They write in English, too. Who gives a shit if they fund doctors? Corporations can't fund anyone if there's no motivation for them to do so. I'm not asking anyone to care about innovation they cannot partake in. I'm taking the perspective that, by pandering to the people who are underserved relative to others in this country, we are stifling innovation on a global perspective. That might be a good deal for the people who are no covered, but a bad deal for humanity overall. Ed O.
You're too fat. No cheeseburger for you. Your father died of cirrhosis of the liver. No alcohol for you. You didn't go to the gym and do cardio this week? That's a $150 fine. It's crazy and it's scary, but it's a logical step at some point as a way to control costs. Ed O.
Not scare tactics; simple economics. But you keep wishing and hoping that everything will be okay in the face of all evidence.
The United States has been more innovated in the medical industry than the rest of the world combined. More than half of the top medical innovations in the last 40 years have come from the United States. If the innovation of the United States is reduced, the collective innovation of the world is decreased significantly. It's a shame that innovation will be reduced, since we were getting better and better at curing cancer, AIDs, etc...
And those other 9 countries benefit from the innovations coming from the one country that doesn't (didn't) provide free healthcare. Congratulations to them for being able to ride our coattails. They are the Brian Scalabrines of health care.
I would sacrfice innovation that benefits the world for a health care package that helps millions of US citizens be able to obtain health care.
~10% of people in the United States don't have health insurance. A good portion of those can afford it, but choose not to purchase it. So 90-95% of the country should care greatly about innovations because they can afford it. But if you want to continue talking about the very small minority, be my guest.
Just to put some rough numbers on this: You are willing to sacrifice innovation that benefits ~90-95% of the US citizens, and 100's of millions of others across the world, so that ~5% of US citizens can take part in a less innovative healthcare program? Not to mention that they already are able to obtain health care. You want them to be able to obtain health care insurance.
OK . . . nice to see a country, that is usually so driven by politics that the small minority rarely has a voice in politics, get recognized. Not only was the small minority recognized by the political process, politcal action was done to try and help them out. I don't know how a small minority got so much power, but good for them and good for the political process to regonize and take action ontheir behalf. Chalk one up for the little guy or the small minority of the country. Our country is taking care of them before trying to take care of the world.
Actually, the small minority didn't gain power. The majority of Americans were against this health care bill. This bill was passed not because of the power of the minority, or political action being taken to help them. This bill was passed because the ego of Pelosi, Reid and Obama trumped everything. They were going to ram a bill down our throats because they want to be remembered for something in history.
That is one way to look at it. Personally Obama should have done what presidents before him did, talk about health care, sort of try to get something done, and then move to other issues surrounding the country. It would have been the smart political thing to do. I don't believe this is about making history, I believe Obama thinks this is the best thing for the US.
Agreed. He would have gained a lot more credibility if he had shifted his focus to reducing the deficits. With that gain in credibility, he might have been more successful getting more bi-partisan support on health care. We'll definitely have to agree to disagree on that one. I believe his ego, along with Pelosi's, was the biggest factor in this. They are hitching their wagons to health care being what get's them remembered in history.
Much of the rest of the top medical innovations in the last 40 years have come from foreign companies who operate here because they can innovate here.
This is the scary part.....oh god..... Ive heard this kind of stuff from crazy conspiracy theorists, but to here it from relatively smart people (i dont know you guys that well) is really scary....
You're making the assumption that every country has equal health care. There's a significant variance. Our health care system is the best in the world. Our life expectancy is relatively low because of lifestyle issues. There has been a study that demonstrates once you get into the system, you stand a better chance at getting well than any in any other heath care system. Breast cancer? If you're here, you stand a 94% chance of survival. In Great Britain, it's 77%. The Premier of Newfoundland just came to the States to have cardiac surgery. Why mess with the best system in the world? Worse, why spend an additional $2.5T to make it less effective?
FWIW, white people in the USA are healthier than any people of any other nation. They live longer, suffer from fewer diseases, etc. When you consider black men have a life expectancy of 65 years, it drags us down, statistically, a hair below the other top nations. However, black men who live to age 20 have a much higher life expectancy, basically the same as for white men. The issues for why black men have such a low life expectancy (from birth) are numerous and complex and are certainly worthy of addressing and fixing. The bottom line is that the best health care system in the world can't save people who are shot in drive by shootings or innocent bystanders of such things.
