Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (306910)	10/19/2006 3:13:27 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1575420

Free Hugs In Korea youtube.com This should be called "Make Hugs, Not Nukes." LOL. Its fun watching the people trying to decide if they want to get a hug..........while the children just walk right up and get their hug. Real sweet!

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (306910)	10/19/2006 6:28:03 AM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575420

Imagine how much better this world had been if Kim Jong Jr. had concentrated on composing additional operas or producing movies. Taro

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (306910)	10/19/2006 10:42:37 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575420

Universal health care: We can't afford not to Thu Oct 19, 7:13 AM ET The most basic question about health care reform is an old one: Should basic care be a "right" for everyone regardless of income, pre-existing illness or bad genes - or should it be a "privilege" obtained by hard work or bestowed by good birth? We would never argue that police and fire protection should be distributed based on income, so why should health care? That's an emotionally charged issue, but there is one observation almost everyone agrees with: Our present health care "system" (a messy mix of personal, employer and government health insurance) badly needs reform. We spend more than twice as much per person on health care as other industrialized countries do - about $6,100 here vs. an average of $2,550 elsewhere in 2004 - yet we are the only such country that does not provide universal insurance coverage. How can that be? Unfortunately, there is often no correlation between amounts spent and results. For example, in 2000, Medicare spending in Manhattan was more than $10,000 per person vs. less than $5,000 in Portland, Ore. - and Portland had better treatment results. We will spend more than $2 trillion (yes, that's a "t") on health care this year. Yet, we rank last among 23 industrialized countries in infant mortality. One major reason for these appalling numbers is the huge number of uninsured or underinsured in our country who do not get timely care. So why not make health care a right so every American can potentially benefit from early intervention and better prevention? The abuse argument One of the arguments against universal coverage usually unfolds under the ironic label "moral hazard" - that if we morally weak humans are offered something "free" (meaning that someone else is paying for it) we will abuse it. For example, a bowl of free candy will disappear much more quickly than candy you have to pay for yourself. But that argument assumes people would consume health care in the same way they gobble down free candy. I think that conclusion is crazy. Other than seasoned hypochondriacs, who wants to unnecessarily visit the doctor or go into the hospital - just because you have insurance - instead of going to the beach or playing golf? Of course, there will be some abuse, but that should be easily outweighed by offering many more of us a chance to be healthier, not to mention a better shot at "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Indeed, the real moral hazard when it comes to health care is what we are doing right now: not providing basic care to our citizens through cost effective health insurance for everyone. Not only is it the right thing to do morally, but I would argue it makes sense economically by providing prevention and care in the early stages of disease when it will usually cost less and be more effective. Better to treat pneumonia early with antibiotics than end up in the intensive care unit on a respirator with lung failure. Efficient care Some experts argue that with more thoughtful use of the money we now spend (electronic records to replace paper, better bargaining for drug and device prices, etc.), we can provide basic care to everyone with relatively little increase in total expenditure. Efficient health care systems such as the reformed Veterans Administration hospital system already make a case. The VA, which provides often excellent care, costs about $5,000 per patient annually vs. $6,500 for private Medicare patients. And here is a final question: How long do we want to be known as the wealthiest country in the world - and the only one that does not provide universal health insurance when we could and should? Timothy Johnson, medical editor for ABC News, provides medical analysis forWorld News, Nightline, 20/20 and Good Morning America.