Slashdot Mirror
Discuss the US Presidential Election & Health Care
Yesterday we discussed the war and how foreign policy will matter in your decision next Tuesday. Today our series of election discussion pieces continues with Health Care. With an obesity epidemic, a failing economy, and ballooning health care costs, which candidate has the best answers to making sure that Americans are able to stay healthy without America being bankrupted in the process?
can someone tell me how BO's health care is not going to turn out like Cuba?
SO, he's going to add healthcare to 41 millions americans. That's 10million illegal immigrants to many.
But anyway, Cuba's healthcare was a failure, how is this going to be different.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
please, someone point out the fault in my logic:
everyone should have healthcare insurance, correct or no?
you would be ok in a society where some people died of preventable issues simply because their finances were not in order?
ok, now that we all agree healthcare insurance is something we should all have, then one way to do it is what we have now: the rich have it (because they are rich), the poor have it (because the poor are supported by the government), and the middle class are screwed: money is tight, rules are arcane, and what happens is the guy between jobs has to declare bankruptcy in order to get his cancer treated, or dies while filling out paperwork
this is better than nationalization? really?
i know the arguments against nationalization: lower quality, lots of waste
as if the current system doesn't have lots of waste? you ever deal with an hmo?
as if quality isn't low in the current environment with hospitals scrambling to stay open and doctors pressured by hmos to get in the door and out the door?
nationalization seems like such a nobrainer to me, but you have this loud vocal opposition to the idea of nationalized healthcare in this country and i honestly can't understand the reasons for it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Which candidate will be better positioned to answer the problem? It will be the one who is able to make some hard decisions and stand up to powerful lobbyists. It will be the candidate who is able to apply creative thought and novel solutions to problems that we've been creating for ourselves for decades now. it will be the candidate who is able to rationally apply logic and recruit, retain and manage in their administration, unbiased and reasoned people who are willing to work hard on solutions that will benefit Americans and the wider global population.
Ralph Nader is the only candidate, I've seen, that has the guts to bash the government as being on the take by big business.
Don't take my word for it though, check out Nader's other videos and stuff and you will see what I mean.
That is just my personal opinion though, I encourage you to draw your own conclusion.
Funny how these types of silly posts seem to be exclusively against Obama.
You can almost smell the fear on this AC post!
My first reaction is surely no in is stupid enough to swallow this crap,
then I remember that 85% of people are idiots. )-:
I lived and worked in the UK for three years and had some exposure (and a number of conversations) with the Brits about this.
One of my coworkers had a common cold at one point. He called up the NHS, and they scheduled him an appointment - 9 months in the future. Naturally, he got over his cold within a couple weeks. I asked him if he had cancelled his appointment. His answer "No way! I've got an appointment, and I'm keeping it. What if something happens between now and then?" I was astounded, but his response was mirrored by others there.
The thing that most bothers me about the NHS is that it's a 9% (or is it 11%?) tax right off the top. I fully understand the reasoning behind the flat rate, but what concerns me is that most higher-income people also had private health insurance so they didn't have to use the NHS hospitals. So they are forced to subsidize a failing system while they're getting better care out of pocket. I think I'll just keep my own health insurance as is, rather than adding 10% to my tax bill.
you think that everyone makes their choices in a vacuum, that the consequences of their action affects no one else. if someone makes a bad choice that has a negative consequence on those around them, then you have reached the limit of free choice
everyone has the right to make their own decisions, unless the decisions they make adversely affect others in society
for example: a drug addict. a drug addict, by making their own choices, has wound up in a situation where they place a drag on those around him, by becoming someone who cannot support himself and requiring others to support him. in this case, the drug addict has relinquished the right to make their own choices and must have treatment forced upon him against his will
likewise, if someone does not get their child innoculated against diseases, they become disease spreading vectors. not all innoculations work 100%. so even if you innoculate your child, that child can still get sick, and die, due to the irreponsibility of others. in which case, the healthcare of those aorund you becomes your business
you have an unsupportable assumption in your ideas, that you make decisions in a vacuum, and it affects no one else. this is obviously false, and you need to rethink your ideas about how the real world works. there are real and genuine limits on free will in this world. not because i say so, but out of simple logical consequence
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I second that, I live in Canada. We get free physical once a year, blood work twice a year and free flu shots. I only get flu shots cause a nurse comes to my workplace and and our admin schedules our time, so when my outlook pops up saying I have flu vaccine waiting, I go.
However my last physical/blood work was over 5 years ago. Part of the problem is the damn clinic opens during business hours.
>>>There's no "Joe's health care" deduction on your paycheque. You pay taxes. The government spends some of that money on Joe's health care because it considers Joe's life to be worth more than your wealth.
>>>
So in essence I'm Joe's slave, working my ass off to give him a new heart or lungs or whatever else he needs. The only thing I'm missing is chains.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
And I haven't seen the insides of a hospital in 17 years. In your country I would have been robbed by the nanny government of thousands of dollars (more, if invested wisely).
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil