/year too. Problem is that the bottom 20% median income was under 20K in 2007. And unemployed people can just find another job too, right? Oh yeah, one that pays over 100K, so they too can enjoy your type of safety net.

You don't seem to get the fact the part of the reason you have it so good is all those other people who make so much less than you and so have much less certain financial futures.

You are angry at the wrong people. You should be angry at the people who raised you to believe you deserve what you have and fuck everyone else when other people in the same city you live in don't have a home or food. That is "self-sacrifice", that is "self-responsibility": being willing to help out others not - "Able-bodied people should pay their own bills with their OWN money, not raid their neighbors' wallets."

Are there people who game the saftey net? Yes. I think you mis-characterize the issue by implying anyone who receives aid is gaming the system.

If you SAVED your money, instead of wasting it on non-important trivia, you wouldn't have to hold your hand out. You'd be able to pay your own bills.

A lot of people would say here that they wish you never have a large unexpected expense, because that $500K is just pocket change to the healthcare industry. I, on the other hand hope that you experience just what you ultimately wish on others - through no fault on your own you end up relying on the social safety net and find that it's not there. Hope you have fun on the street.

The problem with most liberals is that they are too soft. Everyone deserves a second chance and all and everyone's viewpoint is valid in some situations. I say people should take their own prescriptions and if they advocate something let them live the worst of it. That way all these screw your neighbor people can just go screw themselves.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[FiloEleven]

Too bad that idea ends up taking the economy completely out.

I don't believe you.

I'm a subscriber to the DownsizeDC.org mailing list. Here's a link to the dispatch that they sent me today. A large chunk of the text follows. I am not an economist, but the data looks pretty straightforward to me. It's not going to be a good year no matter how you slice it, but none of the actions taken will do anything except further distort the markets and exacerbate the problem. The US government is broke, and if they continue to print money for stuff like this, they will eventually break the dollar and then we may indeed be eating dog food (or just dogs) in the streets.

There's a lot of evidence that we've been scammed. Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke told us they needed to spend $700 billion of your money to buy supposedly toxic assets that were crippling major firms and for which there was no immediate market. This was a lie even when they said it, because . . .

Merrill Lynch was able to sell it's most troubled assets back in July.

If Merrill could do it, other firms could do it too. They might not have liked the price they got, but it could have been done. The Big Bailout was purposely designed to give favored firms a better deal than they could have gotten in the market.

We've also been told, constantly, that credit markets are frozen. We're still being told that today, constantly, around the clock, on the cable business channels. It wasn't true before, and it isn't true now. We could point you to many places for the evidence, but here's one great graph from the blog Carpe Diem to give you the evidence in one pretty picture.

The hysteria mongers would tell you that even if consumer credit is okay (and you would have to hammer them with the evidence to get them to admit it), commercial credit is still in big trouble. But that isn't true either. Here's a good summary from the great scholar Robert Higgs, at the Independent Institute . . .

"Looking at the data for the first four business days of the past week, I find that firms sold from $179 billion to $205 billion of commercial paper per day; the number of separate issuances per day ranged from 6,761 to 7,298. Both the total amount borrowed and the number of issuances per day increased steadily throughout the week (data for Friday have not yet been reported)."

Higgs goes on to compare the current numbers with past periods and finds NO CREDIT FREEZE!

But what about the stock market? Doesn't its fall tell us there's a crisis? Perhaps, until you consider what's causing stocks to fall.

The really big drops began when Paulson and Bernanke began peddling their fear to Congress. And since then, nearly every time some government official has opened his or her mouth, with some new claim or some new plan, the stock market has taken another nose dive. A good chunk of the decline appears to be driven by fear mongering.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[j_sp_r]

Where can I get a $5000,- pacemaker? Been at operations a few times and some tools used that are to be used once cost around E1500,- (You need more then one tool). Without the machine that is needed to power them (which is usually on "try").

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Satanicolas]

make your own pills: you can legally import this chemical from India or china for a few $/g and make your own pills.....

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Rakarra]

It takes a little planning though. All you need is to be a millionaire. If more people did that then the problems would go away, right?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Danse]

The changes to the CRA were more than just misguided: they were a contributing factor.

While I don't subscribe to the current right-wing talking point that the CRA was the triggering factor, it almost certainly added to the problem by forcing banks to relax their lending standards (under threat of being sued for "red-lining").

Add in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's willingness to fund or buy mortgages with practically no lending standards, and it created a perverse incentive for mortgage lenders: they could write a loan, pocket the fees, then sell the loan to someone else. With no risk of default before they sold the mortgage, they were willing loan money to anyone that could fog a mirror.

It did relax standards, but I don't think it was responsible for the insanely risky loans that were being made based on little information about the borrower. If it weren't for the fact that they were able to use credit default swaps to insure those risky securities, they wouldn't have been taking those risks in the first place. And if AIG actually had to disclose what they were insuring, or maintain a capital reserve to cover it, then things would not have played out the way they did.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[bendodge]

Not much. They can refuse almost nothing. Ask an illegal. It's bankrupting border hospitals.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[garett_spencley]

"* One of my relatives had a stroke. They live in Ontario. The hospital in Windsor was too full and had no beds left, so they had to go across to Detroit."

I've lived in Windsor my whole life. I've been hospitalized a few times and most of my relatives are over 50 (and thus have had many more hospital visits than myself). I'm not accusing you of lying, but this is the first time that I have ever, in my entire 26 years being alive in Windsor Ontario, heard of someone not being able to be admitted in a Windsor hospital and being forced to cross the border. I've heard of people being sent up north to London or Toronto for a very specialized surgery that Windsor was not equipped for, but never anything related to no vacant beds.

Hell, the last time I was in the hospital was for a kidney stone a couple of years ago (yes I know I'm young but I was overweight at the time and dehydrated). They told me that worst case scenario was a kidney stone but that it was probably muscle pain and made me wait in triage for several hours because I wasn't "crawling up the walls in pain" ... but eventually I vomited (hehe who's not in pain now!?) and they instantly gave me a bed, a shot of morphine and scheduled an MRI that I took just a couple of hours later after taking a nice morphine-induced nap. It was quite a pleasant experience and totally contradictory to your horror story. Actually come to think about it, the guy I ended up sharing a room with was in because he had a mild stroke.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[bendodge]

The solution is to quit requiring large firms to provide insurance benefits so that individuals get to vote with their wallets. I don't know which party would do anything like that.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Satanicolas]

I am Canadian and I had three major surgery, and the longest I have ever waited is 3 weeks, shortest is 1 hour... But I had to see a specialist for a minor nose problem and I had an appointment 3 months later. So you have to know that your waiting time is proportional to the severity of the prognostic of your illness and inversely proportional to your age.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignoring the OP fool, we are already seeing Fox move a little bit to the left. Consider their commentators' "demand" that Palin get off the JM ticket. Other examples are available. I predict that *if* the country continues to move left, so too will this media pariah. That's because despite popular opinion, Rupert Murdoch is entirely greedy, and not really political.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[tdent1138]

That's funny. Waiting an hour isn't what we're talking about in a Socialized medicine state.. Try 8-12 months for a colonoscopy in England. That's waiting in line... and all the while, your cancer becomes deadly. No thanks.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Naturalis Philosopho]

Even if we're talking about Fox News, they love Obama because coverage of him gets their viewers riled up which increases the frequency with which said viewer tune into *drumroll* Fox News. Fox News may be a conservative bastion, but there is one thing that always trumps politics with republican/conservatives, one thing that would make them sell their souls or those of their great great grandchildren; that one thing, my friend, is money, and coverage of Obama brings it to Fox News. An Obama Presidency would be viewed by them as a windfall.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[alevans4]

[quote]$65,000,000,000 (yes, trillion)[/quote]Whoosh, there went your credibility.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[HungWeiLo]

I have lots of family in Canada (6 families - 2-3 children each) between the ages of 10 to 87. Some are healthy, some have chronic health problems. No one's ever had to be denied health care or had to wait long enough that they come down to the States for care (yes - they had the financial resources to do so if they wanted to). In fact, my 87-year-old great aunt had a government social worker come and basically perform the duties of an American $6000/month nursing home after her stroke without any significant delay.

Not saying it's a perfect system - but I'm guessing it's like high-tech product reviews - the ones who get the lemons complain the loudest.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[bendodge]

By any metrics Canada is healthier than the US.

How about the waiting list for maternity wards? Last I checked it was over 9 months...

They'd just rather see millions of their fellow american's die in the street than pay more taxes.

I've never seen anyone die in the street because he didn't get his surgery. Get real. And the everyone in the US is opposed to more taxes. The ultra-wealthy are supposed to pay over 50% of their income in takes. It used to be worse (over 90%). It's laughable, and nobody actually pays it.

Note: I am not ultra-wealthy, wealthy or even moderately wealthy.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[KiahZero]

Yes, if only I had been saving my money, I could have saved up the $60,000 a year I started incurring in prescription costs when I was 16 years old.

Damn my fiscal irresponsibility, not having a high-paying job before I had graduated high-school.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

socialist
flaw

Best. Joke. Ever.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[ari_j]

You are transferring your risk to the insurance company and paying a premium (the insurance term derives from the normal meaning: a price above what something is worth) for the transfer. The fact that risk is pooled is why the economics of insurance work out, but your statement of the "whole point of insurance", that being "to avoid financial disaster", is only true as a corollary. Financial disaster is a risk and you transfer that risk to an insurer.

In reality, having written that, I see that we agree on what the whole point of insurance is, I am just stating it one way and you are stating it another. Financial disaster is a risk and to avoid it is to transfer it to someone else. We both agree, despite you saying that I only gave "part of" the point of insurance, that the "whole point" is to accomplish this transfer/avoidance of risk/financial disaster.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[tdent1138]

*

*snip* "Maybe the US needs a constitutional amendment to make these bailouts illegal. *snip*

Can you point out in the Constitution where the Federal Government has this power in the first place?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

In my town a 10am appointment means sitting in the waiting room until at least 11am.

Ooh, you poor dear.

Ever waited in A&E (sorry, the ER) for eight hours? I have. Twice. Thanks to that envy of the world, the British NHS.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[mweather]

My mother's gamma knife "surgery". She died 6 months after being refused.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, I'll just pull 100,000 USD out of my ass. Good thinking.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[mweather]

We already burden them, but rather than pay it via taxes, they pay via higher health care costs.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[dunkelfalke]

what exactly is a problem with having both at once?
everyone gets the same basic health care and if someone wants to have better than average health care they can pay a premium.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Note: I am not ultra-wealthy, wealthy or even moderately wealthy.

Then you're just an idiot.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[ari_j]

Your conclusion is flawed. The reason we're the richest country on Earth is because our government stays at least a little bit out of non-governmental functions, such as health care. That said, I have no problem admitting that things are not perfect and could be improved, as I've said elsewhere. Just because I don't have time to come up with a good solution doesn't provide any reason to vote for a person whose platform is largely built upon a bad one.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Tubal-Cain]

That would depend on severity. I had a lung collapse spontaneously and spent about a week in the hospital with a chest tube sticking out of my side before having surgery to prevent it from happening again (semi-elective). MediCal helped with that.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[eleuthero]

I personally prefer waiting an hour for a regular physical to waiting a year for a heart bypass because my country decides everyone should have health insurance whether they need it or not. The tax burden in socialized countries is horrible and the benefit small (and yes, I have spent significant time in Europe lately)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[rossz]

Unfortunately, our electoral system does not have a "throw the bums out and replace them with good, solid human beings" lever. So, with due respect, your analysis doesn't actually help us do anything about the situation.

I respectfully refer you to our 2nd Amendment.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

There are three types of conservatives - idiots, assholes and idiot assholes. You, sir, are all three.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Phroggy]

I have no idea how many is "many", but it worked for me. Not India, but I flew to a third world country for surgery a few years ago and was very satisfied with the results (the surgeon was definitely more qualified than the one who would have done it here in the US; the hospital staff not so much). Including airfare, the total cost of the trip was less than a third of what I would have had to pay here.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

My doctor's office, part of Palo Alto Medical, in Silicon Valley guarantes to have you in front of your doctor within 15 minutes of arrival. I usually arrive about 5 minutes early for my appointment and my longest wait ever was 10 minutes.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Grym]

You conclude that we have chosen self-interest over altruism. That's because, quite simply, people tend to act in their own self-interest, while altruism doesn't exist in the real world. At times, some misunderstood instinct or action taken out of enlightened self-interest may appear to be altruistic, but altruism not only can't be relied upon - it has been shown to be entirely non-existent in the human animal.

I personally believe that people are products of their respective environments and what is expected of them. Your suggestion that altruism is non-existent is a very bold statement, indeed. You may prove yourself correct if you set the bar for human decency so low.

Your other error is assuming that there are free-market forces at work in the US Medical industry.

This is not what I said. In fact, it is the opposite of what I believe. It is my belief that free market capitalism is incompatible with the good practice of medicine. I have yet to hear a good explanation as to how a capitalistic system can function in such a coercive service such as medicine. Fundamentally, there is simply no way for patients or families to make valuation as to price of a loved one's health or life and often no time or ability to seek competitive providers. Plus, Western Medicine and its institutions constitute an effective monopoly on the industry, which is a good thing but antithetical to the preconditions of a healthy market.

Those who resist health care reform often do so by claiming that such an act will be socialism and will destroy the beneficial capitalistic forces at work. This is totally disconnected from reality for the very reasons you state. It is this dogmatic approach to this issue which I resent. People have associated self-interest and greed with free market capitalism to the point where they falsely believe that if every man acts in accordance with his own best interest that a free-market paradise of capitalistic efficiency and abundance will be the result. This is just not the case.

I don't have any answers to these issues. Disregarding the inefficiency and cost issues, I think the availability of health care in the US is outstanding, if not the best in the world.

I couldn't disagree more. The high cost of health care and health care insurance effectively makes it unavailable to a large (and growing) swath of the public. Metrics of availability such as infant mortality ratio put the United States health care system far behind other developed countries. We can and must do better.

-Grym

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I work with a number of UK and Canadian expatriates. The shoddy quality of both countries' health systems is part of the reason they now live and work in the U.S. instead.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Mind telling me where in the United States you can get health care without waiting in line? In my town a 10am appointment means sitting in the waiting room until at least 11am.

In Europe it means sitting in the waiting room 'til next June.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Daetrin]

they remember the idiocy that is the DMCA and reform it?

It is naive of you to hope for this part, though. Good luck with that.

No it's not naive, in fact it's naive to think that any problem will get fixed in a timely manner when it doesn't directly affect the politicians in charge of making the laws. As the author of this article points out it was exactly such a process that led to the passage of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act. It won't be so much specifically "remembering the idiocy of the DMCA" that results in any changes though, it will be looking forward to the next election cycle and realizing that they'll have to deal with it again in two or four years when internet media will probably be an even more effective (and necessary) medium for campaigning.

But as also pointed out in the article, that will only happen if we don't let the politicians get away with trying to craft special rules for themselves that don't apply to everyone else.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with having both _what_ at once? The Canadian and I are saying that under either system, there aren't enough general practitioners. We are missing something, not getting something. How many doctors would stay in the "basic" health care system if there was a parallel system where they could make more money doing the same (or less, since there would be a smaller pool of patients) work?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[gcatullus]

People go to the ERs because they DON'T have insurance and/or are undocumented persons. The ER can't turn anyone away because of payment issues. Hospitals don't even attempt to collect payments.

A friend of mine was helping me work on my car. His hand slipped off a wrench and he cut himself. He needed stitches, but didn't have insurance so I told him that I'd pay whatever bills he had. I must add here that he is Brazilian, but here LEGALLY.

He gives the hospital his address to send a bill to, someone asks if he is Brazilian, and lo and behold no bill was ever sent.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

My mom lives in Canada. Waiting in line there means waiting until next month if you are lucky, next year if you aren't.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Your 10 AM appointment may not start until 11 AM, but at least you don't have to wait six months to a year to get an appointment in the first place.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

...they can ALWAYS fly to Cuba or wherever to get some procedure or other done...

For example, a critical infusion of Cohibas.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Mind telling me where in the United States you can get health care without waiting in line? In my town a 10am appointment means sitting in the waiting room until at least 11am.

As opposed to in the UK where you have to make an appointment weeks (or years, for a dentist) in advanec...

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[bigstrat2003]

I think I can cut down a bunch of words from your post and preserve the essential truth:

in fact it's naive to think that any problem will get fixed

I wholeheartedly agree. Why would they fix it, when they received perfectly good lobbyist money to break it in the first place?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

> This is why I'm voting for McCain. He saw this problem coming, and tried to stop it. Prescience is a quality we need in a President.

Bwahahaha. "The Fundamental Of Our Economy Are Strong". Bwahahahah!

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

In France

Oh wait that's not the in United States is it?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Serra]

The waiting time to see many specialists in the US (even with health insurance) is an extremly long one. In my major Mid-Western city, the average wait time to get into a rheumatologist is over 3 months and it took me over 4 months to get an initial visit with an endocrinologist. I should note that I have a very good insurance (PPO) plan. I have a grave chronic illness and spend a tremendous amount of time in hospitals and dealing with doctors. I almost died during the months I was waiting to see a doctor. When I hear someone talk about how long people have to wait to see a doctor in foreign countries, I know that they have either never been seriously ill in the USA or have been very lucky.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[sumdumass]

I haven't seen that particular story but I have seen others. I don't think the American system is the worst there is, in fact, we achieve much better results and until recently we have been known for making the most advancements in medical treatments. The Jarvis guy who invented the first artificial heart claims that if it wasn't for the environment and system in America, it wouldn't have been possible for him to do it. I'm sure there is room for debate there but that isn't important right now. Aside from our accounting differences and life style differences, we are on par or better then the rest of the world. In fact, the WHO's ranking of 37 is primarily due to perceived fairness and people covered. Of course the people covered and how fair that is distributed says nothing about the quality of the health care but more about the access to it. I might agree that access to health care is horrid in the US but I'm forced to blame the people just as much as the system.

There are nuances like reporting figures and stuff like that which skew direct comparisons of statistics across countries. I remember a story about Cuba having a low infant mortality rate then the US but then it came to be known that it was because if a birth was under so many pounds, regardless of what was done to save it or how long it lived, it was counted as a still birth where in America, if it lived longer then 24 hours, despite any birth weight, it gets counted as a live birth and doctors are required to attempt to save it. What you end up with is a lot more risk on the US side of evens simply because we didn't follow WHO reporting guidelines like Cuba did.

You have other stats like the number of fatalities from motor vehicle crashes and trama injuries that aren't directly comparable either. If you compare them to distances driven, we are in better standing then many European countries as the average distance traveled before a fatal crash is greater but if you count the actual number of fatalities per accident, we are worse off until you start counting DOAs and separating them. Heart attack is often skewed too, when you look at the time to treatment and the survivability, we are equal with Europe within the first 20 minutes. If it takes longer then 20 minutes before medical attention, it starts changing and we start flowing behind. But when you look at the living conditions in Europe compared to the US where we have larger living spaces, larger yards typically, and are spread out over larger areas, you see how it would be more difficult to get immediate medical attention to heart attack victims. Our number of people serviced by each hospital and the capacity compared to size is relatively the same, but the distances between them and the patients are greater in the US because of our lifestyles. This is mitigated by spreading emergency ambulatory serviced out but there is still a factor to consider. Often the first 5 to 20 minutes is the most critical in these situations.

Anyways, I'm not making excuses but I have yet to find any study that attempts to deal with this. Even within the states, we have issues like this. In my township, the average emergency response time for a medic call is 8 minutes. In the town ship next to us, it is 20 minutes. The average for the state is 16 minutes. Of course we benefit from a larger volunteer pool that arrive sooner then the emergency squad and start life saving procedures while the ambulance is still in route. I'm not entirely sure why we have so many qualified volunteers, it costs about $1,200 and 40 hours a year out of their own pockets for yearly retraining and certification (maybe that's the medic course and a tech would be less). It is more to get certified and they only get paid (*the volunteers that is) $5 for showing up to a call and $10 an hour for being there. Most calls don't even get them $20 and the people who already work for the county or township aren't allowed to get paid at all.

Anyways, it is more complex then a simple, they get that or this. We will have to pay for the thi

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[knails]

The US has state schools does it not? Surely we should privatise schools instead of having this "socialist" schooling system?

And we clearly have the best schools in the world, right? /sarcasm

Seriously, that may be a great idea. Maybe privatized schools, that could afford to pay teachers decent wages, could work out really well. Instead of paying taxes to pay for low quality public schools, people could keep they tax money and instead pay for a school where teachers will actually teach failing students.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[bluefoxlucid]

I recall my dad having a heart attack and seeing the nurses bring in a man with a swollen heart. He racked up a $200,000 bill; but with no insurance and a very low income, he was eligible for charity funding. The hospital basically kept a big fund of money they "donated" to themselves; they spent it to pay the staff and equipment use for the procedure, and got to write it down as a tax-free donation.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[jp10558]

But wait, are you talking about $50,000 or $500,000? That's an order of magnitude difference... Plus, $50,000 is only getting started with most big medical bills. Sure it'll pay for normal doctors visits and short term perscriptions, but I know many people with $6,000 a year medicine bills alone, plus doctors, plus perhaps surgery etc. That can run through $50,000 faster than you are claiming you can save it up.

Plus, who's spending $2k on a computer every year? Certainly not most people. I've spent at most $1,500 every 2 years (less than half, and that *is* flagrantly wasteful for fun and gaming and I admit it). Most people I know spend $300-$500 every 5 or more years. That's not going to add up to your $50,000.

I'm also not sure whether you're claiming you need to give up cell phones or what exactly, but I have seen people get $15 a month or so if they share or hunt for prepaid bargins etc...

Finally, you plan is
a) someone (possibly by "stealing") covers you up till 18 (adult??)
b) You immediately get a job paying $40,000 or so a year (or more?)
c) You live a hermits life for at least 10 years
d) You don't get sick for those 10 years so you can save up the $50,000 medical fund

And, this is assuming you're actually talking about only $50,000 . . .

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Bryansix]

Correct. So the SOLUTION is to regulate the Healthcare Insurance Industry and inject direct competition into the market. That way companies will not be allowed to make money off of denying medical insurance claims and effectively killing off their most expensive customers.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Mr. Beatdown]

If my doctor made me wait for over an hour for every appointment, I'd fire him and get a new one. Capitalism works right when people exercise their own choices. Doctors in America already rarely have to compete on price, as must of their patients never know how much they're paying before they seek treatment, so you can effectively force them to compete on service.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[davecb]

That's a non-emergency one, you understand. My aunt (now 101) broke a hip in her late 90s. It was replaced the day after, and she was up walking in a week.

I had chest pains and in an hour I was hooked to what I swear looked like one of the diagnostic beds from Star Trek. It was a chest-muscle spasm, fortunately, and I was released after overnight observation.

Mind you, to get a patch of skin damage removed, I had to wait over a month!

--dave

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Bryansix]

Knowing WHICH city you are in might be important for you to get your argument across. Or it might disprove your argument which is why you left it out?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[sumdumass]

Maybe that is a problem with you PPO or HMO or whatever. Here is a question, were you recieving treatment before that two months?

I ask this because My family doctor would typically have a 2 week wait before he died. Anyways, his nurse would take out symptoms over the phone when taking the call, in many cases, except when I cut myself and she told me to go to the hospital, they phoned in prescriptions based on our patient history, what was going around at the time (doctors have a good idea of viruses and bugs floating around) and our descriptions of our symptoms. When we saw him in 2 weeks, 3 at the most, it was more of a followup visit and most of our symptoms had disappeared. Once, he sent me for a blood gas analysis thinking I had some sort of hepatitis due to the color of the whites of my eyes but it was because I was eating raw carrots all weeks long because it seemed to be the only thing I could keep down.

Only once was I faced with a 2 month or longer wait. It was when attempting to get approval from my provider for as test. It took 6 months to get the approval because the first app listed the wrong condition and they switched case workers on me (because of the condition) and the second app didn't make it to the right person. When making the appointment, they scheduled it for 2 months later, I explained that I have already been waiting 6 months for the approval, I was in a week later. She explained that they leave a couple slots open each week for situations like that.

Socialize medicine might not be the problem with you, but with the exception of one time that almost took two weeks, I have never experienced what you claimed and think it is a sign of your health care providers network more then anything else.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose I should have said it: Boston.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Bryansix]

Exactly. Regulation and legislative changes regarding malpractice will fix the main part of the problem.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going one way or the other on this way, but my boss(he is Malaysian) recently told me about health care over there.

You can go to a private hospital if you have the money. You can also get private insurance, just like in the US. But, there are also free hospitals.

BUT, you might be waiting in the ER for hours with a broken arm. I know a 10am meeting means waiting for a while, but that really isn't comparable to sitting around with a broken bone.

Now, I sat around with a broken arm in a US hospital, but I was waiting for the...wait, what the hell was I waiting for? I don't remember, and I didn't care...their nitrous oxide beats the shit out of the dentist's.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Bryansix]

TO echo the AC in response the problem is congress doing things which is causing an energy crisis in the first place. Regulation on domestic harvesting of oil and natural gas mean we buy it from terrorist supporting countries abroad. Regulation and restriction against nuclear power plants by none other then John Kerry himself means that new safe nuclear technology that will actually REDUCE the amount of nuclear waste we have has been prevented from being put into use. It is the moronic ACTIONS of congress which created the problem.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[bluefoxlucid]

That's about Atena. My last employer tried to offer me Atena, deducting $30/week from my pay; I read their benefits sheet (literally a 90% filled paper with a Microsoft Word table at 24pt font and big spacing; you know I get $150/year for doctor's office visits, including chiropracty and dental cleanings?), and threw it back at them. I pay $282/mo for Carefirst BlueChoice, and it doesn't cover my dental care provider so I'm going to work with them to change my plan.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Mr. Beatdown]

Well that means you can afford insurance, a system in which you pay another party more than the expected value of whatever you want to protect yourself against, in order to protect yourself from personally bearing the responsibility for something with an even worse expected value from happening. I guess that means we already have socialism, right? I guess the difference is now it's voluntary.

And, as an actual question, is there such a thing as insurance coverage you can get wherein your rate is constant/market adjusted for all participants for any medical problems that are diagnosed while you are covered? Perhaps some sort of "group plan" for individuals. I know there are high risk pools that do this, but are there larger ones that price on the basis of your individual level of health as you join? If not, what keeps these types of plans from being unprofitable?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[initialE]

It gives providers an incentive to reduce the priority of basic health care to patients who have money?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Mr. Beatdown]

I wouldn't call discrimination on the basis of something that has an actual impact unfair. Maybe it's unfortunate, but I surely wouldn't think it fair for me (healthy 24-year old) to pay approximately 3 times the cost for insurance, because everyone paying the same regardless of risk/preexisting conditions is mandated. Or my boss (small business with approximately 50 employees) having to expand health care coverage to cover things that we were all willing to work without (e.g. optional dental/vision, long-term care) at a cost of twice the current national average.

The fairest system is one where the costs are borne by those who receive the benefits. You might make the argument that in a socialized healthcare system we all receive the benefits. I agree. That would not be fundamentally unfair. But it would shift the burden of choice and responsibility away from me personally and onto society as a whole. I'd prefer freedom and responsibility to regulation and socialized costs.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Bryansix]

Or you can just KNOW you will be screwed which is how I feel.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[initialE]

Strange, I thought that McCain had the most to gain this election through DMCA takedowns, especially with the amount of jokes made at his expense. And it doesn't help that Palin is such an easy target.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[rjstanford]

Sigh - posting to undo "redundant" mod that was supposed to be "insightful"

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Bryansix]

Does rounding now mean the number is more than 50% off from the original number it came from?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Mr. Beatdown]

Maybe you've never lived on food stamps, as I have, but when you are poor enough to qualify for government food aid, you get plenty of food. You'd probably also qualify for Medicaid. If you make enough not to qualify for medicaid/food aid, there's a very good chance you could restrict your spending to such a level that you could afford a high deductible health plan on your own, paying for routine expenses up to say $4,000 a year completely on your own.

This is especially true if you are currently healthy. If you are not healthy your expected costs rise, and those costs MUST be borne by someone. Which means getting insurance when you are already sick costs more. The alternative is charging everyone who is healthy more for their insurance.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

But in a socialized health care system, waiting in line can mean weeks or months. A Canadian friend of mine tore her ACL, but because the surgery to reconstruct it was not considered an "emergency" she had to wait four months for the surgery which meant hobbling around in crutches for a lengthy period and seriously hurting her rehabilitation prospects afterwards.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

Your conclusion is flawed. The reason we're the richest country on Earth is because our government stays at least a little bit out of non-governmental functions, such as health care

I'm pretty sure that favorable geography and not having to fight a war on our own soil since 1865 have played a role in that too. I do understand the sentiment of what you are trying to say but sentiment doesn't get you very far when you are the one bankrupted by medical bills.

whose platform is largely built upon a bad one.

I disagree that it's a bad idea. It needs some improvement (the inclusion of tort reform -- something I've called for many times in this thread) but I don't have a philosophical problem with the concept of progressive taxation being used to make health care affordable.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[musicalwoods]

Don't longer lines mean that more people are being treated? This is bad? Or is it that medical personnel are just not doing their job efficiently?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

On an anecdotal note, my insured mother and I went to a hospital ER in Modesto, and we waited two hours while she was screaming in pain. Finally, I took her to another hospital ER, and she was taken care of. Even some hospitals - Memorial Medical Center - have ER waiting rooms that suck.

Next time take her out to the parking lot and call an ambulance. They don't generally ignore you when you come in with the EMTs.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

From Wikipedia, the final vote was (Senate: 90-8-1, House: 362-57-15), so in this case, it would have taken a miracle to achieve, but it would still have been possible.

fixed

you are correct--a president can veto a bill even if it has passed by more than 2/3s, and congress will then have to override the veto--but that makes a president look weak

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[vux984]

How about the waiting list for maternity wards? Last I checked it was over 9 months...

That's a great headline, but in reality, it was in one city during a population explosion due to booming economy.

I've had 2 kids in the last couple years in Vancouver, we had no issue whatsoever getting access to a delivery room nor pre or post care in either case. The overloaded maternity wards was a temporary and localized problem due to a rash of babies being born at once, that could have just as easily happened in the states, and it has.

Indeed...

"The UC Davis Medical Center declared an internal state of emergency Wednesday morning and began turning away all but the most seriously ill and injured patients from the trauma center and emergency room because the hospital is completely full.

Elective surgeries are being postponed to free up operating rooms for patients with life-threatening conditions.

UC Davis -- and other local hospitals -- have been operating close to capacity for much of the year. The rapidly growing population in the Sacramento region, a growing number of uninsured patients who crowd emergency rooms because they cannot get care anywhere else, and a critical shortage of nursing staff are causing the strain. "

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2003/03/17/daily25.html

Sacramento? Where is that again? Oh... right.

These headline grabbing anecdotes however aren't representative of either system.

I've never seen anyone die in the street because he didn't get his surgery. Get real.

Probably, because "didn't get his surgery" can't be listed as a cause of death on a coroners report.

But this comes pretty close:

"A paraplegic man wearing a soiled hospital gown and a broken colostomy bag was found crawling in a gutter in skid row in Los Angeles on Thursday after allegedly being dumped in the street by a Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center van, police said."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/la_hospital_all.html

Or this:

In Baltimore, Maryland, on July 27, 1998, a 70-year-old man accompanied his daughter to the hospital with a sick child. When they arrived, the man told his daughter he didn't feel well and would wait outside the hospital. Passersby noticed something was wrong and called security. The security officer's log stated: "911 notified intoxicated male ... ER notified (refused)" An emergency medical technician with a private ambulance leaving the hospital initiated CPR while the officer contacted the emergency department for assistance. The emergency department again refused assistance. Another ambulance arrived and transported the man to the ER. About one-half hour after the man was first seen lying in the grass, he was pronounced dead of cardiac arrhythmia.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/dump-n07.shtml

or this:

"In Chicago, Illinois, a 19-year-old patient came to the ER of Provident Hospital of Cook County with symptoms of threatened miscarriage. The hospital sought HMO approval, which was denied. The young woman was not given an exam or treatment. Because of the delay, she began to deliver a nonviable fetus as she waited for a taxi to take her to another hospital."

again from:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/dump-n07.shtml

or:

"In 2006, criminal charges were filed against Kaiser Permanente after one of its hospitals was caught on tape dumping a 63 year old women on the street, wearing nothing but a hospital gown, and still very ill."

http://ezinearticles.com/?Crack-Down-on-Patient-Dumping&id=100321

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

OMg! A one hour wait?! What an inhumane system this petty capitalism has produced!

Listen, kiddo, before you go a votin for Obama cause socialized healthcare will make you a rebel, just like Che, ponder for a moment how you would feel if a government beauraucrat put your mother on a waiting list for surgery to save her life. For six months. While she was in pain. Because women over fifty are a lower priority.

It pains me to see children so proud of their stupidity.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Mr. Beatdown]

The U.S. government doesn't have a monopoly on mail delivery specifically because it is not given taxpayer funding. It is wholly self sufficient, and already competes with the UPS's and FedEx's of the world. It isn't a monopoly, but it is a competitor. If it were subsidized, say in the name of affordable communication for the less well off, FedEx and UPS would not be able to compete on price, only reliability. As it is, we have government competing where it must provide value to the end-users above and beyond what FedEx or UPS provides, or go under.

This is analogous to the state schools vs. private schools competition we would see if we extended similar levels or per-pupil funding to private schools, or abolished public funding for public schools. The USPS would actually not be a bad model for school reform if you really wanted to breed "public"/private competition.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't go to the emergency rooms for the flu because they can't see their doctors in a reasonable time frame. They go to the emergency rooms because they can get care for free there. Many of them are illegal aliens too.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Mr. Beatdown]

Obama's plans would, however raise the cost to employers who don't currently provide health insurance by about 7% for every dollar paid in salary. They would also mandate that all but the smallest employers provide coverage for their employees that is the equivalent of the "New York" standard. This is to say that they must accept, at the same cost, any employee regardless of pre-existing conditions. These risk pools are great for those of us with a history of cancer or diabetes, because they force those of use without expensive diseases to subsidize those with such diseases after the fact. This has lead to a median health plan cost in New York of fully double what it is nationwide.

These costs would be fully borne by employers, which is how Obama can claim he is reducing taxes on 95% of Americans. He will force your employer to spend on average twice as much on the health insurance he currently provides, or 7% of every dollar he pays you. Just like the 6% employer social security tax, these costs are borne by the employees. Because it's indirect, no one is complaining that Obama would double the cost of the average health care plan in order to socialize the costs for the most expensive users of scarce resources.

Insurance cannot function unless the average input is equal to or greater than the expected value of that input. Obama's plan is a greater transfer of wealth, in the form of limited social services, to those who are currently the least insurable. Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends on whether you think this country has too much socialism or too much personal responsibility.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again, most countries with universal health care also have thriving private practices which can offer more luxurious health-care for time-deprived but equity-laden clientele. It's not like you absolutely have to wait -- it's just that system optimizes for good enough health-care, and thereby provides 100% coverage with 50% lower OVERALL cost (as studied by WHO and other orgs, do check this out -- my father is a MD and he talks about this).
No, it's not as good as health-care a s/w engineer gets through good PPOs; but it sure beats options available to lower half of income pyramid here in US.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

ENTIRELY CORRECT! Human life and human dignity are top priority. This is why I propose that we not only implement social programs here in America, but around the entire world. If we can spread out all the money in the world evenly, then everyone will make a comfortable $3000 a year. That should be enough to cover the health care needs of ANYONE!

=smidge=

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[moortak]

It must be nice to never be at risk of catastrophic injury or chronic illness. Lupus for example averages a cost of six to ten thousand a year. Rheumatoid arthritis averages 853 per month. Paying cash is not an option for a low income person at those prices.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[brkello]

I hear this a lot (as it is a common Republican talking point) but you are wrong. First, I don't really consider what the Democrats have in the Senate a majority. 49 are Dem, 49 are Republican, 1 is independent, and 1 is an independent democrat (whatever that means). In any case, the "independent democrat" spoke at the freaking Republican National Convention. So at best, you have a split.

Going deeper, if you look at what the Democrat congress attempted to pass, many of them were filibustered by the Republicans. Many many more of them were vetoed by the President and you can not override a veto with a simple majority.

So no, the Democrats did not have a free hand to save us from the current administration's disastrous policies. You are wrong.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[dunkelfalke]

nearly all of them would because only a fraction of patients would have private insurance. only a few doctors would be private only, the rest would just accept both kinds of patients, but giving the private patients higher priority and higher quality healthcare.

that is the way it works here in germany.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[diamondmagic]

Healthcare in the US is one of the most tightly regulated in the world. We cannot import drugs at a cheaper price because of FDA regulations. Health insurance is regulated - in a bad way, tied to your employer. And every time government intervenes, it creates more unanticipated problems. No, we ought to scrap the whole system and build it up again, from scratch. The entire FDA, all the laws and regulations. We need to bring capitalism back - hospitals and pharmaceuticals don't want to charge the minimum when insurance is paying for it.

I would also cite Patents as a major source of large prices, but a patent system is mandated by the Constitution and we are the only real innovator in Health care right now, because of it (patents do greatly stimulate innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, at a cost to us customers).

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here is with a philosophy, not a specific party.

A free market operates simply as an optimization function. Without true costs or regulations it will run wild. The problem is that many legislators use the "free market" as an excuse to not understand economics, and lazily equate that will getting rid of all regulations (and letting special interests run wild).

It should be clear by now (and should have been clear previously) that the payout structure for financial institutions do not reward caution. Many traders will get big bonuses for big returns, but don't need to give any of it back if they provide poor returns the next year (or if they blow up the economy). Yet, the idea of "self regulation" kept being promoted as the way to keep thinks like derivatives in check.

The biggest problem that caused this mess is the dark market for SWAPs and derivatives. I'm not sure who thinks thinks a "free market" will operation well when no one is able to fully understand the risks involved. Yet, this is exactly what was happening with SWAPs. It is also why companies could sell more SWAPs than they could back.

The sub-prime market was about $750 billion. Even assuming 50% foreclosure rates, this number should not be taking down the entire financial system. It is only because of the immense hidden leverage that this can be happening. And this leverage is only possible, because our politicians used that faith in free markets as a way to lazily fall into crony capitalism.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Larryish]

Do you use aspartame/nutrasweet in any sort of "diet" food or drink products?

If so, shaking your fibromyalgia could well be as simple as swearing off the "fake sugar".

Look it up.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[brkello]

Ridiculous. Vote for the person who will do most good for the country based on all the important issues. Single issue voters are just being lazy and are a detriment to the system.

And to speak specifically to the DMCA, if that really is your only issue, why in the hell would you change your vote from someone who isn't doing what you want to someone else who isn't doing what you want? This is some weird, pathetic trick to get people to vote for McCain. "Obama doesn't believe what I believe about the DMCA so I am voting McCain! Even though McCain doesn't believe what I believe either!"

And no matter how much you care about the DMCA, you have to be a grown up and realize that the nation has bigger problems right now.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

have a 2 week wait before he died.

If I could schedule the wait before I died it would be significantly longer than 2 weeks.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried the torrents. The first is a pr0n, and the second is a fake.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Falstius]

I'm an engineer, not a public policy nerd. This is a discussion, not a dissertation. I am raising an issue, not making public policy. But since you asked, about 500,000. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15513596/

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Danse]

And since most people were forced into "repayment plans" that they couldn't afford, they just abandoned ship. They left behind empty houses and banks were left in dire straits.

Under the old bill, that would not have happened.

How would they have kept their homes under a Ch-7?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[ari_j]

Define "tort reform." Depending on who uses the term, it can mean anything from requiring an expert witness opinion before you can file a malpractice lawsuit all the way up to eliminating the civil justice system.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Danse]

Sure. I'm sure that a single piece of legislation caused the whole thing. I notice that you conveniently forget that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was sponsored by republicans (Phil Gramm strikes again), and passed the senate on a party-line vote with only one democrat crossing over. But sure, you go right ahead and believe that the Republicans are in no way responsible for our situation.

Try again. The final version of the bill passed 90-8 (and was signed into law by Bill Clinton).

What he said...

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[ari_j]

Dang - I forgot to ask this in my initial reply. Since you disagree that Obama's plan is a bad idea, how do you respond to the problems with it that I pointed out in this comment?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[c_jonescc]

uh, I needed an appointment with a specialist, based on a referral from my GP.

When I called the specialist's office in August I was told I could have an appointment in February. It was the same at several other offices I called.

This in Philadelphia, and I'm professionally affiliated with UPenn, who provides my insurance. These two things mean that I'm closer, and have supposed access to FAR more doctors for many things (this specialization included) than a massive portion of the country.

So, what's the magic situation where we don't have to wait for healthcare because we're not socialists again?

Or, maybe, we never really got over our red fear from the '50s and we just knee jerk at everything that begins to sound like pinko communism?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

That I agree with - there's no excuse for this to have gone "unnoticed" for the last several years. On either side of the political fence.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Falconhell]

Informative WTF, this is plain wrong. In Australia we have a proper public healthcare system with the option of private insurance if you wish.

All my experiences have been good with public health care.

The truly ironic part is that you already pay more than we do for public health care than we do per capita-and you get nothing.

Why anyone would support a system where accountants not doctors make treatment decisions is beyond me.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[spazdor]

Jeez. If Fox News is to the left of you, then where the hell are you standing?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[spazdor]

Mod parent up. The critical point here is that the people who can cross international borders for medical care are rich.

If you're complaining based on wait times, it's only fair to ask how long in the USA the uninsured have to wait for care.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Your parents can afford it.
Of course. Anyone who can afford monthly expenses of $X can afford monthly expenses of $X+1200, right?

...

Or is that how we got into this mortgage crisis?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sorry to burst your bubble, but it hasn't worked anywhere. Here's how it doesn't work in the U.K."

Completely different degrees of not working... there's the imperfect NHS with waiting times etc and then there is the colossal, corrupt, profit driven waste of time and money that is the US health system.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[sumdumass]

Lol.. And you know nothing. Nothing at all. I don't believe anything like that. I believe that if you can afford your own health care, then you should be paying for it, not some nanny state. I believe that just because you decided to skip out on your own health care obligations and opt for the Cell phones, the brand new cars, the recreational vehicles, the larger house, the luxury anything, or whatever, that you are not now all the sudden too poor to afford your own health care.

There is a difference that idiots like you will probably never see. It is called personal responsibility and if everyone would practice more of it, the world would be a better place. It would be better in many ways but most readily observable would be you pay would be higher because you wouldn't be distracted by all the bling surrounding you when your paying for your own health care instead of wasting what little money you make on a new Wii or the latest Xbox. You would see that your making peanuts and demand more money or maybe even trade more work for more money.

It isn't a Fuck you DIE, it is get a loan and pay for it yourself situation. If you weren't so damn selfish in the first place, you would have been paying for insurance instead of blowing your money on meaningless crap which would have covered your illness and it would make everyone else's insurance premiums cheaper in the process. I'm sick and tired of hearing people cry that they can't afford insurance when they spend $70 a week on smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day and half that or more in beer each week. I'm tired of watching people sit in front of their brand new plasma or big screen TV, flipping through the 25 some premium channels claiming they can't afford their own health care. I'm tired of people pulling up in their brand new cars telling me that the government should be paying for their health care because after their inflated payment and the full coverage car insurance that is hyped because they have speeding tickets, there just isn't enough left over to get insurance.

In 2004, the average employer health plan costs a whopping total of $12,100 a year, that's just over $3000 per person and the employer covers a sizable portion of that. A working family with two income earners can afford that pretty easily. The average single person coverage was around $4,400 a year. That comes out to around $360 a month or about $84 a week but the annual premium isn't that much in reality until people start reaching the ages of 55 or older. The $100 a month cell phone plan and $80 per month cable bill covers half of that easily and for the majority of people, would also cover their single coverage premiums.

And that doesn't start to count the programs already availible that cover a good portion of people making low incomes. In fact, National estimates claim that just over half of the children eligible for existing government paid health care programs are actually enrolled. There is a disturbing number of eligible people who don't take advantage of the existing programs for whatever reasons. And that isn't just limited to health care, you will find reports talking about food stamps and other government services too.

So lets recap, if you can afford it, pay for it. If you can't, take advantage of the existing programs. Once that happens, if the programs need to be expanded, then do so. But it is bullshit to lay claim to something that people can afford themselves if they would only chose to do so. There is no reason why the government should be responsable for paying something that most of us can more than afford. And no, that's not a let them DIE attitude, it's a take some fucking responsibility for your own life attitude.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[sumdumass]

Damnit, that second link should be to here instead. (PDF warning)

I guess I got lazy and only checked to see if something came up when I previewed and failed to make sure they went to the right place.

http://www.ahipresearch.org/pdfs/Individual_Market_Survey_December_2007.pdf

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on your definition of *worked*. If a lineup means it doesn't work then yes it failed. If everyone getting health care means it worked then yes it does work.
I'd wager that guaranteeing no lineup would mean a very, very expensive system which nobody would like either.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and America also has a heavily regulated system. Which regulates who can practise, how they can practise, and which companies can supply them. The problem is regulation.

You cut some of the ties, you just needed to cut the rest. Then you'd have some of the cheapest health care in the world, and some of the most expensive, it would vary.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

That's amazing what you've been through.

But the problem is regulation on the industry, not subsidizing it or similar.

The costs for surgery are nominal, the materials can be somewhat expensive, the time is somewhat expensive, but the most expensive part is liability, training and the lack of competition.

This is due to:

Patents/Copyrights/etc which stop pharmeceutial/medical equipment companies competing.

Medical licenses which limit who can teach medicine and who can practise it.

Liability laws which make companies which operate in this industry, overly liable.

I've grown up with this industry (My parents work in it, and almost all of their friends are in it), when you talk to them you find out how restricted they are, by these laws.

If you want cheap quality health care, get rid of these laws.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I distinctly remember weeks of ramen and huge pots of homemade soup after I came down with strep throat, because the doctor's appointment and prescribed amoxicillian depleted the family budget for the month. This draconian cost cutting would happen anytime I got sick a as child. Can you even imagine how that made a young sick child feel? To know that his illness is essentially bankrupting the family?

I can very much relate. And I live in a place with social healthcare. I remember helplessly watching my condition take a toll on the family finances something that is quite possibly worse than the illness itself. I remember the head doctor speaking to my father and saying "The drug your son needs, which a high success rate is over a hundred thousand dollars. Which I'm not prepared to put into a single drug for a single patient" (or something along those lines)

My family immediately offered that they would sell the house and give the money in a "donation" to the hospital. At that moment, I decided that I would kill myself. It was a matter of dignity. Thankfully it never came back to that, and my medication was paid for by the hospital (I think the guy was worried of corruption claims). But I wasted 3 months of my life using up a hospital bed before that came.

I'm undecided on the whole public vs. private. But what I do know, is that no company/person deserves a monopoly on drugs. I don't give a shit if you came up with it first, or got it through regulatory bodies first. You don't own it. I have no doubt that drug patents are actively stifling innovation in the field too. And I'm a libertarian, but there's something not right about not selling a life saving drug to anyone unless they have $100,000.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting that you say the Prisoners Dilema, because the nash equilibrium for a game where you need to decide whether to regulate your competition or not. I believe the nash equilibrium would tend towards regulation, not complete regulation, but partial.

However, this is a bad way to think about it.

The Prisoners Dilema is the best way of saying there shouldn't not be a government sponsored monopoly since a non-government can not take it's place.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Opps,

I Meant when the doctor was alive and had a practice. Sorry for the confusion. And yes, I would like to schedule a longer wait too..lol

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

People use the wait times when saying how bad public health care is, but what you have to remember is that your not a customer, there is no first come first served, doesn't matter how rich you are.

Your seen in order of NEED, if you come in with no obvious wounds, and are not bleeding all over the floor you will wait, while that guy with the broken leg is seen first, and when and ambulance comes in with a dude on a stretcher who's bleeding out his ears, you will still wait. Hours if necessary.

I recently went to the emergency room (I'm canadian) I had something wrong with my left eye, but it didn't hurt as long as I kept it closed. I waited a hair over 2 hours to see the doc.

The people who waited less time, and got in before me included;

A pregnant woman who'd been kicked in the abdomen by a violent ex-boyfriend.

Said ex-boyfriend who's face met a 2x4 coming the other way about 2 seconds later because the current boyfriend was standing nearby.

The aforementioned dude in a stretcher bleeding out his ears.

And a dude who's leg was ripped open when the it turned out the iron fire escape he was running down was just a little too rusty to support his weight.

Now me, I'm not upset these people got seen before me, I was not in any pain, my condition was more of a mystery than a real problem, while the others had a clear need. It turns out I had an eye infection I ended up walking out of there some eyedrops and a scratched cornea and instructions to stop rubbing it.

And aside from any other consideration, everyone is entitled to the same level of care, the best we can give. Without spending your life savings, that visit did not cost me a penny.

Might I have gotten faster treatment from a private doctor? maybe. But I'm fine, and so is everybody else who got seen before me. I'm happy with that outcome.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[sumdumass]

Maybe UPann's Health care plan and the health care un Penn in general isn't as good as other areas of the country. I haven't needed to wait to see a specialist but this isn't really the same as in other countries.

In America, when we know what is wrong with someone, we schedule an appointment to take care of it. In countries with socialized health care, you sometimes go on a list and have to wait until your number is ready and if there isn't anyone in more need then you, you go. If there is someone who can, they will jump in front of you and you go back onto the list. Now, have you had your appointment bumped after waiting 2 months to see the specialist just to have to wait longer? And yes, you had the option of going somewhere else, even if that meant further away then your local area to see the specialist sooner. In other countries, you don't, you get what they give you.

This waiting isn't about someone waiting for a specialist to get time, you are after all, under the care of another doctor, it is about waiting 10 years for bowel surgery and having to goto other countries to get procedures done. It is about doctors deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't, regardless of anyone's ability to pay but because of perfectly legal acts like smoking or growing old. Sure, you can drink, but you won't get any surgury if you do, but it is still legal right? But there are other stark contrasts between the US system and other countries like England's. This piece actually offers a pretty good comparison so take the time to read it.

I know I have been picking on England's system so lets get into some of the problems with Canada's. Canada has wait time to see general practitioners that makes your specialist appointment look like a week long vacation. Granted the government is working on the problem and has supposedly worked out a plan that will be implemented in 10 years or so, but what about until then and what about everything up until people complained loudly enough for the government to act. It is so bad that companies are offering medical insurance in Canada that will take you to another location and even out of the country if your wait times are too long. Imagine that, the people of Canada are buying health insurance when they already had free health coverage from their very own government because the times they wait to get treatment is way to long.

Now maybe you just don't know about the wait and thing a 4 week wait or an 8 week wait to see a specialist is similar to a 16 week wait to see your general practitioner or having to wait 16.2 weeks to see an orthopedic surgeon, and another 24.2 weeks for treatment to be performed after the initial visit. Now those numbers are averages, this means that some are longer and some are shorter. But we every one that's shorter, there is one or more that is longer. You may think, well that isn't too long. Most back problems have healed themselves in 3-6 months, if the healing is improper (which is why surgery is often used), there will be problems with the back for the rest of the patient's life. So lest see, 14 weeks is over 3 months already. 24 weeks is six months longer, there is a good chance of a patient needing an orthopedic surgeon never regaining normal use and comfort levels in their back again simply from the wait between seeing and treatment. Of course this isn't always the case but it gets introduced and it shouldn't be there.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I spent several years in France, US and Canada. And US wins hands down re health care.

My friends in UK cannot get a child with flu to a doctor due to several weeks long waiting list, only to a hospital if the case is really severe.

get a rest.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[shutdown -p now]

You can define "socialism" however you want, but the reality is that Socialism leads to a strong central government that takes away your money, and hands it off to somebody else.

In practice, yes, but so what? Sweden-style socialism, when the government is properly democratic, also falls under the definition of "an economic system based on the exchange of labor and the democratic control of capital by those who do the work."

Yes, anarcho-socialism so far is an utopia; but so is anarcho-capitalism. Neither was used successfully in the real world.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Foolicious]

Whether you're a nerdy engineer or a nerdy public policy guy is completely irrelevant to my point. Whether this is a discussion or a dissertation does not matter. Whatever you think it is, this is not a discussion with your buddies over a few beers about the size of a fish you caught. The point is that using words that are misleading does matter -- and even more so when you're trying to make a point.

500,000 sounds like a big number. But it is probably around 2 tenths of 1% of the insured population of the US and 16 hundredths of 1% of the total population of the US.

Futhermore (my emphasis below),

With an estimated 45 million uninsured Americans, some 500,000 trekked overseas last year for medical treatment, according to the National Coalition on Health Care. Asian hospitals in Thailand, India and Singapore have long been swarmed by medical tourists looking for tummy tucks and face lifts, but many glitzy, marble-floored facilities are now gaining reputations for big-ticket procedures including heart surgery, knee and back operations.

As far as I had time to check, the NCHC stats (used in the MSNBC article quoted above) don't break down who was getting a discount breast augmentation (not usually covered anyway in U.S.), who was getting non-FDC approved treatments (not available in the U.S.) and who was actually getting a hip replacement they could not otherwise afford (obviously, too expensive in the U.S.). These are extremely important distinctions, but would admittedly be tough numbers to gather accurately.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Foolicious]

Phroggy - Make no mistakes, I'm not saying this isn't an acceptable option for some people. I'm simply questioning whether or not there's some sort of even smallish exodus from the U.S. in relation to medical care because it's too expensive in the U.S. I do not believe there is. Furthermore, I do believe that going to certain, but not all, countries raises the risks/consequences of complications exponentially, as well as reduces the possibility of receiving compensation if they screw you up.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[theaveng]

That's not so far-fetched as you think.

The average middle class American (~$40,000 per year) earns 2 million dollars during his or her lifetime.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[mdwh2]

I know you're more intelligent than that. Here's how "free" government, socialized healthcare works:

- I smoke. I destroy my lungs.
- Thanks to the miracle of technology, I can get new lungs from a deceased donor.
- This procedure costs ~$100,000 per lung.
- Who pays the bill?
- Not me!

Yes, you do - you pay taxes. Surely you're intelligent enough to realise this? Even if you happen to be an unemployed person not paying income tax, you still pay taxes, because in the UK, cigarettes are heavily taxed.

Whilst it's not clear to me whether the amount of taxation from cigarettes covers the cost to the health service, it's not clear that it doesn't either. And it works both ways too - if someone else has an accident through being careless, the smoker "has to pay for it". It's not clear that any one group is capable of gaining an overall huge advantage by stealing from another group who are at a disadvantage.

And they pay that bill via taxation. In essence, I have *stolen* money

Ah, taxation is theft, right? So do you oppose all taxation? There's a lot of other things that countries spend your "stolen" money on, including the US.

Yes we should

And what about defence, police, firefighting, roads? If you really want 100% privatisation with no public spending, at least you are consistent - but there's a lot more you need to change than just health.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[mdwh2]

So if something benefits the public, it should be nationalized??? Great, we just need to put everything into two buckets: If it's beneficial, nationalize it. If it's not, outlaw it. Enjoy your worker's paradise.

I never said that.

Yet these greedy, rich, corporate, evil, insurance companies will deny you fire insurance if your house has a pre-existing condition of being ablaze at the time you're applying for coverage. You'll get no such bigotry from the government!

If we had a system where fires didn't get put out after they had already started, that'd be a rubbish system too.

Not all discrimination is necessarily something that must be avoided - but I think it is something that is better to avoid when it's people's lives.

That's why our higher education system is the envy of the rest of the world, and our secondary education system is the joke of the rest of the world.

That is not sufficient to prove any correlation. The UK's Oxford and Cambridge were doing quite well with Government grants and lack of tuition fees. And people do not envy the system, they only envy the private product that is being sold. No one is disputing that - of course private companies can sell perfectly good products. But that doesn't mean that people support the system - indeed, the US is more likely to be criticised for the huge costs in tuition fees.

And can you point me to a country than has entirely privatised schooling, with much better results?

What about defence, firefighting, police, roads etc - should they all be privatised?

the opposite is true for an army to provide a common defense of a country

Why? Why should I have to have my money "stolen" just because some other people want an army? I didn't start these wars, it's a stupid "gimme gimme gimme" attitude. Why should I have to pay for police and firefighting and roads too? It's ridiculous!</whine>

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[mdwh2]

In our insanely progressive system, about 45% of Americans don't pay a penny in taxes, meanwhile the top 1% pay about 40% of all taxes. This doesn't strike me as fair.

We can change the taxation system if you like. That's a separate issue though.

Our public schools consistently lag behind those of other nations and our private schools

See my comment above - the issue is not how good privately offered services are. Obviously, they are often better than what the state can offer. I am not suggestion that private companies be abolished - merely saying that sometimes the state can offer something too.

The question is, how good is the system to the population as a whole? How good do you think the private education will be to someone who can't afford it in the first place?

The US isn't a valid example, because the US does have state schools. How would the US look do you think if education was entirely private? Sure, the people who can already afford a private education would get a high standard - but then, they already get that now! Meanwhile, those that can't would have to buy into a cheaper school which might not be any better than the state system, and in some cases would be worse. Some might do without education altogether. So you'd have more uneducated people.

It's not that I'm saying "We should abolish perfectly good private schools". But you're the one saying "We should abolish state schools that currently provide for those who can't afford private education".

Is this the same military that spent several hundred thousand dollars on a toilet seat? Wasn't it the NSA that was purchasing iPods for their employees claiming they were for "data storage"?

Is that a Yes, or No? You haven't answered my question.

If I could think of a safe way to privatize the military I would want it done, but the last thing I want is for the Patriotic Enron Army to turn on us so thus we have a publicly funded military.

And this is exactly the point - even though the state may be more inefficient, in some parts of the market, it may still be better overall to have a state system, for other reasons.

Since I am not claiming that private organisations are less efficient, that argument is not relevant to my point.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

Well, I'm not a legal expert or a lawyer but I would start by reforming the damages process so people can't collect massive punitive damages in cases where negligence didn't occur. This doesn't represent a large dollar amount (they are only awarded in something like 2% of civil cases) but it would be a good start.

You might also consider some sort of 'no fault' system similar to what a few states have for auto insurance to try and resolve legitimate cases without needing to go to court. This would help to bring the legal fees down and ensure that more of the money actually winds up in the hands of the injured party.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[mdwh2]

I wouldn't call discrimination on the basis of something that has an actual impact unfair.

If people are judged on reasons other than individual merit, it's discrimination. It may be statistical discrimination as opposed to prejudice, but it's still discrimination.

So sure, judging you on your individual health is one thing, but companies may also judge based on average results from a group you belong to. Is it better to live in a society where if you fit some group (e.g., genetic profile, sexuality), you end up with massive health insurance costs - even if you never end up needing treatment?

And even if it is your individual health that's worse, if seems unfair that someone who had no choice in getting that condition ends up being uninsurable.

But it would shift the burden of choice and responsibility away from me personally and onto society as a whole. I'd prefer freedom and responsibility to regulation and socialized costs.

Does it really? In the US, it seems it's led to the sue-happy culture where they have to find someone else to blame, because they don't want to pay for the huge health costs they will have. We don't have that in the UK - perhaps it's easier to accept responsibility, when there isn't a whopping great big price tag associated with a minor one-off mistake.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Slightly to the right of the entire universe, I presume.

That way everything inside the universe is by definition to his left, including Fox News (however incredible it may seem.) Thankfully, since he must be outside the universe, and nothing can be outside the universe and have any effect whatsoever on what's inside it, it follows that we can ignore him, since he for all intents and purposes does not exist in any meaningful manner.

Problem solved.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

The only problem that you pointed out that I can see is this one:

the wealthy people can opt out of having health insurance altogether

You probably meant to say 'healthy' instead of 'wealthy'. Wealthy people have no incentive to drop medical insurance because the cost of the insurance is comparatively cheap against the cost of getting a serious illness. Just because they might be able to afford that illness doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to carry insurance. A really wealthy person could probably afford to go without car insurance -- but car insurance is cheap for the amount of protection provided -- so it doesn't usually make sense to go without it even though you could afford an accident or a lawsuit. Would you rather pay a few hundred bucks every six months or roll the dice on losing a personal injury lawsuit after an automobile accident?

Assuming you meant to say 'healthy' then that's a problem with any insurance system that doesn't have mandated coverage. I honestly don't have an answer for you on this -- I'm not a fan of Governmental mandates and disagreed with Hillary when she purposed one. I do see your point that the taxpayers are going to wind up paying anyway but as I've already said I don't have a philosophical problem with that concept.

I'd be curious to know what the real numbers are of healthy people who opt out of insurance coverage. I considered doing it myself but decided not to when I thought of my friend who got cancer in her 20s and wound up with >$200,000 worth of medical bills. The $1,400 I pay for my policy (my portion is 25% so my employer pays 3 times as much) is peanuts compared to the risk it's protecting me against.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

My brother had to have open heart surgery and he was without insurance. The operation was estimated at $250K without complications. What he did was go to the doctor and explain his situation. "I need this surgery, and if it bankrupts me, you get screwed and I get screwed. What are my options of how you can get paid, and I can keep my credit?" So he managed to find an insurance company that would pay for it, despite it being an existing condition, (through his university) and the surgery was scheduled for when the policy would come into effect. If you want to play the game, sometimes you have to learn the rules. It's often better to consult with the scorekeepers than the rulebooks.

What would your brother have done if the situation was more critical and he needed the operation today and didn't have time to shop for a policy?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

Hey, look, if you are arguing that most politicians, regardless of party, are in the pockets of big business, I'm right with you. But you are trying to pin it all on the Democrats, and right now, they are BY FAR the lesser of two evils. The Republicans have turned into a sad parody of their true ideals.

I knew there was a reason why you are on my friends list.... well said!

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[ari_j]

I meant wealthy, and the reason I said that is because they will not want health insurance in the US where their premiums are higher and where the quality of care suffers the problems that Canada has now. Canadians who actually want to see a doctor often come to the US, and wealthy Americans who actually want to see a doctor only stay in the US because that's where you go for prompt, quality medical treatment.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

where the quality of care suffers the problems that Canada has now.

And the quality of care isn't already suffering? Have you read about the general practitioner shortage? The OB/GYN shortage? The wait time in some parts of this country to see a specialist?

and the reason I said that is because they will not want health insurance

Then we'll get it from them in the form of taxes. Like I said, I don't really have a philosophical problem with this concept.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[ari_j]

I don't know of any place in the US where you can get punitive damages without at least gross negligence. Regardless of that, though, can you point to actual examples where an award of punitive damages has actually affected the quality or cost of health care?

In theory, punitive damages actually reduce the cost of health care because they deter severely bad medical treatment. Also, in some states it is unlawful for insurance to cover punitive damages. In a few other states punitive damages are only insurable if the conduct giving rise to them was not willful.

In reality, punitive damages pretty much come up only in two situations:
1. Where the defendant has no incentive not to hurt someone else again based on actual damages - if you profit $1 billion and have to pay out $1 million in verdicts and settlements, compared to only profiting $900 million without inflicting the harm giving rise to them, you are going to keep hurting people. As a matter of fact, it's probably a breach of your duty to your shareholders to stop.
2. Where the conduct was intentional, which in actual practice usually means that it was fraudulent. And if you do something like fudge the numbers on a person's surgery chart to cover up the fact that you left three sponges inside of his body, being punished for it beyond the actual damage you did is a good thing because it gives you incentive to tell the patient the truth earlier on.

Basically, punitive damages and the civil justice system as a whole are necessary components of a capitalist society. Without them, we have no economic reason to treat each other as anything less than a means to an end, and you can't force 100% of a country to have reasons other than economic behind their actions.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

And since most people were forced into "repayment plans" that they couldn't afford, they just abandoned ship

What are you basing this on? Do you even know how bankruptcy works?

In a Chapter 13 they take your approved expenses (rent/mortgage, food, gas, insurance, utilities, medical, etc, etc, etc) and subtract them from your income. The remaining amount is 'disposable income' and gets paid into the bankruptcy plan. If you wound up in a repayment plan you couldn't afford then you had a very bad bankruptcy attorney -- my bankruptcy attorney worked with his clients to lower the 'disposable income' amount as much as possible.

Furthermore, the litmus test only applies to people who have incomes higher than the median income of your state. In NY that figure is >$50,000. If you are making less than that amount you aren't subject to the litmus test and can choose between a Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. If you are above the median income than the litmus test comes into play and you might have to file a 13 if you have disposable income left after the expense calculation.

Go talk to any BK attorney. Most will tell you that the overwhelming majority of their clients aren't impacted by any of this. The biggest problem with the BK "reform" bill is that it imposed a ton of new requirements which drove up the cost of filing BK -- in the case of my attorney his fee went from $800 pre-reform to $1,500 post-reform. That sucks a lot -- but it's hardly the debtor prison that a lot of people are making it out to be.

They left behind empty houses and banks were left in dire straits.

And WTF does this have to do with the new bankruptcy laws? Under the old system you would have to file a Chapter 13 anyway to keep your house in most scenarios. The only way you can retain your house in a Chapter 7 is if you reaffirm the mortgage (if any exists), are timely with the payments and the amount of your equity is under the exemption limit for your state. In New York that limit is only $10,000 -- so you'd lose your home in a Ch-7 if you have more than $10,000 of equity in it. There's a reason why Chapter 7 is called liquidation.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Benfea]

And yet all those countries "inferior" health systems enjoy longer average lifespans, lower infant mortality rates, etc., all while spending less per person on health care.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[pfleming]

If you can't pay for it, it's not necessary.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Falstius]

500,000 per year. You can't compare the number of people traveling abroad for medical procedures to the total number of insured people. The best comparison would probably be the number of people who travel for a surgery versus the number who stay in the US to get a surgery and pay for it (via insurance or out of pocket), which is a much smaller number than the total insured population. I don't think I'll find that with a two second web search. None of this detail is necessary to realize that there are huge problems in the US health care system and that it is in need of reform. I would expect anyone responsible for formulating these reforms to do that research in detail (expect as in they have a duty, not that they'll necessary do it).

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[mdwh2]

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

And we clearly have the best schools in the world, right? /sarcasm

Okay, point me to a country that has no state schools, but results in a better educated population?

Instead of paying taxes to pay for low quality public schools, people could keep they tax money and instead pay for a school where teachers will actually teach failing students.

Well that's rather simplistic. And it's unclear to me how the money saved from tax is enough for a better school. What would happen is:

* Children of rich parents would either have no change (their parents keep the extra money) or go to a slightly better school.

* At some point, there'd be children who are no worse off, as the money saved in tax equals the money it costs to send them to an equivalent school.

* Children of poorer parents than that will receive a worse education, or perhaps no education at all.

Not to mention that some parents may be more likely to use the saved money for other means, preferring to send their child to as cheap a school as possible.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

> If you can't pay for it, it's not necessary.

Right. If you can't afford to feed you kids, just tell them "food isn't neecessary." Same goes for the house.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not insure my car. It's cheaper to just junk it, and buy a used one.

Well kudos to you for being financially responsible. Next time my wife gets sick I'll tell her it's cheaper to just junk her and find a new one.

To be truly financially responsible though, the new wife would have to be used. But considering the divorce rates these days, that shouldn't be too big a problem...

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried the torrents.

The first is a pr0n, and the second is a fake.

I was an undecided voter until I read your comment. Thank you for helping me to make this tough decision.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Jim_97]

http://mccainattacks.blogspot.com/ McCain Northwest Air Campaign Ties Exposed In Airline Profiling Attack Murder Attempts Ongoing Upon our family PLEASE SPREAD!- I think no matter who is elected this country is in very deep trouble- We must prepare ourselves-We are in Canada and still reaping the flagellation of a police state beyond contrition!! http://mccainattacks.blogspot.com/ We have just discovered a corporate CAMPAIGN tie as motivation linking MCCAIN TO ONGOING MURDER ATTEMPTS UPON MY MOTHER AND I B/C OF HIS NORTHWEST AIRLINES AFFILIATIONS AS PRIMARY CAMPAIGN SPONSOR-We were profiled and attacked on board a Northwest Airlines flight Jan 18/06,-I was left in a pool of blood, thereafter interrogated by FBI tried to link me to Alqueda, placed through FBI/CIA laden jury and now ongoing kidnapping attempts in Canada by local factions on behalf of U.S. afflict us. This is being done to silence our online voice and lobbying against Northwest- given the corporate and political interests tied to McCain we now see why we have been pursued to doggedly. Government Just Downed our website WWW.AARONJAMESSTORY.COM on Oct 6/08 just a few days prior, and two consecutive kidnapping attempts took place Oct 10th/and 13th thereafter.! resist1000@usa(dot)com *** http://mccainattacks.blogspot.com/ Presidential candidate John McCain I have now discovered, is deeply connected to the persecution ongoing against my mother and I in the wake of the Jan 18/06 Minneapolis Northwest Airlines profiling attack upon my mother and I (EVIDENCE BELOW), via his close association with Northwest Airlines, the official airline of his political campaign and the fact that his lawyers have Northwest Airlines as one of their top two primary clients!!- a detail which I have just this second uncovered, the most profound aspect, bar none of our ordeal. Our website: http://mccainattacks.blogspot.com/ Northwest Airlines Profiling attack, Northwest Air a McCain campaign affiliate and sponsor and amongst the top 2 clients of the McCain legal counsel. (proof and links below), now ongoing kidnapping attempts in Canada via Canadian police acting on behalf of U.S. to silence our online voice http://aaronjamesstory-importantlinks.blogspot.com/ THE EVIDENCE OF MCCAIN NORTHWEST AIRLINES TIES: ***--->>>Northwest Airlines is primary supporter of McCain re airlines CEO Douglass Steeland is very pro McCain and primary airlines supporter of his campaign complete with magazine photos and coverage in Daily Traveler magazine http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/northwest-airlines-supporting.php ARTICLE McCain Supporting Northwest Airlines: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/northwest-airlines-supporting.php "1) If you've taken a flight on Northwest Airlines in August you may have noticed the full cover of their in-flight magazine, World Traveler, greets you with the trio of Norm Coleman, John McCain, and Tim Pawlenty with the headline "The Republican's Are Coming!" The full-length photo identifies "Presidential candidate John McCain is flanked by Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty." Meanwhile Barack Obama gets a less than two inch inset headshot photo which fails to mention that he is a senator, also a Presidential candidate, oh, yeah, and that his name is Barack Obama. 2) Then there's the message from NWA President & CEO Doug Streland which reminds us that his airline is the official airline of the Republican convention. ... 3) Inside the magazine, the splashy feature article on the Republican convention includes the cover photo of t

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Danse]

This is why I'm voting for McCain. He saw this problem coming, and tried to stop it. Prescience is a quality we need in a President.

McCain voted for the legislation that is at least as much responsible for these problems as any of the CRA legislation. But I guess his superior foresight didn't allow him to see that. And the blind spots in his hindsight won't allow him to own up to it either. When you realize that there was a lot more than one single cause for the problems we have now, you'll be going into the election with your eyes open. Voting for McCain because "he saw this problem coming, and tried to stop it" is just ignorant and ascribes motives to his actions that you can't back up. If he was so concerned about what was coming, why did he vote to deregulate credit default swaps, thus allowing the entire AIG debacle to occur, ensuring that many banks would fail?

The truth is there were many things converging to cause the disaster. The CRA, the CFMA, the problems with the securities rating models and stock trading software, the really bad assumptions made about home prices, the rampant speculation going on. There's probably a lot more we don't even know about yet.

If it makes you feel better to oversimplify things in the extreme and boil it down to "McCain good. Obama bad.", then fine. But at least admit that that's what you're doing. Don't buy into the belief that one candidate or the other would have or could have foreseen this and prevented it, or that either one of them has any way of fixing it. The economists don't seem to believe either candidate is going to have much impact on the problem either way. It's too late. What can be done is being done already. It's going to have to run its course.

Fair use or Political attacks?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Why should McCain be against takedowns? That seems to be the entirety of his election strategy this year.

Sorry McCain

[larry bagina]

you completely shit on the first amendment with your campaign finance reform (aka incumbent protection). The sooner you die the better, asshole.

Oh please

[Exanon]

To think that the DMCA defenders would actually change their minds over this is ridiculous. They wont care about the DMCA since it doesn't affect them for the most part. Once the videos are back, the DMCA will once again be "a much needed weapon to save hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US, it said so right here in this report".

Re:Oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA saved my job, and my company. No argument here.

Re:Oh please

[morgan_greywolf]

To think that the DMCA defenders would actually change their minds over this is ridiculous. T

Is it? John McCain is one the DMCA's staunchest defenders and has been even more so since courting the current U.S. Olympic Chair Throwing Gold Medalist Steve Ballmer to be on his cabinet.

Re:Oh please

[Endymion]

So you're saying your job and company are dependent on a highly out-dated business model? Perhaps you should spend some time and money investing in something that will last into the future better...

Re:Oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying your job and company are dependent on a highly out-dated business model? Perhaps you should spend some time and money investing in something that will last into the future better...

You tell him!

The new business model/employment model is becoming groveling for handouts from Government. That's my new plan. While all of you are working your asses off for declining pay, especially in IT because IT - all of IT especially programming - is a commodity to be gotten anywhere for pennies on the dollar; I'll be collecting handouts from the Government that your tax dollars are paying for.

I tried the loser route of learning new skills, going to school and getting more degrees, but you know what? No one wants to hire a middle aged career changer.

So while your job is being sent overseas or becoming irrelevant because a company can get a free version (there's only so many service jobs for F/OSS to go around and they go overseas too.),I want you to know, I'm here sitting on my ass, Trolling Slashdot, rubbing in your faces that _I_ don't have to work and I'm just having a blast! I'm living the future of America!

So, thank you for working so hard.

Gotta go! My champagne spritzers an omlettes are ready. I also have to go to get another bottle of Johnny Walker Blue after my Mercedes is done at the shop. I'm having mink seat cushions put in and then I'm going to fuck a PETA chick on them.

Re:Oh please

[Jaysyn]

As a poster above said, just put political speech in the metadata of the media files that you are distributing & then let the fireworks ensue!

How many characters can you fit in the MP3 file format's comment field?

Re:Oh please

[jedidiah]

Won't work. Even if you take an mp3 file and tag it with
"I have a Dream.", the leeching family members of the
long dead author will decend upon you like a plague of
locusts. Nevermind the historical and cultural importance
of the work...

The whole "property" aspect of culture has become far too
ingrained.

Re:Oh please

[Jaysyn]

Make your own speech maybe? If you are that lazy you can just grab some creative commons licensed political speech.

Re:Oh please

[Sloppy]

I think he's saying he works for a snakeoil company, like Macrovision. Without DMCA, these companies wouldn't be around anymore, and their customers' profits would be up.

Re:Oh please

[cliffski]

You think that producing intellectual property is an 'out of date business model'?
if so, I hope you can provide for your kids with the earnings from your factory you own in China, because the more people like you try to justify widespread IP theft, the more the only people with any 'viable business model' are going to be those manufacturing physical goods, and you are delusional if the think the USA or Europe will beat china and Bangladesh at that.

Go peddle that "out of date business model" crap at torrentfreak or digg.

Re:Oh please

[jedidiah]

What part of the word HISTORICAL don't you understand?

Troglodyte philistine moron.

Re:Oh please

[Jaysyn]

I must be a moron because I have no idea why you think that the word historical has an important context in my previous response.

Nope, you are too smart for me.

Jackass.

schadenfreude

[praxis22]

They're only doing it because people are issuing take down notices for their on-line attack ads. They just can't get no love :)

Special Treatment

[Spazztastic]

All he is looking for is special treatment. I guarantee if someone posted a video that was not beneficial to his campaign or even detrimental he would not hesitate to thank the DMCA act for taking down the video.

Go ahead and mod this flamebait, I just don't think he should get special treatment just because he's a presidential candidate.

Re:Special Treatment

[MillionthMonkey]

I don't find his objection to the DMCA remarkable, in the light that he regularly ignores plain old cease and desist orders.

His campaign was playing "Barracuda" at Palin rallies without getting permission. Amy and Nancy Wilson of Heart got upset and he got a cease and desist letter. Even after this had all been in the news, they played Barracuda again as they dropped the balloons on Palin at the GOP convention.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

[JamesP]

Cry me a River.

I absolute LOVE THIS.

Republicans pushed for this. Don't like it? TOUGH

That's what's called hypocrisy.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans pushed for this.

Uh, you should look up the DMCA. It's the part in the right column at the bottom, the one that reads

# Signed into law by President Clinton on October 28, 1998

I think both parties are in agreement on copyright law, who ever has the cash gets to sue everybody else. Only when two giants like Viacom and Youtube go up against each other are they unsure of what to do.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[electrictroy]

here's the actual vote:
SENATE: 100% Democrats; 100% Republicans (unaminous)
HOUSE: 90% Democrats; 85% Republicans (veto-proof)
PRESIDENT:
Signed by *democrat* William J. Clinton in 1998.

What was that about being a "republican" bill? It looks like a typical Duopoly bill to me, supported by BOTH sides, since they both pretty much act alike.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[schwit1]

Hypocrisy is ignorant people who are clueless to the facts. Both parties are culpable in passing this abomination.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[IndustrialComplex]

here's the actual vote:
SENATE: 100% Democrats; 100% Republicans (unaminous)
HOUSE: 90% Democrats; 85% Republicans (veto-proof)
PRESIDENT:
Signed by *democrat* William J. Clinton in 1998.

What was that about being a "republican" bill? It looks like a typical Duopoly bill to me, supported by BOTH sides, since they both pretty much act alike.

People like the person you were addressing are a serious impediment to rational discourse on the internet. They are insulated by the web, and have created some sort of cognitive dissonance that hides the real world situation from themselves.

Typical fanboy behavior. Unfortunately, it applies to all aspects of society; Sports teams, cities, nations, ethnicities, OS, and obviously politicians all have their fanboys. What really bugs me is when people like him get so wound up in their own fanaticism that they begin to engage in the old practice of 'If I can't have it, then no one can.'

But thanks for looking up the vote totals. I like to see that sort of information tossed back at these fanatics at every opportunity regardless of claims to any political ideology.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical fanboy behavior.

You must not be up on your lingo sir. I beleive as of 2007 the correct spelling is fanboi.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Sounds good ranting about fanboys, but when I read the OP it certainly didn't sound that way. It did not sound like he was giving a free pass to non-republicans, only that republicans did vote for the bill by a very large margin and mccain, as a republican is getting his just desserts.

In fact, I think it is just as plausible that electrictoy favors the republicans since he expressly high lighted that Clinton was a *democrat* despite the fact that congress's vote were veto-proof, making the president's signature and thus his party, irrelevant.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Ded Bob]

Typical fanboy behavior. Unfortunately, it applies to all aspects of society; Sports teams, cities, nations, ethnicities, OS, and obviously politicians...

You forgot the most vehement categories: editors and shells. :)

I agree with you. While I highly prefer vim and zsh, I have no issue with someone else using Emacs or bash. Another thing to consider is that people are determined to see things in black and white. I am tired of hearing how there are only two options when Congress is deciding something. R's want one thing and D's want another. The two options will of course be (almost) complete opposites. Compromise or another possibility that does not upset either party is not an option.

Maybe the number of options proposed is related to the number of parties present in Congress?

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

"People like the person you were addressing are a serious impediment to rational discourse on the internet. They are insulated by the web, and have created some sort of cognitive dissonance that hides the real world situation from themselves."

Funny, I think the same about people only reading newspapers and watching tv, missing all the suppressed information only available on the net that the MSM won't show. But well, the DMCA, much like the recently passed PRO-IP Act and following laws will end this last resort of uncontrolled information soon. What, you thought this is all about copyright and piracy? Wake up already!

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[geminidomino]

In fact, I think it is just as plausible that electrictoy favors the republicans since he expressly high lighted that Clinton was a *democrat* despite the fact that congress's vote were veto-proof, making the president's signature and thus his party, irrelevant.

While one must either commend or pity you (depending on one's level of jaded cynicism) for being willing to give the benefit of the doubt, you're pretty much way off base here. Up above, electrictoy proved to be a rather vitriolic troll.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[jtev]

I dislike the term veto proof. A supermajority means that the veto is likely to be overridden, and when the margian is as great as it was for the DMCA it would greatly weaken the president to veto it, and force them to override it, but the president CAN veto any bill. It requires a separate vote to override it. Andrew Johnson vetoed many bills he thought were bad bills, and because the congress was overwhelmingly against him had more than half his vetos overridden, but he still vetoed them. Please be more careful with such terms in the future.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Just Some Guy]

What really bugs me is when people like him get so wound up in their own fanaticism that they begin to engage in the old practice of 'If I can't have it, then no one can.'

Off-topic: where I grew up, that was known as a "dog in a manger". The dog didn't want to eat the hay, but barked and growled at the cows who did want it.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

huh? At first you sound like you are disagreeing but then you agree?

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Sloppy]

So? Republicans still pushed for it. When Obama starts bitching, we can make fun of the Democrats too. But today is "Mock the Republicans" day, because they are the ones who are whining about the unfair laws they voted for. The Democrats aren't doing that. They're still pretending that the law is fair, so we can't call 'em on their hypocrisy just yet.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[E 99]

here's the actual vote:
SENATE: 100% Democrats; 100% Republicans (unaminous)
HOUSE: 90% Democrats; 85% Republicans (veto-proof)
PRESIDENT:
Signed by *democrat* William J. Clinton in 1998.

What was that about being a "republican" bill? It looks like a typical Duopoly bill to me, supported by BOTH sides, since they both pretty much act alike.

And Clinton still defends it, and says it has nothing to do with the current crisis:

"I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill ... On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence."

And though I despise Bill Clinton with every fiber of my being, I have to admit he makes an excellent point about the bill allowing some of the mergers that are now saving banks without the need for government to step in and help.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[E 99]

Um, disregard that. I thought we were still taking about... nevermind.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[chadenright]

You are mistaken. Ignorance is when ignorant people are clueless to the facts. To an extent, ignorance is forgivable. Hypocrasy is when someone has the facts and chooses to ignore them.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Danny Rathjens]

"Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." -- George Carlin

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[geminidomino]

I was disagreeing with your apparent qualifying electrictoy as a non-fanboy. :)

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[DrJimbo]

The original poster did NOT say it was a "Republican bill". The original poster said "Republicans pushed for this" which you seem to agree with.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[IndustrialComplex]

You must not be up on your lingo sir. I beleive as of 2007 the correct spelling is fanboi.

I did have to supress the urge to use that spelling. However, I like to post comments which could also be read aloud without sounding like it came from the internet. Fanboy cuts it close, but I do love the sound of the good old fashioned, fanatic.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's look at the 105th United States Congress (January 3, 1997 to January 3, 1999):

SENATE: 55 Republicans, 45 Democrats (Republican majority)
HOUSE: 228 Republicans, 206 Democrats (Republican majority)

And, of course, the President was a Democrat. But, as you readily admit, the Senate and House passed the DMCA with a veto-proof majority.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP sounds like one of those rank and file dems who are going to suddenly get real quiet and tolerant about government abuses if they start occuring while Obama is in power, much the same way they did when Clinton was in power.

I am really hoping that the majority of dems have learned that what you let your guy get away with, sets precedent for the next guy. As a proud Obama supporter this election, I intend to not sink into the partisan retardation of the past. When he is elected, he will be held accountable, exactly as the republicans should have held Bush accountable. I hope the OP and other partisan democrats understand the importance of holding their leaders accountable, as opposed to acting like rank and file republicans, pointing to the "other side" and saying "they did it, I'll do it too!"

One thing we need now more than ever in this country, is accountability in government. We won't get it as long as partisans close their eyes to the steaming piles produced by their "side".

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll fucking say anything to appear to be in the right, won't you.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You'll fucking say anything to appear to be in the right, won't you.

No, but I will say anything to appear to be in the left.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Well, I thought I was saying there is a good chance that he is one.

Oh, Please...

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Money != speech

Re:Oh, Please...

[schwit1]

Opinions vary.

Re:Oh, Please...

[aproposofwhat]

But

Money == <access to advertising slots>

Re:Oh, Please...

[larry bagina]

discussing a politician within 60 days of an election is speech.

Re:Oh, Please...

[corsec67]

So you would be fine with the government preventing you from buying supplies for your printer/press if they don't like what you are printing?

Re:Oh, Please...

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, Money >> speech

study shows most of us don't matter to megasloth

[Anonymous Coward]

totally expendable we are. things may change though, you can 'play' along if it suits you.

greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/28/what.matters.meltdown/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/07/atwood.debt/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/voting.problems/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ApTbxRfLnscxaGGuCocWlwq7YWsA/SIG=11qicue6l/**http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/meltdown_kashkari.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_us/newspapers_islam_dvd;_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE
(some yoga & yogurt makes killing/getting killed less stressful) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_us/warrior_mind;_ylt=A0wNcw9iXutIPkMBwzGs0NUE
(the old bait & switch...you're share of the resulting 'product' is a fairytail nightmare?)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_bi_ge/where_s_the_money;_ylt=A0wNcwJGwvFIZAQAE6ms0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situatio

What's good for the goose...

[cduffy]

McCain voted for a bill (the DMCA) that made service providers responsible for doing an immediate takedown of content alleged to have been improperly posted regardless of the merits of the complaint if they wanted the fullest protections the law could provide. Complaining when a company is complying in full with that law hardly seems fitting.

It's almost a shame the Obama campaign isn't submitting more content (defensible as fair use) that could be mechanically considered to infringe themselves; if this were the case, there would be less perception that YouTube is pushing a political agenda via their takedown process.

Re:What's good for the goose...

[FireFury03]

DMCA aside, videos published on the web don't *have* to be published through YouTube. If you don't like your publisher's policies, change publisher or publish it yourself. Americans are always very protective of the free market, and this is an example of why it is a good thing - there are alternatives to YouTube, use them.

Re:What's good for the goose...

[elrous0]

Obama doesn't HAVE to submit to anything to youtube. He already has the youth vote locked up, and plenty of young people to submit stuff FOR him, without even being asked). McCain is the one who is desperate to make himself relevant to the youth vote. That's why he's so concerned about anyone taking down his videos from the one venue where he might actually reach some voters under retirement age.

Re:What's good for the goose...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you "publish a video yourself", hosting providers have DMCA procedures as well. DMCA notices would still have to be processed, or the hosting providers risk losing their "safe harbor" provisions.

I guess that if you go the torrent route it's a bit more difficult to be served.

Re:What's good for the goose...

[Aladrin]

These alternatives to YouTube that will thumb their nose at the DMCA... What are they exactly? I'm assuming they're sites outside the US... And that they are in countries that don't have treaties with the US, either.

It's not a matter of company policy. It's a matter of complying with the law. They have no choice.

Re:What's good for the goose...

[EchaniDrgn]

Actually, this video was previously posted to the JohnMcCain.com website. I can't find it now and that may be due to the DMCA notice or what have you, but I think the reason for trying to post it to YouTube may be more of wanting people to watch it when searching YouTube for political videos.

Believe it or not some people are more likely to watch a video they randomly come across on YouTube rather than actually go to a campaigns website.

Here's one of many videos on the JohnMcCain.com site. The video that got the DMCA takedown was on a similar page.
http://www.johnmccain.com/videolanding/documentary.htm

Re:What's good for the goose...

[Phroggy]

Except that YouTube is the #2 search engine on the Web after Google (which owns YouTube), so if you want people to watch your videos...

Re:What's good for the goose...

[FireFury03]

These alternatives to YouTube that will thumb their nose at the DMCA

I didn't say that they would thumb their nose at the DMCA. His complaint seems to have 2 parts to it:
1. YouTube complies with DMCA takedown notices.
2. YouTube takes a long time to comply with requests to put the content back.

Clearly no sane service provider in the US is going to ignore takedown notices since that would lose them their safe harbour status. However, (2) isn't governed by the law, so if he doesn't like it he can go find an alternative to YouTube which puts content back faster.

If he doesn't like (1) then he can damned well run his own server and ignore the notices - a service provider does *not* have to comply with DMCA takedown notices, they just lose their safe harbour status if they don't.

Also, he really shouldn't be complaining at YouTube about this problem - the DMCA requires that anyone sending take-down notices must do so in good faith after determining that the content isn't being used under fair use laws. If someone sends bogus takedown notices regarding your content then your argument is with them, not the service provider - he should be suing the people issuing the notices.

Re:What's good for the goose...

[FireFury03]

Actually, this video was previously posted to the JohnMcCain.com website.

In that case, there is no grounds to his comment: "there is no justification for depriving the American people of access to important and timely campaign videos during that period." - if it is on his own website then no one is being deprived of access to it. I wouldn't mind betting that it wasn't hosted by his own server at all though - it was probably just an embedded YouTube video.

Believe it or not some people are more likely to watch a video they randomly come across on YouTube rather than actually go to a campaigns website.

Shouldn't that be cause for concern? There's no way to authenticate the source of the video when it's on YouTube, so a campaign that actively endorses campaign videos on YouTube seems to be asking for trouble.

Bunch of damn pinko commies

[overshoot]

They don't seem to realize that this is John McCain they're dealing with not some nobody prole.

Re:Bunch of damn pinko commies

[elrous0]

He should hire some lobbyists to get this "DMCA" law repealed. Doesn't he understand how politics works?

here's...

[cosmocain]

...the whole letter. While it's an interesting read - does anybody know if McCain voted pro-DMCA?

Re:here's...

[Sebilrazen]

Senate voted unanimous consent with the House's passage. So for all intents and purposes, yes he voted for it.

Re:here's...

[RichiH]

Of course he did.

Re:here's...

[drfireman]

Typical lawyer letter -- pretends to genuinely believe youtube has no good reason to take down the videos, when in fact they do.

I don't know if any lawyers are reading this, but if so, can someone explain what the word "automatonically" means?

Re:here's...

[Hognoxious]

I think it's similar to automagically, except instead of a spell it uses a robot.

Re:here's...

[drfireman]

You lawyers are all the same -- always defining big words I don't understand in terms of other big words I don't understand.

Perhaps you shouldn't have voted for it...

[Endymion]

If this law is hampering your campaign, why did you vote for it, McCain?!

I'd say you could potentially gain back some of your totally trampled credibility by suddenly proposing a repeal of the DMCA with your senate position, but I somehow doubt that such a miracle would occur...

Re:Perhaps you shouldn't have voted for it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he was for it before he was against it.

Re:Perhaps you shouldn't have voted for it...

[east coast]

If pushing to reform the DMCA is all it will take to put a real dent in his current voter deficit than God help us all.

Seriously, in light of all the other issues we currently have going on it's not that big of a deal. Even if the problems we face today (the economy, energy crisis, so on and so forth) are really just a problem of perception it's still causing a real rift in society.

And given the high pro-DMCA vote, I doubt even if McCain or Obama ripped into the law with a zealot-like fury that it would get anywhere beyond a revision that would make political material exempt.

In some ways it's good to see a bit of backlash only because it will keep the legislatures eyes open to the potential for future technology to be marginalized by wide sweeping laws such as the DMCA but I don't know how much this single incident will have a long term effect on the minds of those on The Hill.

Re:Perhaps you shouldn't have voted for it...

[Anonymous Coward]

If this law is hampering your campaign, why did you vote for it, McCain?!

Do you expect him to read every bill that he votes for?

Re:Perhaps you shouldn't have voted for it...

[SupremoMan]

If this law is hampering your campaign, why did you vote for it, McCain?!

Easy there. At the time he had no idea what the internets was.

Re:Perhaps you shouldn't have voted for it...

[atomicxblue]

He would have to actually go into the office for that to happen... hey wait.. how do I get one of these jobs again? Is there some kind of job fair? :p

Re:Perhaps you shouldn't have voted for it...

[Endymion]

I said he could gain some credibility back, not swing votes...

Changing votes will change a LOT more.

I'm just talking about a way he could maintain at least a SMALL bit of respect...

A politician's solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

...would be to amend the DCMA to exempt political speech, perhaps by pre-registering certain users as exempt from takedown.

There, now the freedom to post campaign ads is unaffected.

Did he support that?

[Jodka]

McCain was a senator when the DMCA was enacted. Did he vote for it?

Re:Did he support that?

[faedle]

It passed the Senate unanimously.

So, yes.

Body of the letter

[will_die]

The letter is available at http://lessig.org/blog/YouTube%20copyright%20letter%2010.13.08.pdf.

Re:Body of the letter

[TheSpoom]

Interesting stuff. They have a point in that there is no automatic requirement to take down content upon receipt of a letter. That said, YouTube has a point in that they should not be forced to be the judge and jury as to whether or not the content is, in fact, infringement. What if they didn't take it down and the original complainant went to court, and the court found it infringing? YouTube would then be liable for the infringement as well, when it would be much cheaper for them in the long run to simply take down the video in the first place.

The main problem with the DMCA takedown provisions is that they force the provider to assume guilt on the part of the uploader, lest they become liable for the possible infringement later shown in court.

Re:Body of the letter

[tbannist]

Besides, there are people who are just looking for a reason to sue YouTube. And that would be just about every single media company in existence. If they can bankrupt YouTube that means they get another chance to own the pipe as well as it's contents, which provides strategic advantage to their content.

Suck it up and deal with it like everybody else...

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys came up with the dumb law and voted for it. Oh, wait, I know a solution. It's a crazy idea, but maybe a bunch of legislators like yourselves might get together and CHANGE THE FRICKING LAW?

And, no, I don't mean emending it to make special exceptions for politicians and different rules for every other citizen.

Checkmate

[IndustrialComplex]

If anything happens, they'll just see to it that the DMCA doesn't apply to political ads.

That would be perfect.

Since there does exist an actual http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party Pirate Party. Now put a political message in the metadata of your files, and claim your exemption.

I'm certain that The Pirate Party would have no issue endorsing files so that they received DCMA exemptions.

(The Pirate Party of Podunk County has approved this message)

Re:Checkmate

[IndustrialComplex]

DCMA exemptions.

Err... DMCA exemptions.

(I suppose my username + mixing up DMCA/DCMA exemptions indicates one hell of a Freudian Slip.)

Re:Checkmate

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure why you needed to tell us you have a sexual fetish for Joel and Benji Madden.

Re:Checkmate

[ZorbaTHut]

Don't worry, "political party" will be carefully defined so it only applies to Democrats and Republicans.

Re:Checkmate

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Well, any party that gets more than 5% in a nationwide vote. Sometimes third parties make the cut (look at Perot).

Re:Checkmate

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything happens, they'll just see to it that the DMCA doesn't apply to political ads.

Don't worry, "political party" will be carefully defined so it only applies to Democrats and Republicans.

Don't worry, if the Democrats get elected "political party" will be carefully defined so it only applies to Democrats.

Re:Checkmate

[CodeBuster]

Is there a branch of the Pirate Party here in the United States? Wouldn't it be cool if someone asks your registration and you could say, "Yeah, I'm a registered Pirate".

Re:Checkmate

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a branch of the Pirate Party here in the United States? Wouldn't it be cool if someone asks your registration and you could say, "Yeah, I'm a registered Pirate".

Matey I be thinkin' ye meant t' be sayin' "Yarrrr, I be a registered Pirate."

Money!!

[g0es]

I see this going down like this. McCain will complain about fair use and the DMCA, the RIAA and friends will "lobby" and all of a sudden McCain's camp will stop complaining. It would probably go down the same way for Obama. I don't beleive that the candidates are really the issue, just part of the system, I blame the parties. The political parties in this country have really mucked things up.

Blame youtube

[Vexorian]

Fox and CBS send the notices, but... let's blame youtube, I mean, McCain campaign fighting with Fox News would have been so awesome, but they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot like that...

Obama foresaw this and prevented it

[MobyDisk]

Anyone remember this article?
Obama Requests Creative Commons for Presidential Debates

That is when I started liking the guy. Seems like he was even more prescient than I thought.

Re:Obama foresaw this and prevented it

[Veretax]

Query? Would making political speech under creative commons allow people to edit, change, alter and redistribute things without keeping the initial Text intact? I've seen a few transcripts in the AP that clearly were edited, sometimes in favor, or against a particular candidate, and sometimes blatantly wrong.

Re:Obama foresaw this and prevented it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be more impressed if he requested a law repealing a very broken law beneficial only to special interests desperate to preserve a broken business model... but perhaps I'm asking too much.

Re:Obama foresaw this and prevented it

[Lijemo]

Query? Would making political speech under creative commons allow people to edit, change, alter and redistribute things without keeping the initial Text intact? I've seen a few transcripts in the AP that clearly were edited, sometimes in favor, or against a particular candidate, and sometimes blatantly wrong.

It would depend on which Creative Commons license was used.

Re:Obama foresaw this and prevented it

[CodeBuster]

Seems like he was even more prescient than I thought.

I suppose the McCain ought to get himself a no chamber in which to conduct his strategy meetings to counter-act the prescience of Obama.

Want to end the campaign now? Ask this:

[IndustrialComplex]

I would love to have this question asked at tonight's debate.

"Senator McCain, your campaign is complaining that it is being unfairly censored by the DMCA. How do you reconcile your complaint when you yourself voted for this exact measure?

I'm no Obama supporter, but I'd love to watch him answer that question.

Dongles can be circumvented when...

[angahar]

Administrative exceptions to DMCA as of 2006: "Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. (Revised from a similar exemption approved in 2003.)"

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Ha Ha!

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Hey McCain,

Its your bill, in at least the fact that you voted for it?

Since you're a Senator are you going show some genuine spine, and sponsor legislation to change or repeal that POS?

Pot, meet Kettle

[barbergeek]

"Oh, so THAT's what Fair Use means."

Oh the ironey of it all!!

[mlwmohawk]

It must really suck when a law you voted for doesn't work out the way you like.

The law of unintended results.

Re:Oh the ironey of it all!!

[Foobar of Borg]

It must really suck when a law you voted for doesn't work out the way you like.

If only politicians had to suffer the consequences of the laws they create more often. Then, maybe we would start to get decent legislation.

Re:Oh the ironey of it all!!

[scot4875]

It must really suck when a law you voted for doesn't work out the way you like.

The law of unintended results.

Law of unintended results? Is McCain old enough to have voted for that one, too?

--Jeremy

Figures... it only matters if it's THEIR videos...

[Doug52392]

Why is it that politicians don't give a damn about an issue even though millions of people protest it, speak out against it, etc, until they are affected? How long have we been saying the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 2000 was evil? Since, I don't know, maybe 2000??? And did they ever care?

So politicians don't care, but the second a politician is affected by an injustice, they speak out about it, protest it, etc? Wow, talk about slow. Maybe if the politicians cared about these issues BEFORE the issues are written into injust laws, we wouldn't have this problem to begin with.

How many YouTube videos have been removed using the truly unjust DMCA Act? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Remember those anti-Scientology videos, that used free speech to get the message out about the (cult) of Scientology? The ones that got removed by the thousands because some guy filed 3,000 DMCA takedown notices?

And the politicians don't care about 3,000 protest videos being deleted from YouTube, but they sure as hell get their lawyers and press people to issue statements denouncing the DMCA Act due to a few removed campaign videos.

(I do at least give him credit for issuing a statement)

One republican did do something

[CustomDesigned]

While most republicans did ignore the looming crisis, McCain not only warned that mortgages needing reform before they imploded, but signed onto bills to do just that - including in 2007 (although it was likely too late by then). He was ridiculed by both sides of the aisle. And yes, I am aware of how Bush fanned the flames of the mortgage mess.

Web Forms - So you can laugh at your Senator

[The Breeze]

Here's a copy of an email I sent to my fellow Arizonan:

Ah, John. Your ill-advised vote back in 1998 for the DMCA has come back to bite you. It was with great pleasure that I read that Youtube was taking down your campaign videos due to a DMCA demand by Fox and CBS. You helped pass it. Sir, Barry Goldwater was a conservative. William Buckley was a conservative. A conservative wants FEWER laws, not more. LESS government regulation, not more. A conservative encourages a business-friendly environment - NOT a "business gets anything it wants" environment. You have forgotten the difference, and now you are paying the price. Your presidential campaign is all but over. You have lost the conservative base with your poorly-thought-out desperate attempts to please everyone. You had us, right until you took the supremely idiotic step of suspending your campaign - which was a clear political ploy that backfired. Capitalism is vital, but part of the price of capitalism is sometimes suffering failure. Bankruptcy, too is part of the failure process - entrepreneurs and other people need to know that they have a chance to start over if they fail. Your vote on the Bankruptcy Act of 2005, making it MORE difficult for all but the richest Americans to declare bankruptcy was another gift to business. And still, you persist in giving business whatever they want, at the expense of average Americans, with your recent idiotic vote on the "Copyright Czar" legislation. The record companies and motion picture companies have a broken business model that is being supplanted by new technologies, and like your ridiculous bank bailout bill you have chosen to give them what they want rather than letting them pay the price of failure. I will be voting for Bob Barr this election, not out of any hope that he will win, but rather in the hope that Republican political operatives will realize that increasing numbers of their traditional base can no longer stomach voting for so-called "Republicans" who don't seem any different from Democrats. I look forward to supporting your continued efforts in the Senate on behalf of Arizona, but your presidential campaign is over.

Re:Web Forms - So you can laugh at your Senator

[Cormacus]

I would dearly like to hear if you get any response to this letter (especially if it's anything more than the standard, canned response).

Re:Web Forms - So you can laugh at your Senator

[zooblethorpe]

Ditto Cormacus's post -- news (and details) of any non-canned reply by the McCain campaign would be most interesting.

Cheers,

Re:Want to end the campaign now? Ask this:

[writermike]

Well, I don't know how he'd answer, but I suspect it will involve the phrase, "my friends." :-D

McCain has no shot.

[tjstork]

either of them win

McCain has no shot. A great many Republicans, including myself do not like his random and inconsistent posturing, are offended by his attack ads, and honestly think he has the sort of speechmaking ability that can sell the USA to itself and to the world.

I think the Republican Party needs to lay low for a few years, be an opposition party, and come up with a new plan and a new message. We've played all the old cards and its time to come up with the something new.

Re:McCain has no shot.

[Ioldanach]

I think the Republican Party needs to lay low for a few years, be an opposition party, and come up with a new plan and a new message. We've played all the old cards and its time to come up with the something new.

Maybe they could become the party of fiscal responsibility and small government again, it worked pretty well before they abandoned it a couple decades ago. They keep airing ads about "those tax and spend liberals," which are funny coming from what's now the party of tax and spend conservatives.

Re:McCain has no shot.

[Danny Rathjens]

It's more like "spend and spend conservatives", rather than "tax and spend". All that debt comes from somewhere.

Re:McCain has no shot.

[Bryansix]

They don't need to lie low to do that. They just need to ask Net Gingrich to run for President!

Re:Figures... it only matters if it's THEIR videos

[The Second Horseman]

Because most people don't give a damn about anything until it personally affects them? That's human nature. That's why McCain is freaking out about the poll numbers lately - people generally vote their wallets, with occasionally security concerns winning out.

The reason we hear about the DMCA here on Slashdot is because it has an effect on the typical Slashdot reader. A group who isn't very representative of the population. You think it's based on principle? Hah. Simple rationalization.

Re:Want to end the campaign now? Ask this:

[IndustrialComplex]

My friends, I've always been a maverick and an outsider. So when I voted for the DMCA, I knew that I was sticking it to the man. Because, as a Senator, I am 'The Man'. It was the most logical way for me to stick it to myself.

Re:Want to end the campaign now? Ask this:

[aardwolf64]

There's a difference between voting to have a regulation in place, and having that regulation enforced unfairly. This wouldn't even be an issue if YouTube was taking down Obama videos as well.

It's actually not so much about YouTube not taking them down as it is that Fox and CBS aren't requesting Obama's videos be taken down.

Funny ....

[gstoddart]

If this was a 30 second video of a baby dancing to a Prince song, McCain wouldn't think that YouTube was doing anything untoward by obeying a take down video. The fact that this is a political message doesn't mean that YouTube pretty much has to comply with a DMCA notice if it actually looks valid, right?

This seems more like it's whining over the fact that it's his video which is being taken down. Maybe he should be pissed at CBS and Fox for ordering the takedown of his stuff and sue them.

This sounds like selective outrage to me. If Di$ney was issuing notices over Steam Boat Willie, McCain would think they're just protecting their interests and that's OK.

Cheers

Re:Funny ....

[DragonTHC]

I have to agree. He thinks his use isn't commercial. His goal may not be money, but it's definitely commercial. It's even called a commercial.

He thinks he should be immune from the DMCA. I say BS. Since several artists have already complained about McCain using their work without authorization, I think it only fair.

Jackson Browne has sued the McCain campaign, and Ann and Nancy Wilson have derided the McCain campaign for unauthorized use.

I am glad McCain is getting a taste of his own medicine.

Evidence

[aardwolf64]

I submit as evidence the following list of videos posted by Obama's official campaign including CBS footage:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=obama+cbs++BarackObamadotcom&as=1&and_queries=obama+cbs++BarackObamadotcom&exact_query=&or_queries=&negative_queries=&geo_name=&geo_latlong=&search_duration=&search_hl=&search_category_type=all&search_sort=&uploaded=

Re:Evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's evidence that your evidence is meaningless, a list of videos posted by the McCain campaign including Fox footage.

King William V

[Hognoxious]

I wasn't aware of the 70% (someone else said 2/3) rule. Let's not quibble over a few percent.

Just imagine that it wasn't there and Clinton had vetoed the bill - can you imagine the cries there'd have been from supporters of the bill? Which in a way is understandable, since all that 1776 business was about not letting one guy make all the decisions.

Re:King William V

[electrictroy]

If Clinton had vetoed the bill, it's entirely possible some of the Congress people (especially the Democrats) would have sided with him, and changed their votes to "no".

Glass-Steagall might still be in effect.

Hope so..

[tjstork]

Maybe they could become the party of fiscal responsibility and small government again

I would certainly hope so. I mean, seriously, I see all these ads about how Democrats are in favor of big government and I can't imagine anyone expanding federal power more than Bush has.

Even FDR did not socialize banking the way Bush has. I think conservatives who foolishly support Bush's domestic surveillance will come around when they realize that Obama will have those same tools as well.

Media has a vested interest in a tight race

[spun]

They don't love Obama, if they did, they would be crowing about how the election is already in the bag. Democrates have over 270 electoral votes, within the margin of polling error. It's a done deal, we've won the presidency. The only question is, will Democrats take a filibuster proof supermajority in both houses? If the media were really liberal, instead of greedy, they would tell the truth. But a tight race means more viewers, so they continue to make it seem closer than it is.

Re:Media has a vested interest in a tight race

[MillionthMonkey]

I don't think we've won the presidency. Someone filled out "Mickey Mouse" on a registration card and handed it to ACORN. It's illegal for ACORN to throw those cards in the trash, so Mickey Mouse got registered.

Since we're all now afraid of dead people and Mickey Mouse showing up to vote, we're dumping hundreds of thousands of voters from Democratic-leaning districts in swing states, because that must be where Mickey Mouse lives.

Re:Media has a vested interest in a tight race

[R2.0]

They don't love Obama, if they did, they would be crowing about how the election is already in the bag. Democrates have over 270 electoral votes, within the margin of polling error. It's a done deal, we've won the presidency. The only question is, will Democrats take a filibuster proof supermajority in both houses?

Three words: "Dewey Defeats Truman" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman

If the media were really liberal, instead of greedy, they would tell the truth. But a tight race means more viewers, so they continue to make it seem closer than it is.

I would be THRILLED if the media declared Obama the victor - it would guarantee a McCain victory. It would fire up the Republican base and depress the Democrats turnout - why bother voting when the election is in the bag? 19 days is a looooong time, especially this year. THAT's why the media hasn't done so - it would hurt Obama, and could not possibly help him.

But I encourage you strongly to keep telling everyone how the election is already won.

Re:Media has a vested interest in a tight race

[spun]

Are you honestly comparing polling these days with polling in the days of Dewey and Truman? You had ONE paper back then calling it a little early and getting it wrong. You have DOZENS of polls showing Obama with a double digit lead.

The Republican base is as fired up as they can possibly get, have you listened to them foaming at the mouth as their leaders egg them on to violence and hate? The Republican 'base' is a tiny group of wingnuts, Republicans have always had to sway independents.

There is also nothing that will stop tens of millions of new voters, who are screened out by traditional polling methods, from coming out to vote for Obama.

I love your unsubtle attempt at reverse psychology, too. Hilariously desperate!

Re:Media has a vested interest in a tight race

[R2.0]

I don't think we've won the presidency. Someone filled out "Mickey Mouse" on a registration card and handed it to ACORN. It's illegal for ACORN to throw those cards in the trash, so Mickey Mouse got registered.

ACORN is, in the least, being disingenuous when they use that explanation. ACORN hires people to go get registrations done, and incentivises the quantity of ballots brought in, and then provides lax supervision of the methods their employees use. There is also evidence that ACORN had set quotas of forms to be collected, encouraging fraud. Also, while they may be required to turn all the cards in, ACORN's practice is to dump all of the cards into the county office in one shot, overwhelming them. ACORN "flags" the ones that they have found fraudulent, but that gets lost in the flood.

Since we're all now afraid of dead people and Mickey Mouse showing up to vote, we're dumping hundreds of thousands of voters from Democratic-leaning districts in swing states, because that must be where Mickey Mouse lives.

No, it's because ACORN chooses to run its drives in those districts, and since a significant portion of the registrations that have passed through ACORN's hands have been found to be suspect, ALL have been tainted, and now must be reviewed in closer detail. So because ACORN chooses to focus on getting as many Democrat registrations as possible by whatever means necessary, so as to inflate their own importance and create a sense of debt to them from the Democrats, they have impugned ALL of what they are doing.

Oh, and the registrations aren't being "dumped"; they are being more closely scrutinized. If ACORN wouldn't have told their people "make your quota or get fired" (testimony in Ohio from 2 former employees), then they wouldn't be in this situation.

Re:Media has a vested interest in a tight race

[R2.0]

"Are you honestly comparing polling these days with polling in the days of Dewey and Truman? You had ONE paper back then calling it a little early and getting it wrong. You have DOZENS of polls showing Obama with a double digit lead.

Truman was behind in ALL the polling that year - far behind. That one reporter in that one newspaper jumped the gun, and it became emblematic of political overconfidence and journalistic sloppiness, but the Chicago Tribune wasn't the lone voice in the wilderness.

The Republican base is as fired up as they can possibly get, have you listened to them foaming at the mouth as their leaders egg them on to violence and hate? The Republican 'base' is a tiny group of wingnuts, Republicans have always had to sway independents.

Nice try on the ad hominem, but by that criteria the Democrat base is a bunch of communist union thugs who coerce their own people into voting Democrat "or else". Oh, and do you have a cite for "egg them on to violence and hate?" I listen to the news pretty regularly - NPR, if you must know - and haven't heard anything of the sort.

There is also nothing that will stop tens of millions of new voters, who are screened out by traditional polling methods, from coming out to vote for Obama.

That is also the group LEAST likely to actually vote, registered or not. They MAY come to the polls in historic numbers, but they haven't in the past. Hell, the "Obama Girl" didn't even vote in the primary - she was sick (although apparently well enough to attend a party the night of the primary). It's easy to stop for 5 minutes and fill out a form between classes when some cute girl/guy asks you to - is that same cutie going to drive you to the polls?

I love your unsubtle attempt at reverse psychology, too. Hilariously desperate!

Whew, way to miss the sarcasm, or do you really think that I'm so stupid as to believe I could convince you that you are incorrect? In your desire to convince yourself that the coming Democrat landslide is assured you have come up with a contrived argument as to why the press dislikes Obama, faulting them for not trumpeting his impending victory in spite of every J-school grad having the "Dewey Defeats Truman" photo taught in Journalism 101.

But there are other possible explanations: the press isn't in the tank for Obama, but they certainly don't want to look like fools if something unforeseen happens to tank Obama's popularity OR they are in the tank for Obama and they don't want to jinx him. Go look up William of Ockham - he lived hundreds of years ago but he'd think that I'm more likely right than you are.

Re:Media has a vested interest in a tight race

[spun]

Really, you haven't heard McCain and Palin implying that Obama is a terrorist, and the crowds shouting 'Kill Him?'

Of course the election is not actually in the bag, it won't be until election day. But the RNC seems to think McCain doesn't stand a chance, they are withdrawing funding from McCain to focus on House and Senate races that they thought were a sure thing, but are turning into tough contests. McCain is conceding and pulling out of key battleground states. Maybe I was a little trollish in saying, "It's in the bag," but it's not much of a stretch, especially when you look at how the overall numbers reflect on electoral college votes. It's not just a double digit lead, it's a lead in all the key states necessary to win.

Re:Media has a vested interest in a tight race

[Capsaicin]

Maybe I was a little trollish in saying, "It's in the bag,"

Maybe you were. However you were being insightful when you pointed out that the media have a pecuniary interest in portraying the race (indeed any race) as being much closer than it actually is.

Re:Media has a vested interest in a tight race

[Shakrai]

It's not just a double digit lead, it's a lead in all the key states necessary to win.

More than that, McCain needs to win practically all of those contested states to get to 270. Obama only needs to win one decent sized one (VA, OH or FL) or 2-3 little ones (CO, NV, NM, NH) to get to 270.

It could all be over before the polls even close in my state (9pm EST). VA/OH and FL all close at 8pm. If McCain doesn't win all three of them he is toast.

McCain is embarrassed

[Rabbi Shmabbi]

All those YouTube videos showing him putting his foot in his mouth. I can understand why they want to get those videos yanked.

Re:Figures... it only matters if it's THEIR videos

[Anonymous Coward]

And now we've got the PRO-IP Act / Copyright Czar crap to deal with now.

I wonder how many elected officials have open Wi-fi or even simple WEP protection. Time to start torrenting of their connections...Muwahahahaha !

Sadly, any infractions on their part will probably get swept under the rug.

Funny

[kellyb9]

I find it funny that if you chance "McCain" in the title to "Obama", this would be one giant outrage. As it stands now, people only care about the DMCA when it affects them.

Re:Funny

[ChefInnocent]

If you read many of the comments, you would have found that there are many who would love to see Obama run against this problem too. The tone of the comments might contain slight differences. However, overall, people generally dislike the DMCA, and we find enjoyment in the irony of McCain having to suffer the consequences of his vote in favor of this law he now cries against.

Re:Want to end the campaign now? Ask this:

[geminidomino]

It was the most logical way for me to stick it to myself.

I heard the GOP was moving away from courting the rabid religious, but come on... that's a bit much. There's not enough Draino in the world to get that image out of my head.

you bastard...

Irony, Beautiful Irony

[MarkvW]

The caption says all I want to say here.

Oddly interesting. in my foriegn point of view.

[Magdalene]

Perhaps the Republican Candidate's response is linked to all the hell they got in for attempting to fraudulently use all those songs in their campaign ads that were later pulled because the artists who owned the songs had not given their consent? Perhaps the party had been downloading them..

But, what do I know. I just watched the rest of my country re elect the same bozo into the same minority government Proving that people everywhere get their IQ's lopped off at the knees when elections star. . At least the Head Bozo didn't get the Majority he wanted, Things remain pretty much the same as they were yesterday. Except Prime minister Bozon gets to be happy he keeps the key to the club pool house.

Down South on the other-hand, Oh jeez I am so happy I am not having to live through the election poop you guys are having to go through with the Wicked witch of the way up norther than here. If she gets to be your new VP you can bet Shiny new apples will be on his desk every morning. **insert high pitched cackle, poof of badly animated smoke with the word *POOF* written on it in big bold 24p letters, hairpins clattering to the ground here**, and she'll be *GONE!* off to speed back to the the community centre to see how her 'babies without birthrights' Christis (silent T of course) meeting, to see about housing for these misguided young 'mothers to be' Freedom Centres to borrow from Margaret Atwood, a Freedom 'From' Centre more likely: "We would provide for all her needs and expenses, she would have access to doctors, counsellors and peers on call for her 24 hours a day, in a safe, secure environment, free from stresses that might unduly effect the health of the mother or the baby she is carrying!" in Palinese it sounds nice, but translated into English our 'scenario gets a tad more complicated: Forced Confinement, Constant 24 hour monitoring, 24 hour full propaganda assault, total control of her environment,
I know, I am not an American, but I may in fact have far more experience that she in foreign policy. While she can say she can see Russia from her house. Not only can I see the USA from my house, but I have been to it several times and also, I can speak the language, and oddly 'some of my best friends are American. ;
-m

Born, Rubin and Greenspan

[boombaard]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR2008101403343_pf.html today was also fairly interesting to read, even though it does lack (references to) some background info needed to fully understand the impact..

When the rules you vote for come back to haunt you

[jriding]

Wow it really sucks when the rules that you agree to come back to bite you in the butt..

next up I hope every senator and congressmen have to use the normal (what most people have) health insurance. Then maybe they will start to look at the health insurance companies and fix that.

and no I do not be live in socializing medical treatment, but something should be done with the health insurance companies.

Verbal Prohibition

[NicknamesAreStupid]

The RIAA and MPAA have successfully created a tremendous opportunity for some totally obnoxious person to exploit the hell out of the DMCA and recently enacted IP legislation. These things always have unintended consequences, and this one really seems prone for huge ones. Rather that fight it, look at ways to get rich by restricting the distribution of "something that shouldn't be restricted" such as EULAs, news stories, terms of service agreements, proper names, religious texts, or anything else that has been copyrighted yet gone nowhere commercially.

The fastest way to end this is to find a way that the little guy (read: unemployed lawyer) can get rich off it.

dumbest right wing in the world

[justleavealonemmmkay]

Meanwhile, HBO and Comedy central with their far left leaning show hosts are still readily available to my liberal european eyes (and they are funnier too)

Not if you do it right

[Weaselmancer]

The difference is, when you do get to see them it can bankrupt you (even if you thought you had insurance).

My wife had to have a very expensive procedure done. Twice. I'm not going to get into it but it did wind up costing more than the house we live in.

The doctor would not proceed with the procedure until after we contacted our insurance carrier and got a letter of confirmation from them. We told them what we wanted done, they said ok, and once the doc had the letter in hand the procedure would commence.

All you really need to do is contact your insurance beforehand and CYA. It's not such a big deal.

BTW, my wife's condition is ultra-rare, there are only 3 or 4 specialists in our entire state, and we've never had to wait more than a week. Hell, they'll call us if they think we should have a checkup and schedule it for us. I don't know where you go for your medicine, but if they're making you wait for months on end you should shop around more and find some people who care.

Re:Not if you do it right

[the_macman]

My girlfriend has a condition where her front teeth couldn't touch because her bottom jaw was misaligned. It caused her a lot of pain and she couldn't smile or chew properly.

The operation was going to cost $40k+.

She got a letter from her insurance company handed it to the doctor and the operation was completed. Shortly after all, these bills started showing up and the insurance company reneged on their promise. They claimed it was a "cosmetic surgery". After two years of legal battle they finally yielded and paid the doctor.

So I'm sorry you're wrong. Your letter isn't a golden ticket to hassle free surgery.

Re:Not if you do it right

[Falstius]

I'm thinking more along the lines of orthopedic surgeons than ultra-rare specialists and ultra-rare conditions. There is by definition very little demand in those situations. I'm glad your wife got the care she needed, many people are not so fortunate.

As a side note, not all countries with universal health care are as socialized as the UK and Canada. Many rely on private insurence companies whose profits are highly regulated. They then compete based on efficiency. I think the last statistic I heard was that 60% of healthcare costs in the US go to the insurance companies, there is clearly room for improvement.

Re:Not if you do it right

[Weaselmancer]

Well, I didn't claim it would be hassle-free. I just said you won't be bankrupted. And your girlfriend wasn't. Because you had the letter. You wouldn't have won your court case without it, I'd wager.

So I think your story reinforces my point rather than invalidates it.

BTW, if you documented the whole thing well enough I'd recommend suing them for your time and expense. What they tried to do is breach of contract. It's illegal and deserves to be punished. And your girlfriend deserves to be compensated for her difficulties.

Re:Not if you do it right

[5of0]

BTW, my wife's condition is ultra-rare, there are only 3 or 4 specialists in our entire state, and we've never had to wait more than a week.

I'm just saying...3-4 specialists in a state doesn't qualify for me as "ultra-rare." Rare, yes. Ultra-rare sounds like one of those things where there are like 3-4 specialists in the country.

But that doesn't really matter. As mentioned in a sibling post, ultra-rare (or rare) means less demand. That's kind of the issue with the waiting thing, is overloading. If there's no one with the condition, there's no one in line in front of you.

Re:Not if you do it right

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to get into it but it did wind up costing more than the house we live in. ...

  you should shop around more and find some people who care.

Sir, I regret to inform you that you are a jerkoff.

Re:Not if you do it right

[glyph42]

The doctor would not proceed with the procedure until after we contacted our insurance carrier and got a letter of confirmation from them.

At least you didn't have a bu-reau-crat standing in between you and your doctor!

Re:Not if you do it right

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, my wife's condition is ultra-rare, there are only 3 or 4 specialists in our entire state, and we've never had to wait more than a week.

Well, perhaps this is why you didn't have to wait more than a week? :P It's quite possible it's rare enough that even 3-4 specialists for the entire state are overkill for it.

Re:Not if you do it right

[bluefoxlucid]

Your letter is, however, a golden ticket for calling news crews, getting punitive damages, and coming out richer after the surgery.

Re:Not if you do it right

[SETIGuy]

All you really need to do is contact your insurance beforehand and CYA. It's not such a big deal.

I don't know where you are living. Here in the SF Bay Area the wait come in trying to see a specialist in the first place. You get a list of potential "service providers" from your insurance and you start calling. The most common response will be "I'm sorry, Dr. Jones isn't taking on any new patients at this time." If you keep calling long enough you might be able to find someone that will see you in 8 months or so.

At one point I was in an emergency room with someone in the process of slowly dying. The nurse handed us a phone book and phone so we could find someone who could perform an emergency procedure. According to Senator McCain, I have a gold plated health plan. Yeah, private health care works great...

Re:Not if you do it right

[sumdumass]

Your a damn liar.

It is illegal for an emergency room to deny emergency medical treatment to anyone based on their ability to pay. This is part of the Hill-Burton laws that have been on the books forever and did not fade out in 97 with other provisions of it and was actually reinforced in 1987 with the EMTALA laws.

The fact that you brought up McCain in this matter makes me believe that your just trolling for political points. Here is a hint, learn a little about what the hell your trolling over. Even if the hospital couldn't treat the specific emergency condition your dieing friend had to a point that he/she would be stabilized, they are obligated by law to transport you to a facility that can and neither of them can deny this transportation or treatment based on your ability to pay.

BTW, the EMTALA laws are pretty clear, on this

if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either--
(A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or
(B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c) of this section.

I even defines stabilize and emergency and transport so it isn't up for wild interpretations or sadistic interpretations. You can and probably should read up on it more. You can do so here and of course you can find the law itself.

Re:Not if you do it right

[gosand]

All you really need to do is contact your insurance beforehand and CYA. It's not such a big deal.

1. This requires that you have insurance
2. This requires that you have insurance that doesn't suck

Sure, if you have good insurance, things CAN be easy (although it doesn't guarantee it either). But let's face it, there are people out there who cannot afford decent insurance. I've had some crappy insurance in my past, and it is absolutely terrible. It is a HORRIBLE feeling to know that you can't have something done because you can't afford it, and 1000x worse to know that a loved one or a child can't have something done because you can't afford it. That brings our society DOWN DOWN DOWN in the worst ways.

I have good insurance now, really good. But if something were to happen I could easily go bankrupt. Even a few nights stay in the hospital would be devastating financially.

My wife's uncle had to have both legs amputated years ago. He lives in Canada. He had to wait something like 6 months for the surgery, and another 6 for the prosthetic legs. Terrible wait times, right? If he lived in the US, he would not have been able to afford the procedure at all, and certainly not the prosthetic legs.

Which is worse?

Re:Not if you do it right

[gearloos]

"All you really need to do is contact your insurance beforehand and CYA. It's not such a big deal." I am not going into details because it is personal but.... you, sir, are either naive, lying, or very lucky. I have a much different experience.

Re:Not if you do it right

[Anonymous Coward]

OP here. I'm going to pick lucky off that list then.

Over $90k in bills this year so far, my total is around $2k. All it took was for me to call my HR department, have them contact our insurance guy, and fax over a letter. It took two phone calls. Getting an oil change for my car was more hassle.

I'm starting to get the impression that my experience is somewhat unique. I posted this days ago and people are still chewing me out.

So sorry about your bad luck, but it's not universal.

Re:Not if you do it right

[SETIGuy]

Your a damn liar.

No. But you're apparently not to good with the English language.

It is illegal for an emergency room to deny emergency medical treatment to anyone based on their ability to pay.

And where in my post did I say anyone was denied emergency treatment based upon their ability to pay. The person I helping could have paid for surgery in cash. But, the facility lacked a staff doctor capable of performing the surgery. (Actually given the size of the hospital it's more likely none of the staff physicians were willing to perform the surgery. Why? I don't know.) When we did find a specialist, the condition was treated at that facility.

Even if the hospital couldn't treat the specific emergency condition your dieing friend had to a point that he/she would be stabilized.

That is true. And since she was not bleeding at a rate the would have killed her immediately, apparently the staff felt that, apart from a large amount of pain, she was capable of finding a specialist capable of treating her condition on her own.

they are obligated by law to transport you to a facility that can

Yes, they are. But, provided you aren't going to die in the next hour or so, and are conscious, they apparently don't need to locate a facility or a treating physician for you. The staff members in California hospitals have learned not to waste time on activities that don't generate revenue. If the patient had wanted another $75 Tylenol, I'm sure the staff would have provided it.

And don't think for a minute that the hospitals aren't gaming the system by making sure ambulance companies properly "judge" the location of the nearest "capable" emergency room based upon the "condition ($$$)" of the patient. When that doesn't work, hospitals will close emergency rooms to make sure that they don't have one near the patients in "severe condition". Those patients need to go to the county hospital.

My spouse works as a service provider in one of the "non-profit" mega-hospital conglomerates in the Bay Area. You'd better believe that every quarter everyone gets notified if their department isn't making a profit. And if it's not making a profit, the chopping block isn't too far away.

One of my spouse's current patients needs liver surgery. She's on MediCal (California's version of Medicaid) and she can't find a surgeon who takes MediCal. Why would they? MediCal pays 10 cents on the dollar.

The unfortunate thing is that she probably won't end up in an emergency room until the condition has gotten bad enough that she needs a new liver. And when that happens, she'll either get a new liver, or she'll die. Either way, we will pay a lot more for it than we would have if she had gotten treatment earlier.

Re:Not if you do it right

[sumdumass]

And where in my post did I say anyone was denied emergency treatment based upon their ability to pay. The person I helping could have paid for surgery in cash. But, the facility lacked a staff doctor capable of performing the surgery. (Actually given the size of the hospital it's more likely none of the staff physicians were willing to perform the surgery. Why? I don't know.) When we did find a specialist, the condition was treated at that facility.

What was the point of bringing it up in the way you did then? Obviously, both of you had sufficient medical coverage, you simply didn't have the facilities around. This has nothing to do with John McCain's plan or opinion of your coverage. In fact, it had nothing to do with your coverage at all if this really was the case.

That is true. And since she was not bleeding at a rate the would have killed her immediately, apparently the staff felt that, apart from a large amount of pain, she was capable of finding a specialist capable of treating her condition on her own.

The law says she can't get worse. It isn't enough to simply slow it down. They have to make an effort to stop it from getting worse. Bleeding out is getting worse, unless they were putting as much blood in at the rate it was going out, they weren't in compliance.

Yes, they are. But, provided you aren't going to die in the next hour or so, and are conscious, they apparently don't need to locate a facility or a treating physician for you. The staff members in California hospitals have learned not to waste time on activities that don't generate revenue. If the patient had wanted another $75 Tylenol, I'm sure the staff would have provided it.

Yes, they do have to locate the facility. The law states that if they can't handle the problem, they have to transfer you to somewhere that can. The law also states that you either have to be stable enough for the transportation or that the condition makes it necessary against being stabilized. If what your saying is true, they violated the law and this reflect nothing on either candidates positions or opinions of the health care system or coverage. What would you expect McCain to do, amend the law saying "we really mean it"? Anyways, if they violated the laws, they are subject to penalties as well as civil awards.

And don't think for a minute that the hospitals aren't gaming the system by making sure ambulance companies properly "judge" the location of the nearest "capable" emergency room based upon the "condition ($$$)" of the patient. When that doesn't work, hospitals will close emergency rooms to make sure that they don't have one near the patients in "severe condition". Those patients need to go to the county hospital.

Hospitals get special tax breaks for treating the poor. They are allowed to charge up to 4 or 5 times what they would charge an insured person and then deduct the entire amount as a loss. This is something that happened at the hospital that Barack Obama's wife worked at where she got a promotion and huge salary increase after he got elected to the state senate and pushed a grant for the hospital through. Although this is illegal and actually closing an emergency room is grounds for a lawsuit. I think your relying too much on TV hyperbole but I did find a recent study citing 75 California hospitals to have been in violation of the EMTALA laws. You do understand that no matter what laws are made, if someone breaks the law, it isn't a reflection of any of the current political candidates views.

Re:Not if you do it right

[SETIGuy]

The law says she can't get worse. It isn't enough to simply slow it down. They have to make an effort to stop it from getting worse. Bleeding out is getting worse, unless they were putting as much blood in at the rate it was going out, they weren't in compliance.

Then they weren't in compliance. Maybe we should have called the cops.

Hospitals get special tax breaks for treating the poor. They are allowed to charge up to 4 or 5 times what they would charge an insured person and then deduct the entire amount as a loss.

Given that most of the hospitals here are "non-profit," I'm sure that they generate exactly enough fake "loss" to make up for their supposedly non-existent profits. If you aren't paying taxes, a further tax break doesn't buy you much.

if someone breaks the law, it isn't a reflection of any of the current political candidates views.

It is when one of the candidates think too much regulation is the problem.

The amount of care given to the poor won't effect the profitability of a hospital either. The vast majority of the poor get government paid health care and all children from poor families have automatic state coverage.

You seem to think that the "government paid health care" is the same as an insurance plan. As I pointed out in the previous message, the "government paid health care", MediCal, pays about %10 of the cost of care. Doctors are not required to take MediCal. Hospitals are only required to accept it for certain types of care.

Have you ever wondered by hospitals don't have many doctors on staff anymore? All of the doctors have been farmed out to outside medical groups that don't have to take MediCal. Please, pick up a phone and try to find a doctor that accepts MediCal and is taking new patients. If you have that wonderful "government paid health care", the only place you will get care is an emergency room. It's essentially impossible to find a doctor that takes MediCal.

If your wife isn't aware of this and is turning the poor away, I suggest you mention something to her because it can cost her personally $25,000 a pop.

My wife is quite aware, but she provides a service (outpatient rehab) for which the hospital is not required to take MediCal. Last year the hospital changed it policy to not accept MediCal for her service line. She decided she couldn't work at a hospital that doesn't serve the poor and gave notice that she was quitting. Fortunately she was able to convince the management that the policy was indefensible. So they went back to accepting MediCal.

Until recently that is. All the other hospitals in the area dropped MediCal for outpatient rehab. It was especially surprising when a system of hospitals that got several billion dollars through a state bond measure and claims to serve the poor did the same. Because her hospital is the only one that accepts it, all of the MediCal patients show up there. So management has decided that each staff member is allowed to see one MediCal patient per week. Unfortunately, my wife has developed a health problem and currently needs her employer provided health insurance, threatening to quit isn't an option this time.

To keep her conscience clear, we are personally covering the difference in price between the lowest non-government reimbursement rate and the MediCal rate. (MediCal pays about $40 for a 90 minute evaluation. The lowest insurance reimbursement is about $160 for the same service). So every month we send my wife's employer a $500 donation, so that my wife can serve some poor people. (No, they wouldn't allow her to just not take pay for those evaluations. Her pay is a small fraction of that $160.)

That is a problem with California not health care or coverage in general. Medicaid pays for the entire cost of a liver transplants so you can thank your state for convolution the p

Re:Not if you do it right

[sumdumass]

Then they weren't in compliance. Maybe we should have called the cops.

The cops, some regulatory comity within the state, a lawyer, but yes you should have reported it if not sued. And you have something like 2 years after the fact to sue them.

Given that most of the hospitals here are "non-profit," I'm sure that they generate exactly enough fake "loss" to make up for their supposedly non-existent profits. If you aren't paying taxes, a further tax break doesn't buy you much.

Non profit hospitals can't make more then 6% profit unless the devote a percentage over that to providing care for the poor. And when I say poor, I mean the poor that aren't already covered by government programs or insurance of some sort. It actually pays for them to provide health care for the poor. The problem with your statement is that even non profit hospitals make a profit and have investors that they are obligated to. I'm sure that fudging the books are somewhat accepted but you will have SEC problems if you do so to the point that it stops benefiting investors.

It is when one of the candidates think too much regulation is the problem.

So you don't think there is a right amount of regulation, there needs to be too much regulation? That after all is the real issue. Do you want the government making decisions that should be between you and your doctor or do you want to have that power and authority yourself. With the exception of Managed Care plans where the insurance company gets involved which is in essence the same as existing government programs with the Miller Tests and all, you should have the ability to make those decisions on your own. You see, you can beat a horse to make him pull a plow. Eventually, you will beat the horse to death and then your left beating a dead horse. Ideally, you don't want to beat anything but there is a point where regulations will do more harm then good.

You seem to think that the "government paid health care" is the same as an insurance plan. As I pointed out in the previous message, the "government paid health care", MediCal, pays about %10 of the cost of care. Doctors are not required to take MediCal. Hospitals are only required to accept it for certain types of care.

Actually, this varies from state to state but any university hospital will have to accept government health care payments regardless of when the state pays. Medicare/Medicaid, which is what Medical is before California perverts it has provisions in the law that mandates the hospital or doctors who receive payments to accept them in full. Each county will have at least one hospital that accepts medicaid/medicare and will be subject to those guidelines which should include medical too. A hospital needs a special permit to operate and it is part of the requirements for some of them to exist. The point I was making however, wasn't that hospitals have to accept medical, it was that the poor is typically covered by some government program.

Have you ever wondered by hospitals don't have many doctors on staff anymore? All of the doctors have been farmed out to outside medical groups that don't have to take MediCal. Please, pick up a phone and try to find a doctor that accepts MediCal and is taking new patients. If you have that wonderful "government paid health care", the only place you will get care is an emergency room. It's essentially impossible to find a doctor that takes MediCal.

Actually, there are staffing requirements within the law. If the hospital meets those requirements, then there isn't really anything to complain about. But as I said before, 99% of all hospitals receive medicaid and medicare payments and are obligated to provide emergency medical services or transport you to somewhere that can provide them regardless of your ability to pay. It is actually

Re:Want to end the campaign now? Ask this:

[Anonymous Coward]

My friends, for five and a half years in Vietnam, I didn't have copyright at all. And as a POW, I will lead this nation to victory, not shameful defeat.

I want less regulation, not more, except that time with Fannie and Freddie, when Obama's cronies wanted that.

Iraq, Iran, POW, GOOD NIGHT!

They should be grateful

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way for the Republicans to still win this election would be to erase all Palin videos from the collective memory. They should file takedown notices against those and shut up.

Talk Radio vs YouTube

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans have talk radio and I guess liberals have YouTube and all other types of media. I wonder what would happen if the Fairness Doctrine was brought back?

Re:Want to end the campaign now? Ask this:

[dkleinsc]

You left out the part about being a POW in Vietnam.

Re:Want to end the campaign now? Ask this:

[IndustrialComplex]

It's actually not so much about YouTube not taking them down as it is that Fox and CBS aren't requesting Obama's videos be taken down.

And that's what is beautiful about the takedown requests. Fox and CBS don't have to request Obama's videos come down if they don't want them to. They can, however, use it to selectively silence the ads of those they do not support.

Re:Want to end the campaign now? Ask this:

[Chelloveck]

"Senator McCain, your campaign is complaining that it is being unfairly censored by the DMCA. How do you reconcile your complaint when you yourself voted for this exact measure?

Simplicity itself. The key is right there in the question: "unfairly censored". Any politician worth the title will be able to argue that the law is sound and just, but that it's being applied incorrectly. This immediately shifts the blame to the other guy, and makes the politician look like the poor maligned victim of unfairness by the commie-pinko left-wing press.

Really, after the outright lies told every day in the campaign (by both sides, I might point out) this question wouldn't even cause McCain to break a sweat. In fact, he probably even believes something very close to what I just wrote.

Re:Want to end the campaign now? Ask this:

[Bryansix]

You know considering that he rarely mentions this I don't get the joke. Is the joke that all of the sudden having military service is a disqualification for being President? Please explain it to me because I am anxiously awaiting your intelligent response.

Waiting time for surgery in the US

[Nick Driver]

And what's the waiting time for that same surgery in the US if you have no money to pay for it?

I know of someone who was 79 yrs old, basically destitute and living on a fixed income of only Social Security, no health insurance, only Medicare. He was diagnosed with kidney cancer and needed emergency surgery to remove one of his kidneys which had a large malignant tumor on it that was in danger of bleeding internally and he was accepted into MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston immediately and his surgery was completed in under three weeks from his first visit there. That was two years ago and he's alive and doing well today at age 81.

Re:Want to end the campaign now? Ask this:

[Anonymous Coward]

He mentions his military service in just about every campaign stump speech he's given.

"I've served my country since I was 17 years old, and I've got the scars to prove it!"

Re:Want to end the campaign now? Ask this:

[Bryansix]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/09/new-twist-for-m.html

DMCA Problems????

[darkonc]

Nothing that can't be fixed with a small tactical nuke (or even a large one).

Re:Want to end the campaign now? Ask this:

[IndustrialComplex]

Followup:

Whenever you consider granting someone a power, such as the power that was granted by this law, you have to evaluate it not on what you intend it to do, but by the consequences which would result if it were abused.

It goes to show that those that voted for this measure, did not fully understand the consequences of their actions.

(This is a followup, but if you wanted to make it harder for them, simply don't use the term 'unfairly' when you ask the question)