White House appears ready to drop 'public option' on health care

Monday 17th August, 06:19 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 52 Total Comments Show All

TheQuestion at 07:05 AM JST - 18th August

Considering that Canadian's have a longer life expectancy

And America has some of the highest survival rates in the world in terms of invasive surgery and the U.S paves the way in terms of new and experimental medical treatment from the first coronary bypass surgery to modern day prosthetics. Our medicine is at the forefront because it is profit driven, because companies are motivated by a competative market to outsell and outperform every other drug company. The same goes for hospitals and private clinics and if we start with nationalization of health insurance the next logical step is taking control of such private institutions eventually leading to complete govenrment control of the health industry and if they handle it anywhere near as well as amtrak or the post office we get to look forward to health care that is slow, inefficient, and overly expensive in the long run.
zurcronium at 07:47 AM JST - 18th August

The insurance companies cut a deal with Obama.
SuperLib at 08:22 AM JST - 18th August

dontpanic: Wonder what SuperLib would have done in his twenties if in a moments loss of concentration he'd crashed his motorbike

Car insurance in the US comes with medical treatment for injuries sustained in a car accident.

My point was that there are people who are young and stupid and make stupid decisions. I wasn't advocating that people not have insurance, I was just saying that a portion or the uninsured are people who are young and just don't think about it. I'm sure I could lecture you about the binge drinking problem of British youth and what that does to your health but I wouldn't expect an answer beyond "stupid kids."

A friend of mine did have a medical problem in his early 20s without insurance. He had to set up an interest free payment plan to make payments for the medical care. It was a bad situation for him, but he's a lawyer now (for insurance companies, no less), and he makes quite a bit of money. Ask him where he stands on the issue now. Over his lifetime he'll probably pay more in taxes and will get reduced care compared with the one time injury he got when he was in his 20s. Over the long run he'd pay a lot more and his soon-to-be-born daughter would expect the same.

The US system has flaws just like ever country's health care system has flaws, but it's not a slam dunk case of getting universal care. Someone said it was just an issue of being stubborn so I tried to explain how complicated the issue can be. It's not about being stupid or being stubborn, there is a very, very large chunk of the population that will probably see reduced quality at a higher price.
lunchmeat at 09:18 AM JST - 18th August

I have yet to meet anyone "with money" who went to the states for medical care.

Please allow me to introduce you.

According to a September 14, 2007, article from CTV News, Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach went to the United States for breast cancer surgery in June 2007. Stronach's spokesperson Greg MacEachern was quoted in the article saying that the US was the best place to have this type of surgery done. Stronach paid for the surgery out of her own pocket.[47] Prior to this incident, Stronach had stated in an interview that she was against two-tiered health care.[48]
NeilWarnock at 10:39 AM JST - 18th August

Americans are divvy whenit comes to arguing. Life expectancy and survival rates are lower in USA than Europe, and that's for them that can afford it.

US health is rationed if you aint rich. A disgrace for the worlds richest country.

Give me the good old NHS anyday. Why is POst office , army and teachers alright to be paid for by governmenbt , but not health. How thick can you get?
Good_Jorb at 11:30 AM JST - 18th August

Liberal MP Belinda Stronach

I wouldn't say an MP is by any means wealthy, besides a single case is hardly a cross section of where Canadians go for health care. It is the same type of cherry picking that Micheal Moore uses for his video's.

Now on to things called facts;

Life expectancy. Canadians live longer than Americans. According to the OECD, life expectancy in the United States is 77.8 years. A Canadian can expect to more than two years longer (80.4 years).

The United States as a nation spends a higher portion of its wealth on health care. In 2007, Canada spent 10% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. The United States spend 15.3% of its GDP on health care, according to the OECD.

Read more: http://americanaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/healthcareinunitedstates_canada#ixzz0OUq8KNJG

Consider me confused but if I can live two years longer and health care is significantly cheaper, how is the American system better?

Maybe the survival rate for cancer patients is higher in the states but it's apparent by the average life expectancy, which countries have better and cheaper health care in General.
Molenir at 01:01 PM JST - 18th August

At events, bush protesters were shuttled and arrested if they refused to leave. george bush never saw a protester at any of his speaking engagements, except from the shoe thrower in Iraq.

Sorry, is totally not true. Go back and look again. If you are saying he never had anyone stand up and heckle him, even thats not true. Happened multiple times. And he drove by the signs every single time.

But even in a state where weapons are allowed to be carried openly, they shouldn't be allowed at presidential events. The Secret Service has enough idiots who want to harm any president, but to have people with a weapon there just makes their job harder. < :-)

Guess you didn't hear the latest on this. The guy you're referencing was a Dem and a supporter of Obama. Not sure if he was one of the many bussed in by Dems for the event from LA, but there were a heck of a lot of them, as the Dems tried to pack the event.

I wouldn't say an MP is by any means wealthy, besides a single case is hardly a cross section of where Canadians go for health care. It is the same type of cherry picking that Micheal Moore uses for his video's.

Come now. You should know better then this. Many, many Canadians come to the US for their health care, not just the occasional MP.

As Superlib said. The US system has flaws. No one is saying differently. However opting for socialized medicine is not the answer. The cure would be worse then the disease in that case. Now if you want to start talking about tort reform, then yes, I'm all in favor of that. If you are serious about health care reform, the place to start is with tort reform, and yet Dems aren't willing to even discuss it. Says a lot about what they're really interested in.
dontpanic at 04:48 PM JST - 18th August

SuperLib - "there is a very, very large chunk of the population that will probably see reduced quality at a higher price"

If you mean those that can afford the best insurance and the best of care, they could still do that with a public healthcare system by continuing to pay for a private scheme. Yes it would cost them a bit more, but if they can afford it why not?

As for the binge drinking kids in the UK, I couldnt say much more than 'stupid kids' could I? Except that Im proud of the fact that when they end up in hospital after a fight, or when theyve ruined their livers, they can get great care and possibly an opportunity to turn things round.
Gombei424Canada at 05:41 PM JST - 18th August

Well, I'm not too surprised.In fact I predicted this would be the case, what with sarah palin the quitter flying around the country in her private helicopter and TERRORIZING people at town hall meetings and spouting off about "death panels".

Tis sad, really, that the richest nation in the world can't afford health care for close to 60 million people.Said people are going to remember this, and the repubs will AGAIN take a shellacking at the polls in 2012.

Anyways, my friends, this is NOT a defeat for Obama,as the few remaining bush supporters here are trying to make it out to be.
adaydream at 08:35 PM JST - 18th August

I don't care whether any of them were rep or dem. These weapons weren't needed at a presidential event. < :-)
Redhots at 10:24 PM JST - 18th August

@TokyoRoughGuy--It's not Americans that have spoken, it is people who are brainwashed by Palin and her ilk to believe that National health care means Death Squads and old people not getting their meds. They don't know what they are talking about and they are going to end up getting everyone shot in the foot.

Really though I just love the protestors and their hypocrisy--they are against health care but sure do love their government funded and run social security, medicare/medicaid, unemployment and the like.
Molenir at 02:41 AM JST - 19th August

I don't care whether any of them were rep or dem. These weapons weren't needed at a presidential event. < :-)

While I certainly agree with the sentiments you're expressing. Arizona is an open carry state. Meaning people have the right to carry firearms out in the open. Even outside a political rally. Don't even need a permit. However I read quite a statement from the Secret Service, saying that obviously someone carrying a gun wouldn't be allowed into the actual event. And of course you can't bring guns onto a school campus or into a government facility. Likewise private companies have the right to restrict entrance to anyone who is armed. So while you have the right to carry your gun, there are limits.

Anyone ever read Cryptonomicon?

If you mean those that can afford the best insurance and the best of care, they could still do that with a public healthcare system by continuing to pay for a private scheme. Yes it would cost them a bit more, but if they can afford it why not?

You must not know much about history. If there is a public scheme, within just a few years, there won't be a private one any more. Happened just that way in Canada.
SuperLib at 08:20 AM JST - 19th August

Good Jorb: Life expectancy. Canadians live longer than Americans. According to the OECD, life expectancy in the United States is 77.8 years. A Canadian can expect to more than two years longer (80.4 years).

And a Japanese person can expect to leave nearly 2 years longer than a Canadian. I guess that means their health care system is better? A person in the US can expect to live longer than the average person from Denmark. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Denmark have universal coverage? I don't think your data supports the point you're making.

NeilWarnock: US health is rationed if you aint rich.

Wow, then I guess 85% of Americans are rich. Congrats to us.
yabits at 06:19 PM JST - 19th August

You must not know much about history. If there is a public scheme, within just a few years, there won't be a private one any more.

And the problem with that is....

I've never seen anyone explain what value private insurance companies add to the system of paying for health care. Each insurance company skims FAR more out of the system and leaves many more people uncovered at the time when they need health coverage most.
dontpanic at 08:36 PM JST - 19th August

molenir - "You must not know much about history. If there is a public scheme, within just a few years, there won't be a private one any more. Happened just that way in Canada"

I'll admit I dont know much about the way health care works in Canada, but I do know a bit about how it works in the UK. Since 1948 there has been both an excellent public system and a thriving private system there.

I guess the private system collapsed in Canada after failing to offer something the public system couldnt.