While I believe that the United States needs improvement in healthcare, why is suggested that the government take control over it? I'm not thrilled with the incidents at Walter Reed Hospital and other VA hospitals where veterans are getting their care. The United States government is not known for its efficiency and healthcare is the last area that I would like to give up my freedom of choice. Yes, Medicare administrative costs are low, but that doesn't mean that they're efficient with their purchases.
Secondly: if you don't want to support for-profit health insurance companies, pick a plan from a non-profit company if your company lets you choose between providers. As a side note: non-profit hospitals aren't run as efficiently as not-for-profit/for-profit hospitals.
My impression is in the event there is a government run healthcare system, people will start complaining about the government instead of complaining about HMO/PPO, etc...
Here's an insightful article from the Chicago Tribune from the director of Nurses for Reform, organization based in Europe to improve Europe's healthcare system, about some of the major complaints of the British system.
In the end, I think the way that it'll work is that 1: there'll be a tax-payer based system that is free to all and a 2: private system that wealthier people can buy into in order to get better coverage/faster treatment.
Isn't OpenDNS a solution against this? I set it up on my router years ago and I think that's what prevents me from going to random sites (food.cm forwards me to foodnetwork.com) most of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
While I believe that the United States needs improvement in healthcare, why is suggested that the government take control over it? I'm not thrilled with the incidents at Walter Reed Hospital and other VA hospitals where veterans are getting their care. The United States government is not known for its efficiency and healthcare is the last area that I would like to give up my freedom of choice. Yes, Medicare administrative costs are low, but that doesn't mean that they're efficient with their purchases.
p remium/printedition/Tuesday/chi-oped0626sickojun26 ,1,5503687.story?ctrack=3&cset=true
Secondly: if you don't want to support for-profit health insurance companies, pick a plan from a non-profit company if your company lets you choose between providers. As a side note: non-profit hospitals aren't run as efficiently as not-for-profit/for-profit hospitals.
My impression is in the event there is a government run healthcare system, people will start complaining about the government instead of complaining about HMO/PPO, etc...
Here's an insightful article from the Chicago Tribune from the director of Nurses for Reform, organization based in Europe to improve Europe's healthcare system, about some of the major complaints of the British system.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/
In the end, I think the way that it'll work is that 1: there'll be a tax-payer based system that is free to all and a 2: private system that wealthier people can buy into in order to get better coverage/faster treatment.
Isn't OpenDNS a solution against this? I set it up on my router years ago and I think that's what prevents me from going to random sites (food.cm forwards me to foodnetwork.com) most of the time.