backtop


Print 102 comment(s) - last by Aloonatic.. on Jan 4 at 4:14 AM

Movie and record labels are overjoyed at the support they're receiving from the British government

Late in October DailyTech reported on the new three strikes piracy legislation proposed in the United Kingdom by Britain's majority Labour Party.  Under the legislation those caught pirating would receive two warnings, then would be cut off from the internet.  The real headache, though, is how to police the traffic and enforce the provisions on ISPs and consumers.

Despite mass objections from telecoms, citizens, electronics experts, law enforcement officials, and members of the minority conservative and socialist parties, Labour Party officials have blazed ahead with a framework to allow the legislation to be enforced.

According to Labour Party leaders, the government is planning on handing the expense of the Digital Economy Bill down to taxpayers.  That expense is estimated to be approximately £500M (approximately $800M USD).  On average, that works out to more than £25 more a year ($40 USD/year) per internet connection.

And that's considering that the government is counting on the bill reducing piracy enough to increase media revenues by £1.7B ($2.72B USD), leading to £350M ($560M USD) extra in VAT tax revenue.  If that increase isn't realized, British taxpayers could find themselves on the hook for over $1B USD in enforcement expenses.

The initial letter writing campaign is predicted to cut off 40,000 citizens from the internet and cost £1.40 ($2.20 USD) per subscription.  The government appears to have purposefully neglects to include possible economic losses based on citizens being taken offline in its estimates.

Charles Dunstone, chief executive of Carphone Warehouse, whose subsidiary TalkTalk is the biggest consumer provider of broadband in UK, is flabbergasted at how the punitive bill is gaining so much traction.  He states, "Broadband consumers shouldn’t have to bail out the music industry. If they really think it’s worth spending vast sums of money on these measures then they should be footing the bill; not the consumer."

Still the media industry is cheering the British government's decision to obey their commands, despite the taxpayer expenses and objections.  Writes the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, an industry trade group, "The overall benefits to the country far outweigh the costs."

They argue that movies like X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Star Trek have been pirated millions of times, amounting to millions in lost revenues.

And it certainly helps their argument that in the UK, like in the U.S., the media industry spends enormous sums on legal representation and government lobbying efforts.  As the growing conflict in Britain is proving, if there's one lobbyist power in the UK and U.S. that's perhaps greater than telecommunication firms, it's the media industry trade groups.




Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: I'm glad
By 2bdetermine on 12/29/2009 2:30:51 PM , Rating: 0
Socialized medicine? Fail - but they want to do it anyway.

So i guess surviving is a luxury. If you ever get sick, just find a quiet place and die.


RE: I'm glad
By phattyboombatty on 12/29/2009 2:34:52 PM , Rating: 3
Yet, somehow in the United States we have a population of 300 million and growing with an ever-increasing life expectancy without ever having had socialized medicine. It must be a damn miracle that anybody is even alive in the United States today.


RE: I'm glad
By cochy on 12/29/2009 2:58:32 PM , Rating: 5
Actually America is near the bottom in life expectancy as compared to other modern nations. Though, the article that I read said it's much more the fault of Americans terrible living habits than it is the health care system, because even though America is bottoms in life expectancy, they are just about topping the list of access to medicine and treatment and also topping the list of cancer survival rates (though America has the most cancer of any nation as per % of pop.)


RE: I'm glad
By phattyboombatty on 12/29/2009 3:08:37 PM , Rating: 3
To be fair, I said "increasing" not "high". The life-expectancy of a U.S. citizen is higher today than it was 100 years ago.

But your point is a good one. Modern medicine can only go so far to remediate the horrible habits of Americans.


RE: I'm glad
By Lerianis on 12/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm glad
By bighairycamel on 12/29/2009 4:46:40 PM , Rating: 4
God I freakin hate it when people take a very small sampling of people like family or friends and use that as a basis for an argument. You CANNOT discern the state of the American people as a whole based on a few family members.

Check your facts; there are thousands of studies showing increased obesity leading to increase heart failure.

And you're just plain wrong about life expectency. Japan is #1 followed by Hong Kong, Iceland, Switzerland, and Australia. Hardly 3rd world. And here's the kicker.... they have relatively low obescity rates compared to the US! NO WAY!


RE: I'm glad
By omnicronx on 12/29/2009 5:51:26 PM , Rating: 3
Taking this further, around 3% of the Japanese population is considered overweight, whereas the conservative US number is closer to 30% and out of the top 5, the highest was 12%, with the average being closer to 7-8%)


RE: I'm glad
By PrimarchLion on 12/29/2009 5:18:35 PM , Rating: 4
How did your family survive the pollution and poison?


RE: I'm glad
By Sonikku13 on 12/29/2009 2:41:21 PM , Rating: 5
Keep in mind that in Canada, you get free (or cheap) health care, you just have to wait months to get it. Thats why I prefer how the US syatem is, it may be expensive without health insurance, but you get instant health care if needed. If you have a headache, you can get a doctor to look at it for you instantly. This may be biased, but this is what I've seen in the USA.


RE: I'm glad
By GaryJohnson on 12/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: I'm glad
By phattyboombatty on 12/29/2009 3:15:09 PM , Rating: 5
-or-
C) wait for an hour at the emergency room in a hospital (where nobody can legally be turned away).

Also, based on the comments here, it seems that non-Americans are oblivious to the fact that the poor in the United States do get free healthcare.


RE: I'm glad
By Solandri on 12/29/2009 3:34:45 PM , Rating: 4
That's one of the arguments for government-run health insurance though. Since we insured folks are paying for healthcare for the uninsured anyway, what difference does it make if we just formalize it and have the government handle it? Right now the extra cost is just being passed on in the form of higher bills the hospital charges the insured people.

But I agree, too many clueless people outside the U.S. think the health system here is from the middle ages or something. The problem isn't one of quality of care, the problem is cost of care per person per year. Based on what I've read up on this debate, I think the U.S. has the best treatment for health care problems in the world, but its preventative care is woefully lacking. Most people in the U.S. won't go to the hospital for a small cut because they don't want to pay for it or (if they're insured) pay for the deductible. Then it flares up into full-blown infection requiring hospitalization and maybe even surgery. In other countries, the person would've just gone in for the small cut, gotten it cleaned by a professional, taken some antibiotics for a few days, and that would've been the end of it.


RE: I'm glad
By sprockkets on 12/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm glad
By weskurtz0081 on 12/29/2009 8:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
This is only a small part of the overall problem, there is much more to the over inflated health care costs in the US than just this. Because of that, changing who pays for it won't fix the problem of high costs.


RE: I'm glad
By Spuke on 12/29/2009 4:31:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Also, based on the comments here, it seems that non-Americans are oblivious to the fact that the poor in the United States do get free healthcare.
And you don't have to go to the emergency room to get it either. Since I was in the poor part of the population for half of my life, I can attest to the "free" healthcare that the poor get. There are tons of clinics and even programs that the poor can get on to get healthcare. When growing up, we even had our own "family doctor"!!! The problem with US healthcare is BS lawsuits and those that make too much money to qualify for the free programs that the poor get.

But even the people paying ridiculous amounts of money ($700 a month average) for healthcare aren't interested in government run healthcare. They don't mind paying for it, they just want it cheaper and making it "free" for everyone won't make it cheaper. Taxes will be raised. Would you rather pay $700 a month to the gov and hope that money goes to your healthcare or pay $700 directly to your doctor?


RE: I'm glad
By omnicronx on 12/29/2009 7:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
Emerge != free clinic. If you are in need of serious medical attention, you don't go to a clinic, you get brought the Hospital.

The reason most clinics (free or not) exist is to take the stress off of hospital ER's for people who shouldn't be going there in the first place.


RE: I'm glad
By omnicronx on 12/29/2009 7:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
Sure you can't be turned away, but you are stuck with a massively overpriced bill that you more than likely won't be able to pay.
quote:
Also, based on the comments here, it seems that non-Americans are oblivious to the fact that the poor in the United States do get free healthcare.
Ha free.. by free you mean you are liable for the expenses incurred... yes.. free...

Unless you are going to a free clinic, its not free, so going to the emerge does not fall under this category.


RE: I'm glad
By Hoser McMoose on 12/29/2009 7:47:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Ha free.. by free you mean you are liable for the expenses incurred... yes.. free...

No, free as in many poor individuals in the U.S. are covered under Medicaid. And in a sad bit of irony these people often get BETTER health coverage than your average working Joe on the street.

These are not the people that suffer most under the U.S. health system. The worst off are those that are working full time for little more than minimum wage and who have a health plan but their plan is crap. Unfortunately, for a very large variety of reasons, there are TONS of useless health plans in the U.S., full of deductibles and co-pays, limitations and fees.

An absolutely obscene amount of money is wasted on administrative overhead in the U.S. health insurance system and somehow I'm sceptical that the recently passed health reforms will do much to change this.


RE: I'm glad
By phattyboombatty on 12/29/2009 10:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ha free.. by free you mean you are liable for the expenses incurred... yes.. free...

Free, as in a nice chunk of each of my paychecks is withheld to pay a Medicaid tax, which is used to pay for poor people's healthcare. And no, Medicaid recipients are not liable for the expenses incurred.


RE: I'm glad
By zxern on 12/29/2009 11:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
An hour that must be nice. I had to wait 6 hours to see a doc when I broke my arm and since I had waited so long they had to re-break it. And 2 months later I got a nice $1200 bill in the mail after insurance.

Great system we have here.


RE: I'm glad
By omnicronx on 12/29/2009 3:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Keep in mind that in Canada, you get free (or cheap) health care, you just have to wait months to get it. Thats why I prefer how the US syatem is, it may be expensive without health insurance, but you get instant health care if needed. If you have a headache, you can get a doctor to look at it for you instantly. This may be biased, but this is what I've seen in the USA
Heh its not bias, its just the misleading and flat out wrong information you have been fed by those that don't agree with health-care reform.

Everyone always praises the US for their 'low' wait times, yet most studies being released don't show this as being true. US wait times are on or below par of many other industrialized nations which currently employ socialized medicine. (for reference average Canadian wait times for elective surgery is down to 3 weeks)

That being said, this is not true with many specialized physicians, Canadians for example will without a doubt wait longer for this kind of care. But ... this only accounts for a fraction of health care visits every year.

Of course this also doesnt take into account that in places like Canada, you cannot be denied care. No worrying about being pre approved, no worrying about tests, no worrying about preexisting conditions.

Socialized Medicine does cost more, but many of the other facts being presented against it are in fact false.

P.S Do people really believe that you will be waiting on considerable longer amount of time to see a doctor about a headache in Canada over US?


RE: I'm glad
By Reclaimer77 on 12/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm glad
By omnicronx on 12/29/2009 5:30:58 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You apparently just don't get it. The Canada system is just like the European system. It's government RATIONED health care. Not provided, but rationed.
Please, how are the two mutually exclusive? Please stop regurgitating this kind of BS, as it does not even make sense. Just nonsense dribble that anti reformists came up with. For example I can provide everyone on DT with candy, it could be one candy per person, but I'm still providing everyone with candy.
quote:
There are MANY better way to reform health-care than by destroying 1/6 'th of our private economy by having the government take over health-care. Key word ; reform. Reform implies it will be made better. Fact is, yes FACT, for the huge majority of the United States citizens, this type of "reform" will lead to worst health care than we already have.
Don't you get it? It should have never been 1/6 of your private economy in the first place. Its just a circle of greed, your hospital will charge 25$ for a cotton swab who will in tern charge 25$ + 1.25$ handling fee to the insurance company, who will in tern raise their rates because of rising 'health costs'. My job is to maintain drug pricing and information for pretty much any drug you can buy in Canada. I know exactly how much we pay for drugs and have done the comparisons many times to average US pricing. FACT is, health-care reform will result in reduced care for a small percentage of people in exchange for much better care for a heck of a lot more people.
quote:
1. More expensive - WRONG
2. Less choice- TRUE (Can't argue here, but if less choice means more overall coverage for more people, then I'm all fore it)
3. Less accessible - WRONG/TRUE (More accessible for most, less accessible for those that had/have more money to pay for it)
quote:
You cannot be denied care in the United States either. What was your point ?
Oh really? So if I have a condition in which no Insurance company will cover me (whether that be at all, or for an acceptable price), does not not constitute as denied coverage? Or perhaps I am covered but only to a certain amount? I require specialized surgery and my insurance will only cover a percentage of the five-six figure bill?

It happens every day, so please wake up as it could happen even the average Joe that pays his insurance every month.

This can't happen in UK or Canada (just using your example)
quote:
Canada has, what, some 30 million odd citizens ? And you spent 170 billion last year on health-care. The United States has 330+ million citizens. Do the math.
Lets make this simple, Canada's current health structure = 10.1% of GDP (or 16% government revenue), existing US health care, 16% of GDP (or 18.5% government revenue). So yes, please, do the math..
quote:
So I called my doctor and the next day, the NEXT friggin day, had an appointment to see him so we could try a different medication. I had NO wait time, I walked in a few minutes before my scheduled time and was promptly seen by my doctor. No wait. And I paid 20 bucks and my insurance, as usual, picked up the rest.
Thats what family doctors are for, they are required by law in Canada to leave a certain amount of time per day for the kinds of appointments. I've never once had a problem booking my family doctor within a day or two. You don't go to the hospital emerge and wait to see a doctor.. oh and guess how much I paid...
quote:
It's this simple. I'm glad, overjoyed, that you like your system. That's great. But I live HERE, and I have to deal with how this so called health-care "reform" will effect me and my family. So don't hand me this shit sandwich and tell me it tastes great. How dare you preach to me about it.
Hey buddy I understand your reasoning's, but in the end perhaps you should think about the bigger picture. Perhaps your grandchildren and their kids. Medical costs in the US have soared in the past few decades, and the end is nowhere in sight as long as profit remains the main drive.

I'm also not trying to impose anything, the system we have employed in Canada/UK will never work in the US, but reform is needed, and a mix of public/private healthcare seems like the answer (Heck I wish they did that here in Canada). That way each the public sector keeps the private sector in check, and vise versa, but what exactly do you think you are doing with all your posts? You preach your personal feelings just as I preach mine..


RE: I'm glad
By Reclaimer77 on 12/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm glad
By Hoser McMoose on 12/29/2009 8:08:44 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
In fact, you are being completely dismissive of the massive financial burden your system places on it's population to cover such a small number of people.

In Canada each and every one of the 33M citizens pays approximately $3,200 (U.S. dollar equiv.) for the public health care system and another $1,350 for additional private health care (dentist, eye glasses, company drug plans, etc. that are not covered by the public system).

In the U.S. each and every one of the 310M citizens pays approximately $3,650 for public health care (Medicare, Medicaid and other State and Federally funded programs) and another $3,700 for private health care.

Feel free to interpret those numbers anyway you like.


RE: I'm glad
By eddieroolz on 1/3/2010 12:07:10 AM , Rating: 1
I recently had a painful boil on my face that needed intervention.

I went to an walk-in clinic, where I do not need to make appointments. Went there early in the morning, and the doctor took one look and referred me to the emergency.

Now, in the US that would have cost you some cash. In BC, all I had to do was show them my CareCard and it was done.

Then I went to the Emergency ward. I was served in 10 minutes, and referred to a specialist in a further 10 min. I waited in the room for another 10 min and the doctor drained the boil in question. I was then told to come back for a week for daily IV, and prescribed medicine.

Now, that in the US would have cost you additional money. Here in BC, all I did was show them my CareCard. Deja vu.

All this is covered by taxing the population no more than what you get taxed in the US.

So being a citizen in this "socialized medicine" land, I would say that it is YOU that does not have a clue how the system works here. No, I was not rationed health care. I was given care as was everyone else waiting at emergency. The government does not allocate me certain number of visits and then outright refuses to see me after I exceed it. No. They care for you when you need it.


RE: I'm glad
By MarcLeFou on 12/29/2009 7:00:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You apparently just don't get it. The Canada system is just like the European system. It's government RATIONED health care. Not provided, but rationed.


Yes. Only one hearth attack per year or you die in the gutter.


RE: I'm glad
By Hoser McMoose on 12/29/2009 7:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now I freaking dare you to look me in the face and tell me that's how it works in Canada on the public system.

My dad recently had a heart problem here in Canada and our public health system. He saw his doctor the next day. They arranged for a specialist a few days later. He was in the hospital for further diagnosis the next week and had surgery less than a week later.

End-to-end between first problem and surgery: 2 weeks.

This was an important operation, but not an imminent-life-threatening sort of thing. If it had been they would have moved quicker. Could this have happened faster in the U.S.? Probably, my parents have money so if need be they could have pushed things through in probably 1 week.

This is real health care in Canada, not what gets fed to so many on some horribly biased commercials and news programs. It's by no means a perfect system (FAR from it), but a lot of the supposed problems either don't actually exist or, at best, are blown horribly out of proportion.


RE: I'm glad
By Solandri on 12/30/2009 2:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is real health care in Canada, not what gets fed to so many on some horribly biased commercials and news programs. It's by no means a perfect system (FAR from it), but a lot of the supposed problems either don't actually exist or, at best, are blown horribly out of proportion.

A co-worker friend of mine who came from Canada always complained about the public health system there. His brother had knee problems and got put on a 6 month waiting list to see a specialist, by which time the problem had gotten so much worse the doctors were seriously considering amputation. He ended up coming to the U.S. for treatment.

The plural of anecdote is not data. I don't consider my friend's case to be representative of Canada's health care. And neither should you consider your father's case to be representative.


RE: I'm glad
By SlyNine on 12/30/2009 3:06:11 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
There are MANY better way to reform health-care than by destroying 1/6 'th of our private economy by having the government take over health-care. Key word ; reform. Reform implies it will be made better. Fact is, yes FACT, for the huge majority of the United States citizens, this type of "reform" will lead to worst health care than we already have.

1. More expensive
2. Less choice
3. Less accessible


You do not qualify your statements with anything, you say its more expensive, yet the numbers say otherwise. Why do you think your numbers are valid while others are not.

Less choice, really? So if the if the emergency room doesn't think you need something even tho a specialist told you that you do need it. Guess what, you don't get it. Sounds like LESS choice to me.

I had to wait 2 months to see a dentist, don't tell me we are that freken accessible.

quote:
You cannot be denied care in the United States either. What was your point ?


Absolutely positively false, you do NOT have a right to health care, your privet physician can dismiss you at any time for a number of reasons. Health care in America is NOT a right, I took a college course in medical ethics buddy and the first thing they teach you is health care is NOT a right.

Again you have the emergancy room, an overpriced system that can deny you by simply saying its not needed. Can you get a second opinion, nope its up to that hospital.

quote:
Excuse me ?? I think this needs clarification. You must be comparing walk-in hospital wait times. Because when I make an appointment with my doctor, I most certainly have no wait time. Same with my dentist, chiropractor, optimoligist, etc etc.


Yea, and I had to wait 2 months to see the dentist, just because YOU didn't have any wait time doesn't mean others do not. YOU are not a big enough sample group to determine whether or not Americans in general have to wait. Some studies show otherwise.

quote:
Canada has, what, some 30 million odd citizens ? And you spent 170 billion last year on health-care. The United States has 330+ million citizens. Do the math.

Again, let me repeat, Americans are NOT against health-care reform. The problem is, what's being proposed is NOT reform. The premise of your argument is idiotic. If our health care is so shitty, why would we be against it being made better ?


Really? and yet with a much larger GDP we pay a higher % of that GDP for our health care.

Yes we need health care, hopefully one that works. But don't think our way of doing health care is worth a shit or that other people not wanting a certain health care plan means that plan is no good, Most people wouldn't know the difference and base everything they do on very fallacious reasoning.

quote:
Funny you should mention it. Recently a medication I was put on by my doctor started causing long and severe headaches. It was listed as a potential side effect and the drug information said to call my doctor if it happened. So I called my doctor and the next day, the NEXT friggin day, had an appointment to see him so we could try a different medication. I had NO wait time, I walked in a few minutes before my scheduled time and was promptly seen by my doctor. No wait. And I paid 20 bucks and my insurance, as usual, picked up the rest.


You are so sure that this is how it works for most in America. Also you are so sure that Canadians don't get anything like this, I've talked to Canadians that would tell you you;re wrong.


RE: I'm glad
By Reclaimer77 on 12/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: I'm glad
By SlyNine on 1/1/2010 11:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
I was just stating problems I have with your stance. You're afraid of government healthcare no matter the form it takes. Fine, but don't pretend ours is so much better then other countries, that's one area we fail at.

But I challenge that if it were done properly it could be great.

The problem BOTH of us have, is faith in our government to do it properly. In that area I'd agree with you. But that doesn't mean we don't need complete overhaul of our health care system.


RE: I'm glad
By eddieroolz on 1/3/2010 12:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
It has been said that people who resort to defaming others when posed with a valid reply, are merely attempting to mask their own lack of intelligence.

You fit the description nicely.


RE: I'm glad
By Lerianis on 12/29/2009 4:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
Cut the bull.... I have friends who live in Canada and the U.K..... their waits on getting into doctors to have tests done are BETTER than the waits that we have in the United States, considering that MY FATHER, who has health insurance from a fricking HOSPITAL (Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland) had to wait 6 MONTHS to get a MRI done on his shoulder. 6 GOD-DAMNED MONTHS!

Not acceptable, in the slightest.


RE: I'm glad
By phattyboombatty on 12/29/2009 4:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
What caused the wait? I had an MRI done on my shoulder in February earlier this year. I saw my doctor at a regular appointment, she ordered the MRI, and the next day I had the procedure done.


RE: I'm glad
By omnicronx on 12/29/2009 5:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
General surgical wait time is around 3 weeks, about the same as the US (some even say that for general surgury, US is higher). The more specialized, the more the wait times differ (in favor of the US). That being said, most surgical procedures are not specialized.

MRI's really depend on where you go. If I go to a crowded downtown hospital that serves as the main hub for the area, then yes, you may wait as those in critical condition will always take precedence, but my girlfriend for example had an MRI the same day her doctor ordered one at our local hospital a few months ago.

I would assume its a tiny bit bitter in the states, but there is not some kind of huge deviation.


RE: I'm glad
By omnicronx on 12/29/2009 6:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
In other words it can take long depending on where you go in either country.


RE: I'm glad
By KCjoker on 12/29/2009 6:56:25 PM , Rating: 1
It's not FREE you pay for it in taxes.


RE: I'm glad
By Hoser McMoose on 12/29/2009 7:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you have a headache, you can get a doctor to look at it for you instantly.

I live in Canada. I haven't bothered to find my own doctor in this city so I've gone to free clinics. The last time I went to see a doctor it took approximately 30 minutes because I went to one of the busiest clinics around. The time before that it was under 5 minutes. Walk into the clinic, show them my health card, take a seat and wait for your name to be called.

Canada's health care system does have some problems but the wait time argument has been HUGELY exaggerated in the U.S. press recently. There are a few specialized procedures that don't happen as fast as they might elsewhere, but it's not like they make you wait for a heart by-pass while you're in the middle of having a heart attack or anything. The wait times are more of the "I've had a chronic pain in my leg for a year and a half, I finally went to the doctor yesterday and he/she said I should get an MRI but I'm booked in for 3 months from now" variety.

The fact that we insist on unionized, government employees to run all health care is dumb. The fact that most MRI's sit unused from 6:00pm to 8:00am the next morning when there is a wait time is dumb. The massive amounts of incompetence and waste by government bureaucrats in some of our medical systems (see Ontario's eHealth scandal, as an example) is dumb. Yeah, Canada's health system is FAR from perfect, but it's MUCH better than many have portrayed it to be in recent U.S. political press.


RE: I'm glad
By DOSGuy on 12/29/2009 9:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
If you have a headache in Canada, you go to the walk-in clinic and a doctor will see you in 20 minutes. The wait times are for non-critical surgical procedures (hip replacements, etc.). Obviously, if you've been shot or hit by a car, they rush you to the emergency room for immediate surgery.

Most Canadians are okay with the wait time, given that the surgery is free. Medical expenses are a major cause of bankruptcy in the United States, but it's almost unheard of in Canada. It's a shame, because bankruptcies hurt everyone. Maybe you're a small business owner and major surgery causes you to declare bankruptcy. You have to close your business and lay off four employees. Seems like it might have been in the public's interest to have some kind of public option that the fellow could have used.

If you don't believe in socialized medicine, don't use it, but don't try to take it away from millions of uninsured people who need it. Having more options is never a bad thing. Give it a chance before giving into the insurance companies' fear mongering.


RE: I'm glad
By Bateluer on 12/29/2009 2:44:31 PM , Rating: 1
You're an idiot. Every instance of government run health care has been a dismal failure, with long wait times, rationing of care, decrease quality, etc.

The American people don't want the current iteration of health care reform in Congress, but our elected political heroes are thick headed. There will be a house cleaning in the next few congressional elections.


RE: I'm glad
By danobrega on 12/29/2009 3:00:45 PM , Rating: 2
You're stupid. Your system does not have queues because it keeps people out of it.

We have plenty of government run health care systems in Europe and they all work pretty well.


RE: I'm glad
By Reclaimer77 on 12/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: I'm glad
By messyunkempt on 12/29/2009 3:31:09 PM , Rating: 2
Seems to 'work' quite well to me. Although I have heard many comments on here about the horrendous state of british government run medicine I've managed to go a good 28 years without seeing it myself. Odd, since I live here. Feel ill? See a doctor within a few days. Feel very ill? Go to one of the many NHS walk in centres and see one within 30 minutes. And all for the grand fee of zero pounds.

I haven't really used the services much myself but no doubt it will come in handy when I get a little older and until that point i'm more than happy for a portion of the tax I pay to provide the services to those that need it. And I personally don't know anyone who hasn't had at least one close friend or relative that benefitted from it.


RE: I'm glad
By Bateluer on 12/29/2009 3:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting. I can go to a doctor here anytime I wish and see the doctor within 10 minutes usually, for nearly any reason. I can see an RN as soon as I walk in the door.

Americans do not want socialized medicine, and the more we learn about this bill, the more people turn against it. Our politicians are pushing it anyway, which is why I said there will be a house cleaning in the next congressional elections.


RE: I'm glad
By PhatoseAlpha on 12/29/2009 4:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
Ever had to deal with someone in your family with a long term disabling disease? Insurance companies denying claims as a matter of course, simply to delay payment and hopefully not be challenged by the 'insured', seeing as they're laid up with an illness?

Oh sure, you can walk into a hospital and not be denied care. But, don't believe 'doesn't have insurance' means 'doesn't get billed'. You'll be ejected from the hospital ASAP, and if you're really lucky, the bills will have you living on the street.

Yes, socialized medicine sucks.

But privatized medicine also sucks, very, very badly.

Pray you never get to see just how bad it actually sucks.


RE: I'm glad
By Nimmist on 12/29/2009 5:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
Government run Medicare refuses more claims than private insurance. I'm not saying what we have is great, but Government run is worse.


RE: I'm glad
By omnicronx on 12/29/2009 6:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
Apples to Oranges.. I don't think I have to point out what age group Medicare mainly serves. Furthermore some insurance companies are within fractions of a percentage of medicare in which almost all of their clients are under 65.

The above poster's experiences are the exact reason why I endorse some form of healthcare reform.


RE: I'm glad
By Bateluer on 12/29/2009 8:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
The hospitals are required to treat all patients who enter, regardless of whether or not they have insurance or not. You will get treated. Illegal aliens do it all the time.

The best things the US government could do for health care reform in this country would be to 1)remove restrictions on doctors practicing across state lines, 2)allow insurance companies to sell policies, plans, and operate across state lines, and 3) establish a patients bill of rights only only intervene in the medical sector when those rights have been violated.

Government is incapable of running anything effectively. I lived with government provided health care while active duty military and you'll have to drag me kicking and screaming back to that crap.


RE: I'm glad
By ClownPuncher on 12/29/2009 3:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
10% unemployment is normal in which EU countries? The EU all are generally around 4% as an average. Even now, the UK is sitting at about 7.9%, France 7.4%, Germany is close to 10%. The overall Unemployment rate for the EU, now, during recession, is 8.9%.


RE: I'm glad
By phattyboombatty on 12/29/2009 4:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think you've got France and Germany mixed up.


RE: I'm glad
By ClownPuncher on 12/29/2009 5:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, you're right. Though, overall unemployment in the EU stands very close, a little less than our own.


RE: I'm glad
By Hoser McMoose on 12/29/2009 8:27:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The EU all are generally around 4% as an average.

While often quoted, unemployment rates are pretty meaningless at the best of times and terrible when you try to compare between countries because every country has their own method of counting 'unemployment', all of which are badly flawed.

It's generally much better to compare the EMPLOYMENT rate, ie the rate of those age 15 to 64 that actually have a job. The numbers are a couple years out of date, but you can get an idea here:

http://oberon.sourceoecd.org/pdf/factbook2009/3020...

As a general rule employment is highest in the Scandinavian countries and lowest in the more southerly European countries like France, Italy and Spain, with the U.S, Canada, Australia and the U.K falling somewhere in between.


RE: I'm glad
By omnicronx on 12/29/2009 5:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're stupid. Your system does not have queues because it keeps people out of it. Lie. Nobody in the United States can be refused health care. It's called a Hospital, look it up.
Insurance company refusing to cover someone for a pre existing illness or problem, Hospital denying service for non pre approved procedures, Insurance company only covering part of fix to six figure procedure, Insurance company denying coverage because I previous had cancer but now I'm in the free and clear, all equal denial of coverage.

Anyone in critical condition must be served, so in that way you are right, but the statement that ' Nobody in the United States can be refused health care' is vastly incorrect, unless you consider the refused cancer patient being admitted to the hospital just in time to bleed out internally..

Obviously by all of your posts you just don't get it, as it seems quite apparent you do not know any of the thousands upon thousands of people a year this has happened too.

These people are victims of a flawed system, they've paid their fees, they don't take advantage of the system, yet you seem to think its ok for the system to take advantage of them.

This hardly even takes into account those that just plain cannot afford insurance.


RE: I'm glad
By Reclaimer77 on 12/29/2009 6:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obviously by all of your posts you just don't get it, as it seems quite apparent you do not know any of the thousands upon thousands of people a year this has happened too.


Typical liberal. Hundreds of MILLIONS of people don't go through this. Because it happens to thousands we need government taking over healthcare ?

Thousands > millions.. hmmm.. yeah, good math.

It's clear you'll come up with anything to make your case, while ignoring that the huge majority in this country have competent, affordable, and flexible heath care coverage.

Now please, bring up highly selective cancer examples in your next post. Cause, you know, it's not like you are holding onto that like a crutch or anything.

Again, you don't live here, I do. I am NOT "rich", and I am very happy with my health care. I DO NOT WANT MY GOVERNMENT TAKING OVER HEALTH CARE. What part of this statement do you not understand ? This is the wrong way to reform our system. You have absolutely no stake in what happens here anyway.

I never said our system was perfect, but simply going socialized medicine is using a hammer to fix cracked china. And frankly, if you cared to be honest, you would acknowledge the flaws in your system as well.


RE: I'm glad
By omnicronx on 12/29/2009 7:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
I have a lot of family in the states as my father was born American. I can cousins, aunts, uncles, and grandparents, In fact the vast majority of my family lives in the US. So please don't come across and say I have no stake in the matter.

I read a study a while back by Harvard that estimated as many as 45000 deaths per year can be accounted for by links to insurance companies. This is just DEATHS alone! Now what about those who must live subpar lives (like my diabetic uncle for example that was denied coverage and ended up having his leg amputated). And what about those without insurance that go to an emergency room, get the needed care, and are shoved out the door with a giant bill in which there is no way they could ever pay it back? Compound all these we are talking hundred of thousands of affected people PER YEAR, compound that over the next 20 years and your little calculation starts to make less and less sense.

Anyway you put it your healthcare system is flawed, you've just compounded new problems over old ones (see medicare in which you spend almost as much money yearly than Canada does for its entire healthcare system.). The reset button needs to be switched, and there is no better time than the present.

You've obviously been one of the lucky people as to not know a family member or friend that has had these issues, but I assure you many people have, far more so than just the drop in the bucket you are trying to present here.


RE: I'm glad
By Reclaimer77 on 12/30/2009 1:29:18 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You've obviously been one of the lucky people as to not know a family member or friend that has had these issues


Well of course we haven't. Everyone in my family is super rich so naturally we have good healthcare.

/sarcasm


RE: I'm glad
By Reclaimer77 on 12/30/2009 11:36:45 AM , Rating: 1
Another thing Omni, do you realize how it feels as an American that while our Congressmen are ramming through this "reform" they wrote specific clauses in the bill that would exempt them from being a part of it ??

So THEY will still have the best care in the world, private, but the rest of us will go to jail if we don't go with the government plan.


RE: I'm glad
By Kurz on 12/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: I'm glad
By Lerianis on 12/29/2009 4:29:39 PM , Rating: 3
LIE! I have seen plenty of cases where children born at 28 weeks are treated and survive in the U.K.... that is a LIE, and if I could reach through this computer...... I would SLAP YOU FOR IT, bluntly!

Socialized medicine is NOT based solely around 'price controls'.... it is also based on getting a better 'bang for your buck' while still treating everyone equally and trying to make sure that everyone survives.

There are times when the doctors 'give up' in the U.K... but there are times when they do that here in the United States, it's called pulling the plug on terminally ill patients.

As to cancer survivability? Uh, duh... of course you are more likely to survive over here, not because they 'spend more on you' but because we have THE NEWEST TREATMENTS.... and treatments for some things that Britain and the E.U. DON'T have ANY treatment for, or at least none that WORKS.

No, you do not have a 'higher survival rate' here in the USA... in fact, comparing us to other states including Canada where we both have the SAME TREATMENTS for the things in question, and take out the people who get EXPERIMENTAL treatments....... it's pretty much the same survival wise in Europe as in America!

As to the government getting out of health care and prices going down.... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is the STUPIDEST thing I have heard or seen since the jackass who jumped off a mountain without a parachute!
If government would 'get out of health care'.... the prices would be going up EVEN FASTER than they are right now.


RE: I'm glad
By karielash on 12/29/2009 4:38:24 PM , Rating: 2

Dude, there is no point in getting mad at one of Mick's Monkeys... just take them for what they are, generally uneducated with no clue about anything outside their own back yard.


RE: I'm glad
By Kurz on 12/30/2009 11:07:26 AM , Rating: 1
At least I dont Live in a fantasy world where the government provides with everything. Of course by providing for everything they run up the debt.

Do you even know how much the Government Owes?


RE: I'm glad
By Kurz on 12/29/2009 6:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Pr...

The child was born 2 days before the 22 week cut off date.
You were right however the fact they make that decision is disrespectful of a parent that wants the child to live.
Especially since it could be possible the child could make it.

I like to say where do the newest treatments come from.
If you say USA I rest my point, we develop a majority of the newer treatments.

Price controls are not about penny pinching.
Its about setting the price. Lets say a company says it costs 40 dollars for this drug. The government says no way and will only pay for 5 dollars. There is a cost to develop/market/Clinical Trials/FDA approval/. And the company figured 40 dollars to pay for all those costs was worth it. The government looks it took you 5 dollars to make that box of pills and will only pay that much.

That is price control.

Reasons why Healthcare would be cheaper if the government got out of it.

First allow me to buy health insurance from any company in the country. (Reason Lack of Competition)

Second I shouldn't be stuck with a few health care providers my employer has business deals with. (Reason lack of Competition)

One of many links
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-s...

Medicare is a Broke system, as well as most Public option like systems.

I can go on, but I feel what I've stated is pretty good.
I stated my reasons why don't you?


RE: I'm glad
By omnicronx on 12/29/2009 4:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the UK they will not treat a child if they are born before a certain time the the womb. Even though the USA they can be treated and survive here.
I don't agree with the guideline one bit, but I also don't agree with your reasoning, and you make it out as though any premature baby is left to die. The cutoff is 22 weeks, or about 4 months premature. At that point the survival rate of any baby is very low, and even if they were to survive they would most likely have deformities and/or health problems.

Also the big thing here is that its a guideline, not a law, it is up the doctor/hospital to enforce it, which leads me to believe that your penny pushing theory is very much so incorrect. Its more of a pretective mechanism than anything, and once again while I don't agree with it, it really has nothing to do with socialized medicine. It just happens to be the guidelines set out by experts on the subject.
quote:
Socialized Medicine is based around Price controls.
You say this as though it has a one dimentional meaning, you are 100% correct, but these price controls are across the board. Just as with any government service, they have to make every penny count, but I don't see how that suddenly equates to lack of service. When I say across the board, I mean drugs cost less (which is as a result of government control) services cost less, pretty much everything costs less.. While you may have insurance, ever pick up your bill to see what the insurance company covered you for? I would bet my house that the exact same treatment in Canada vs the US would be much less money.

In other words, everything to do with medicine in the United States has overinflated pricing. Its just the circle of greed that is your Health care system. Just because you guys are terribly inefficient with all the money you use does not make socialized medicine a bad thing.
quote:
If you look at cancer Surviablity you have a better chance here. Think of an illness and treatment Majority of the time you'll have a higher survival rate here in the USA.
quote:
* For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada. * For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.
3-4% difference with 100% public healthcare (which would not be the case with US healthcare reform). One could also argue that the fact that cancer rates are also much higher in the US than anywhere else, resulting in more funds being pooled that way. That being said, its well known that the US does have top notch cancer care, but with careful management there is no reason that this cannot continue.


RE: I'm glad
By karielash on 12/30/2009 4:46:10 AM , Rating: 3

highest infant mortality rate of all industrial nations = USA
highest under 5 mortality rate of all industrial nations = USA
lowest Life expectancy of all industrial nations = USA
Death rate in hospital for poor 60% greater than for insured = USA
Cause of majority of US bankruptcy filings = Medical debt

US Health system is horribly broken, riddled with abusive practices by the Health Insurers and manipulated by politicians.


RE: I'm glad
By Solandri on 12/30/2009 2:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
Read the link a couple posts above. The US has the highest infant mortality rate because it classifies each live birth as an infant. In most other countries, infants born premature by a certain amount are simply labeled as miscarriages, regardless of whether they're born alive. That's what causes this seemingly contradictory statistic: the U.S. has the highest survival rate of premature births.

A year ago, working on the premise that women around the world have basically the same miscarriage rate, I added up the miscarriage rate + infant mortality rate based on UN figures. The U.S. ends up about average for industrialized nations if you do that. An interesting thing was, you could tell which countries were padding their data to make their health care systems look good on paper. Cuba had a phenomenally low infant mortality rate, well within the range of developed nations. But their miscarriage rate was the highest reported by any country. And the sum of the two puts them well into the range of undeveloped nations.

The lower life expectancy (it's not the lowest of industrialized nations btw) as has been explained in other posts is simply due to Americans being less healthy than other people (generally, more obese). Foreigners are always ranting about how stupid Americans are. But when it comes to life expectancy, suddenly it's all caused by the health care system, and not by stupidity?


RE: I'm glad
By karielash on 12/30/2009 11:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
Horrible system is Horrible.....

Links...

www.google.com help yourself.


RE: I'm glad
By Targon on 12/30/2009 7:16:34 AM , Rating: 1
People get sick all the time and don't need a doctor, or a pill, or anything to get better for most of them. The problem is this idea that you need to run to the doctor for every little ache and pain, added to the fact that people are lawsuit happy. If someone gets sick and a doctor can't save them, the first thing many people look for is some mistake the doctor made so they can sue. This drives up malpractice insurance.

In reality, the best fix for the medical industry would be to limit lawsuits to TRUE cases of malpractice, meaning that unless you can find evidence that the doctor was drinking or on drugs, or don't have a license to practice medicine, lawsuits against doctors should NOT be allowed.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki