SurveyDo you think that the Democrats are actually interested in improving healthcare in the USA?
      – DigitalBoss, 2009-07-08 at 15:46:49   (19 comments)

On 2009-07-08 at 15:48:48, DigitalBoss wrote...
They are ONLY interested in making you dependant on another one of their programs. They want to take over the healthcare industry in America for ONE reason, to increase their power. Whenever politicians increase their power, you lose liberty.
On 2009-07-08 at 19:49:03, Lee J Haywood wrote...
A usual, I have no idea what a democrat is so have no comment.
On 2009-07-08 at 20:09:21, BorgClown wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: Democrats and republicans are just the two dominant political parties of USA. The best guide to judge them is to see what you can remember about the presidents they're produced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States Start from the bottom, the pink ones are republicans, and the blue ones are democrats.
On 2009-07-08 at 20:09:41, BorgClown wrote...
*they've
On 2009-07-08 at 21:27:50, DigitalBoss wrote...
Non-responsive to the question.
On 2009-07-08 at 23:39:46, Baslisks wrote...
Sure, just as much as I would think republicans are. In truth there are no democrats and republicans, they are a bunch of bland faced politicians lying to everyone. I say we revolt. I'll make the smoke and bring the paints. I have some fat rendering too.
On 2009-07-09 at 02:00:12, Baslisks wrote...
The biggest boon I can see is that preventive health care becomes the vogue and we as a nation actually start using less and less medicines because we are able to stop and prevent illness and maladies well before they actually require surgery and treatments. That is actually the largest killer in america, not knowing whats happening to your body.
On 2009-07-09 at 10:44:52, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I'm not sure how easy it would be to switch a bunch of private systems to a national scheme. Presumably the idea isn't to actually rebuild from scratch, which would mean instead giving money to private organisations so that they don't deal with individual insurers. To me, that's a difficult challenge whichever government is behind it. It's better in the UK where the medical staff are employed by the NHS directly (and are protected to some extent against the financial situation) and the NHS allocates funds to hospitals, etc., as a general budget.
On 2009-07-09 at 14:33:34, DigitalBoss wrote...
I have heard of horror stories about healthcare in the UK: 4 month waits to get an MRI, where it takes less than 24 hours here. I heard a former doctor from the UK that said we definitely do not want a system like they have.
On 2009-07-09 at 14:34:24, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Baslisks: I asked you, not the Republicans.
On 2009-07-09 at 17:37:43, Lee J Haywood wrote...
That's no different to the stories we hear about people in the US being refused medical treatment because they don't have insurance. In reality, no matter which country you're in you will get help right away if you have an emergency - whether you need an MRI in the UK or have no insurance in the US.
On 2009-07-14 at 11:45:00, DigitalBoss wrote...
I think there is a difference. In the US, it is assumed that you are responsible for your own healthcare and health insurance. So someone that ends up with none is probably responsible for it themselves in some way. I know that doesn't cover every example, but probably most examples. In the other case, it is people who are expected to be dependant on their government for care and are receiving very poor service from same.
On 2009-07-14 at 16:13:03, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Even in redundancy I get a benefit from the government that keeps my national insurance payments going, so I'm always covered in case of medical need. NI payments are based on salary, so are fair in the same sense as our discussion about salary-based fines would require - there are even special rules for directors' NI which deal with potential cheats. Yes, you have to pay them and it's true that the NHS is getting bloated in its old age (with overpaid administrators) but it's still a good idea in principle.
On 2009-08-01 at 15:49:19, Scarletxstarlet wrote...
I think they're interested; I don't know if they're capable. If the Democratic party can pull it off, though, it will be a huge coup and will go a long way towards changing their image of inefficiency.
On 2009-08-02 at 09:47:28, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Awesome summary of the situation here... http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327194.100-insight-why-dollars-alone-wont-fix-us-healthcare.html
On 2009-08-05 at 21:04:57, Thelevellers wrote...
Awesome indeed... I wonder what happened in the 80's?! (I only watched the video, so sorry if that's explained in the words...!)
On 2009-08-05 at 21:20:21, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@Thelevellers: Oh, I didn't know that there was a video as I'd just read the actual magazine. That's real laziness on your part - the text is short, the video is long!
On 2009-08-05 at 21:46:23, Thelevellers wrote...
But I video allowed me to lean back an enjoy, whereas the text requires me to sit forward and scan side to side :P Hell I'm allowed to be lazy, I'm possibly walking 10 miles or more around Coventry tomorrow! Or I may succeed in finding the bus, but where's the fun in that?!
On 2009-11-29 at 17:50:58, DigitalBoss wrote...
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/11/socialist_healt.html