The New National Health Plan Is Texting 191
theodp writes "With a gushing press release, Federal CTO Aneesh Chopra announced the launch of Text4baby, 'an unprecedented mobile health public-private partnership' designed to promote maternal and child health. Expectant women are instructed to 'Enter the date of the first day of your last menstrual period' to start receiving 'timely and expert health information through SMS text messages' until their child reaches the age of 12 months (limited to 3 free messages/week). The White House Blog has more information on the 'historic collaboration between industry, the health community and government.' Separately, the White House announced plans to spend $3,000 on 'Game-Changing' Solutions to Childhood Obesity. Once again, Dilbert proves to be scarily prescient."
Uh, rant much? (Score:4, Insightful)
So you don't like health care reform. Fair enough.
And you don't like this program. Fair enough.
Therefore this program equals health care reform?
WTF?
Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, slashdot is run by young rich white guys whose parents were all well-off. They don't need health-care right now, so screw everybody else.
For those of us on the continent, this whole thing is just another sign of the US tearing itself apart for some reason I at least cannot understand.
I am reminded a bit about the trouble britain went through in the 60/70's wear it was close to falling apart, almost as if the people hated their own country.
In the US it seems people hate so much the idea that someone else might get a penny out of them, they rather spend a dollar even if that someone is themselves.
Really, what is so damned scary about a national health care system. Surely paying less for a system (the US spends more and gets less then any other western nation) would be a good thing? Or is spending 1000 dollars on bad health care to a private company good and 100 dollars on good health care to the government bad?
Moderate parent up. (Score:2)
Re:Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys (Score:4, Interesting)
If it could be clearly demonstrated that we'd get the same healthcare as we're getting now for a lower price on government-run healthcare, I doubt you could find more than a handful of people in this country who'd oppose it.
Alas, so far, not a single proposal for government-run healthcare has met that criterion. Certainly this last go-round didn't. What we keep getting from the government is "we'll improve your healthcare by making it cost more, but not deliver more"....
Re:Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys (Score:5, Informative)
I give you H.R. 676 [loc.gov], a bill which would provide simple, single-payer health care to all legal residents of the United States, but keeps getting buried by Congress in favour of their massive, complex "health reform" bill that ironically does far less for the people. This bill would actually make the US health care system better than that of most Canadian provinces, since it covers things like dental and prescription medication.
It has been shown several times that single-payer care costs far, far less in the long run, and allows you to keep everything you have now, minus the insurance company that wants profit over your own health. Unfortunately, it seems that the right wing has successfully equated the term "single payer" with socialism or communism (OMG THE REDS, RUN AWAY!), so I doubt we'll see anything this sane in the next ten years.
Re:Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys (Score:4, Insightful)
Insurance provides management of risk. Using it as a middleman for payment of routine health care costs is an inefficient perversion of its purpose.
And please explain how the overhead of any middleman between me and a doctor would be more cost-effective.
Even a very basic mathematical analysis shows that any of these systems is less efficient than "customer pays."
If your answer is that the government will have none of the problems that using insurance companies as a middleman have, because the government is good and insurance companies are bad, please try again.
It's like this: routine care has a cost x. Redistribution of money to pay cost x has an additional cost y, no matter who does it. If the customer pays cost x, adding cost y will increase costs.
Do you expect your car insurance to pay for your gasoline? Why not? If I offered to provide you with a gasoline payment policy, in which for a monthly fee I'd pay all of your gasoline bills, would you sign up expecting to get a good deal? Would you expect the price or availability of gasoline to change? What if everyone signed up for the same program? Would the incentive be to conserve your usage of gasoline, or to use as much as possible?
If the overhead for my gasoline single-payer program is only 10%, you're worse off in the program unless your gasoline usage is greater than 10% of the average among all users. Essentially, the bottom 60% is subsidizing the top 40%, and the system as a whole is 10% less efficient than everyone paying for their own gasoline.
If you're saying that people should subsidize others who can't afford basic care, fine. We have medicare and medicaid, which a majority of those people already qualify for. If there are 5% that don't, expand that program; don't force me into a single-payer program I don't want.
Re:Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Even a very basic mathematical analysis shows that any of these systems is less efficient than "customer pays."
You're right, of course. We can just conveniently ignore all the moral implications of that. And comparing people's health to simply fueling their cars? Brilliant. Oh, and let's also pretend that everyone should be covered already since Medicare exists, even though it's heavily restricted and there's a huge subset of working poor that don't qualify for it simply because they work. Those people should totally quit their jobs so they can get on welfare for the health care! Or alternately, pay for a private health insurance plan that they can't afford (somehow). What's that? They should have insurance through their employer? Fat chance for a large percentage of people who work for small companies that don't have employee health insurance plans.
By the way, HR676 doesn't in any way affect your relationship with your doctor and/or hospital other than who they bill. Doctors and hospitals are still private. But feel free to conveniently ignore that and rant on anyway.
I mean really, we could just boil this down to "I've got mine, so fuck the rest of you."
Re:Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys (Score:4, Insightful)
...but i absolutely don't care about your health and i am sure you feel the same towards me. ...
Wrong, ohhh, so wrong.
I'd rather help you with your health, through taxes, than having you around with an undiagnosed and/or untreated case of Tuberculosis, AIDS, severe depression or Schizophrenia.
Also, your poor health could mean that your children would have less opportunities in life, and stand more chances of becoming criminals, creating huge costs for the rest of the society, including me. I don't think, either, that "Let the sins of the father fall over his children" is morally correct. Not in a million years.
Re: (Score:2)
I read the bill. It doesn't actually require that you be a legal resident of the USA. Nor does it look to be "simple", with both a National Board, and 50 State Boards used to determine salaries, costs, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
but if there's only one hospital where you live, and it opts out, you're paying for National Health Care without really getting any benefits for same.
It won't opt out! As soon as it discovers that nobody can afford it's services unless it opts back in, it will because no customers means out of business. Just as likely, as soon as it discovers that the emergency patients it treated under the existing must (minimally) treat laws can't or won't pay any other way, it will happily reach for the check being held out to it by the national health care system.
It's opt-out in the same way that breathing is opt-out. Why should I argue endlessly about the ethics of
Re: (Score:2)
The existence of a National Healthcare System does not, in fact, imply that people can't afford to pay for a hospital's service.
While I consider it unlikely that a hospital would opt out, I don't consider it impossible. Especially if it's a captive audience sort of hospital.
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone only has the insurance they won't accept, the odds are nobody will be able to afford their services. Practically nobody can afford to pay out of pocket these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know several Canadian citizens who moved to the states in a large part to escape the inferior national healthcare system up north. I suppose if you work part time at McDonalds, government run health care seems like a good idea, but if you have a job where you can actually afford real healthcare, it's terrible.
[sarcasm]Maybe we should raise the voting age to prevent those pesky poor college kids from voting their silly liberal views. That would eliminate a large portion of the support for this![/sarcasm]
Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Except that's nonsense. Perhaps Canada has a poor system (I really don't know), but why compare with the worst example?
I know the UK isn't the best in the world, but we pay less on public healthcare (per capita) than the USA does.
And I also believe our private healthcare is far cheaper too; I know it would be for me. Look at this [moneysupermarket.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you concede that it was wrong to generalise that public healthcare was a bad idea, from your limited experience?
BTW, did you look at the link I gave in my previous post? Was the quote comparable to what you pay now? I really don't know what's "usual" for the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, presently I pay nothing for first rate healthcare for my entire family in NYC, so I'm not exactly an ideal candidate. Nevertheless that website puts me at around 90 pounds for similar care in the E4 6AA [londontown.com] postcode of London (I have no idea where that is, but I don't exactly live in Manhattan, so it seemed comparable), but doesn't cover dental or the cost of anything but out-patient surgery, as far as I can tell (doesn't cover surgery? then what's the point?). But about $140 a month is nearly a tenth [finweb.com] of
Re: (Score:2)
There actually can be an easy solution for the possibly problem of the healthcare quality: basic universal healthcare that covers most important things can be provided. If someone wants more service they can either pay cash or have a private insurance. This combines the best of both worlds.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I know several Canadian citizens who moved to the states in a large part to escape the inferior national healthcare system up north. I suppose if you work part time at McDonalds, government run health care seems like a good idea, but if you have a job where you can actually afford real healthcare, it's terrible.
Amazing isn't it, how everyone has an ex-girlfriend's former roommate's Canadian cousin who has some unpleasant anecdote the public health care system, isn't it? I almost wonder sometimes if these a
Re: (Score:2)
If it could be clearly demonstrated that we'd get the same healthcare as we're getting now for a lower price on government-run healthcare, I doubt you could find more than a handful of people in this country who'd oppose it.
When you say "this country", what country are you referring to? I happen to live in America and there are plenty of people who hare happy to cut off their own noses to spite their faces. Just about everybody agrees that is true, too. They just differ on who the people advocating that are.
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to live in America ...
America?
North, Central, or South America?
Let's assume North America...
Canada, USA, or Mexico?
What was your point?
Not just rich, out of touch and reading challenged (Score:2)
From the article, Text4baby founding partners include:
National Healthy Mothers
Healthy Babies Coalition (HMHB)
Voxiva
CTIA - The Wireless Foundation
Grey healthcare group (a WPP company)
Founding corporate sponsor Johnson & Johnson
WellPoint
Pfizer
CareFirst
BlueCross
BlueShield
"... wireless carriers are distributing free text messages."
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Department of Health and Human Service
Re:Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys (Score:5, Interesting)
I can maybe answer some of that.
Having lived in countries with national health care systems (someplace in Asia), with private insurance (US), and with no insurance at all but low prices (some other palce in Asia), I have found the highest level of care by far to be in the United States. The worst care, by far, was in the place with no insurance but cheap prices. In most hospitals there, if you're not bribing the staff (and thus raising the price), you'll get almost no care. The place with a national health insurance system was a middle case. Primary care and ob/gyn care is reasonably good (but not as good as the US; our first child was conceived in that country but born in the other place in Asia) and the co-pays were roughly price-equivalent to the US. Hospital stays there, however, fall far short of what you get here. I spend a week in the hospital there, and it was most unpleasant. The national health insurance only paid for a bed in a six-patient room and I was surrounded by people who were far sicker than I, with all the noise, smells, and potential cross-infection that goes with that. The equipment was lousy (I couldn't even get an IV tree with wheels; I had to carry the thing to the communal bathroom; no in-room bathroom or shower). The nursing care was fair, and the food was disgusting. I lived off the convenience store in the basement and a pizza a friend brought me.
Do I want the US health care system to become like the middle case I described? No way. We're way, way better than that now. My wife, who is from one of those other places, agrees that our quality of health care is the best. Going to a national insurance system will probably pull that quality down.
What, then, do we need to fix? A few things:
1) Fix the extremely hostile and litigious malpractice lawsuit industry; it's a major factor in what makes health care and insurance so expensive here. It desperately needs reform. And by "fix" I mean that it needs to be far, far harder to sue someone for malpractice, that you need to really prove they fucked up hugely, along the lines of something that could cause a license suspension or revocation.
2) The way health insurance companies can screw people by doing things like declaring a pre-existing condition uncovered, charging people who actually get sick and use their insurance more money (it's supposed to be a shared risk pool; everyone should pay the same).
3) Get better standardization of forms, etc., so it doesn't cost doctors so much to deal with health insurance. The best thing about the country with national health insurance is that doctors easily knew where they stood and didn't need to employ one or more insurance specialists.
4) Use the forms in points 1-3 to make health insurance cheaper and available to all. Subsidize the cost with tax credits for people who are low income if you have to.
That's how we need to reform health care. What we definitely don't need is national health insurance.
What's so scary about a national health insurance system? To *really* fuck something up requires a government. The US government, in particular is very good at that, and is also very good at ridiculously underestimating what something will cost (or more likely, lying about it). One thing is for certain: spending 100 dollars on government health care will most certainly not get you better health care than spending 100 dollars on private health care. The government never, ever does things better and cheaper. Typically, it's both worse and more expensive.
Government is rarely the solution. More government is even more rarely the solution. Mostly, government is the problem. Sure, we have improvements to be made, but a huge, bloated and expensive government health care bureaucracy isn't the way to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to think that a hospital should be like a hotel, where everybody gets their own room and a continental breakfast. Well, surprise -- You're not there on vacation, you're there to get medical treatment.
Space is a commodity; I, for one, will put up with a little less room if it means that the impoverished family down the street's daughter gets necessary treatment.
I live in Ca
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fixing the litigation problem is a good idea, but it won't make a significant difference to the fact we are heading toward spending 20% of our GDP on health care.
So far as our health care being the best in the world, it depends on how you define and measure that. If you look at customer satisfaction of people who have the means to buy good insurance, that's probably true. For example if you want a particular procedure and have the insurance to cover it, you're probably happier about that procedure.
If you d
Re: (Score:2)
Consider, if there is health insurance that makes sure basic needs are covered, supplemental insurance that upgrades you to a private room and better food would be a lot cheaper (since you could just say no otherwise). Problem solved.
I have yet to see any proposal in the U.S. that would forbid choosing to pay more for a private room or supplemental insurance to cover that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
P.S. Nice try with the racist reference to rich, young white guys. There's nothing wrong with being rich, young, and white, and it doesn't make you somehow automatically wrong.
P.P.S. We don't spend more and get less than any other western nation. Health care may be tremendously expensive here, but it's also by and large tremendously good. Far better than any other country I've been to. My wife - who is not an American - says the same. She's constantly astounded by how good the health care system is here. T
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes you do.
No it isn't.
Perhaps you should visit more countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I was in Nebraska last year with my 7 year old nephew who needed medical assistance. They billed his mother stating that they do not accept out of state insurance.
And there is the case for insurance portability across state lines. We can do that easily with private insurance by simply passing a law that lets them compete across state lines.
A couple of years ago I was in charge of distributing my mother's money. I made the mistake of giving my niece her money. The government seeing that she had a little bit of money(just $10,000) stripped her of medical and food benefits. While she had that money she had a $2,000 medical expense so they took her state income tax refund to pay for it. Why didn't I just give the money to the government instead? I did have to pay the federal and state governments over $15,000 in taxes. The gross national income is around $50,000 per person in this country and yet we have to take away money from the people who make less than the poverty level.
Government programs aren't free, someone has to pay for them. Every time you advocate for a government program, you are advocating raising taxes on more people. The wealthy literally can't afford to pay for all the government programs various peoples want. You can confiscate 100% of their income and 100% of their wealth and it woul
You are not a lawyer. (Score:2)
A couple of years ago I was in charge of distributing my mother's money. I made the mistake of giving my niece her money. The government seeing that she had a little bit of money(just $10,000) stripped her of medical and food benefits.
I am not sure you understand what it means to be an executor.
You are there to manage your mom's money. Not to play Lord Bountiful to your niece.
This is why you take estate planning to the pros - the banker, the accountant, the lawyer.
Transfer of assets to family members abou
Re: (Score:2)
there goes the racism... (Score:2)
Remember, slashdot is run by young rich white guys whose parents were all well-off. They don't need health-care right now, so screw everybody else
So basically, anything a white guy has to say doesn't count? That's pretty racist to me.
Really, what is so damned scary about a national health care system
Those who have good medical care already, will get less medical care, as a national health care system really means rationing. That's pretty much what it is. If you have the money and a good job in the USA, yo
Re: (Score:2)
US public opinion is wilfully uninformed (not you, dear readers, the OTHER ~300,000,000 morons you share space with).
There are only "identity politics", where the morons seek affirmation. The nation being split between religious zealot white bigot conservatives (not to say they don't have some good ideas) and leftists who want complete redistribution of wealth (not to say they don't have some good ideas) along the "forty acres and a mule" promise model.
None of the issues in the US are actually about the iss
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I pay for my own healthcare and I didn't have wealthy parents yet I'm against publically funded healthcare. Why, you ask? It's because it is NOT the Government's job to be our nanny. People need to care for themselves. If someone truly cannot do so then yes there should be safety nets, but the health care of the bulk of the population should not be paid for by their fellow taxpayers. Get a fucking job and earn some money and care for yourself.
Yeah I'll get modded down but I'm sick of everyone with thei
Re: (Score:2)
MOD PARENT UP.
Re:Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in exchange for the government not taking money from you, you'd rather pay more than the government would take to a third party, to get worse service? That doesn't make sense.
The way I see it, money is money. If in place A getting a good health plan costs $X and in place B a bad one costs $2X, then place A is better regardless of who is getting the money.
Yeah, you can rant about "choice" and "not being forced to", but you don't have any real choice anyway. You're guaranteed to have to pay for medicine at some point in your life, one way or another.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You'd rather pay more than the government would take to a third party, to get worse service?
It's going to take quite a bit of convincing for me to believe that this is the case, especially considering the traditional efficiency of U.S. government.
Really, you expect that because the government is paying, quality of service will magically increase? And that any possible increase in efficiency would not be offset by the overhead of a single payer system? And you have proof that this will be the case IN THE U.S., whose government cannot even pay for its current obligations, who routinely has annual
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, I do, because the US already has a single payer system: Medicare. It has an overhead of about 1% compared to about 30% for traditional health insurance.
To paraphrase a very good comment I read not too long ago: the issue in this country is that we need health care, not health insurance. Insurance is a small payment that you make on a regular basis to offset the possibility of huge expenses at a later time. However, if you already have a medical condition, then the insurance model doesn't apply to you.
Re:Not a rich white guy (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately for your argument, there are facts that completely contradict it. Please read this article for an appropriate attitude adjustment: http://www.physicianspractice.com/index/fuseaction/articles.details/articleID/1434.htm [physicianspractice.com]
Oh, and that's from a 2009 fee schedule study -- not ancient history.
So, in the end, Medicare pays as well as the insurance companies do while being 30 times more efficient.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. But then, clearly the health care system isn't magically increasing qualify of service on its own, either. If we acknowledge that quality won't improve mag
Re: (Score:2)
You speak of the "overhead of a single payer system". Where is your logic? I see no logical reason to expect a single payer system to be LESS efficient than dozens of arbitrary payer systems all with their own different rules, limits, forms and codes for the very same thing.
You then demand proof that it can work in the one place on earth you know it has never been tried. In other words, you say prove it! I point to several places where it works well and you retort, "well besides the entire western world, wh
Re: (Score:2)
You don't remember the postal service we had before it was privatized. It was much better. It's true there are advantages in parcel delivery now, but UPS already existed. It's just that almost nobody was willing to pay their higher prices. Now that their prices aren't higher (because postal rates are higher, they and their competitors do a better job.
If you're going to privatize something, you must ensure that the barriers to entry are low, and the rewards for quality are high. Otherwise you're better
It depends (Score:4, Interesting)
Really, you expect that because the government is paying, quality of service will magically increase?
It depends. When looking for weather information online, it's the National Weather Service for me, and that's about it. Anything else is ad-laden, Java/flash crippled, and generally not serious about the weather, and more serious about generating ad revenue or trying to direct you to some site that will install spyware. Cable weather? Don't get me started on how when I was living back east, the slot usually reserved for The Weather Channel was showing a baseball game while an F4 tornado ripped up close enough for me to see the cloud top. The local ABC affiliate covered that storm nicely, however.
So. Weather. Government does a good job.
Same deal with the USGS, BTW--can you imagine their earthquake response site, with its cool maps broken down by ZIP codes, if it were done privately?
These programs are tremendously valuable, yes, life saving, and not running up the national debt AFAIK. They're probably a drop in the bucket. It's corporations that have given us the current system, and yes--they actually tried to destroy the National Weather Service too; but that was so ridiculous that even the politicians couldn't justify caving in.
Now, these are the good examples. Yes, there is the DMV, public schooling, my own personal experience with tenants rights in DC (totally broken) the Santa Cruz County permitting process (OMG, don't get me started on that) etc.
So. It breaks both ways. Plainly though, we are failing and need change--not the complex, half-hearted change that the current reform is either. Real change. Teddy Roosevelt, trust-busting, socialism is not a dirty word, CHANGE. Someone who can tell the corporations to piss off. Insurance companies don't add value here. That's the elephant in the room nobody would tackle. We needed a TR. Instead we got a GWB with good grammar. There's always 2012.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So, in exchange for the government not taking money from you, you'd rather pay more than the government would take to a third party, to get worse service? That doesn't make sense.
I get better service from Blue Cross / Blue Shield than anyone I know has ever gotten from Medicare. If I don't like Blue Cross / Blue Shield, I can switch to someone I do like, and still get better service than what Medicare gets, for me.
What the left wing always forgets is that health insurance is a risk management tool. I can
Re: (Score:2)
Here [google.com] is some data to support your wild claim of America as the most giving. See figure 1 on the bottom of page 2, figure 2 on page 6 and table 1 on page 9. It should be noted that this data is based on private philanthropy, not government handouts, as other studies often are.
Personally, I think the best table there is on page 13, as it is adjusted against average income level, and not GDP (which may be biased for countries that have a high per capita GDP, like the US). In this table it can be seen that Ame
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Government is not charity, it's legalized theft.
According to the "centrist" "founding father" James Madison - the principle task of government is economic regulation,
FP #10 Principle Task of Government. [bit.ly]
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on how you define and measure "charity".
We don't cover all our citizens with health care, and private charity does not by any stretch of the imagination come even close to making up that gap. If we include taking care of our own people European social democracies fare better than if we exclude that.
Now with the exception of anarchists, who have an internally consistent position, nobody literally believes that "government is theft." What people mean is that "government taxation to support programs that are morally indefensible is theft." That's a position a Republican stalwart can share with a socialist pacifist who can't abide Democrats because they are too right wing. The only difference is in the details of which programs are considered morally indefensible.
"Government is theft" is the kind of emotional political slogan I can't abide from either side ("TAX WEALTH - NOT WORK"). Such slogans are nearly always in code. There is an underlying paradigm people have in mind when they say them, usually an irrefutable one (the meddling, officious government bureaucrat, the ruthless, well connected crony capitalist who games the system) that by process of synecdoche they stretch to cover a broader class (all government workers, all wealthy people).
It's not possible to have a rational discussion on this kind of basis.
Re:Remember, slashdot is run by rich white guys (Score:4, Informative)
"Government is theft" is the kind of emotional political slogan I can't abide from either side
This is not a political slogan, it speaks to the nature of how government achieves its goals. The power of government stems from the threat of violence and loss of liberty. To deny that is to deny reality.
When people sit in wonderment as to how anyone could possibly oppose *favorite government program*, it's worthwhile to remind them of the ultimate source of government power, because this is the premise of the argument (call it libertarian, conservative, what have you).
The reason the U.S. Constitution was so revolutionary was because it was one of the first times these issues were taken into account. To ignore that and simply argue over a plan's perceived efficiency and pass it because "we want to," rightly gives thinking Americans pause.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then would you say that "theft" is necessarily morally indefensible?
If so, then anything that the government does must also be morally indefensible. That includes enforcing criminal laws and providing redress in case of breach of contract.
If *anything* the government does is morally defensible, AND if theft is necessarily morally indefensible, then "government is theft" is necessarily wrong in a literal sense. But it could still be right in a poetic sense.
The term for a political statement that is wrong i
Re: (Score:2)
No, because what the government does is not theft. The government is giving the right to do what it does by the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's only consistent if you also consider printing money to be counterfeiting. (A reasonable argument if you believe in the gold standard.)
I offer a definition for your consideration. I wouldn't assert that it was true, but I'd be willing to defend it in debate:
Government is the monopoly on the use of force. Most governments sub-license this to various other entities (e.g. states, municipalities, police departments, armies).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Voluntary by *whom*?
You can't look at a nation that has chosen a social democracy model for their society and criticize individuals living there for not spending as much on charity as we do. *We* have chosen a system which allows us to keep more of the money we earn, but at the expense of accepting the existence of charitable needs that don't exist in other countries.
You can't say we are more generous than the Swedes, because they *could*, if they wanted to, elect a government that would implement US style
Re: (Score:2)
nobody literally believes that "government is theft." What people mean is that "government taxation to support programs that are morally indefensible is theft." That's a position a Republican stalwart can share with a socialist pacifist who can't abide Democrats because they are too right wing. The only difference is in the details of which programs are considered morally indefensible.
In my mind it is a question of legality rather than morality. This nation claims its constitution as the supreme document. Whenever government does something that according to the Constitution it is not authorized to do, then its use of my tax money is not legal. To adapt your phrase, "government taxation to support programs that are unconstitutional is theft." Of course, if there is an unconstitutional program desired enough by the public, an amendment can be pursued to make it constitutional, but the w
us most charitable ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is neither fair not polite to post on Slashdot after dropping acid.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, with each new government action that gets posted here on slashdot, my hope in democracy as it stands now fades away, I thought at one point it would disappears but now it appears I have negative hope towards democracy.
That system is now so corrupt it itself has trouble keeping track of what it stands for and makes decisions like.. texting health plans. That sounds like someone needing mass attention or wanting mass distractions to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I see nothing a priori wrong with a "texting health plan" so long as we don't intend it to be the only way people can get health information.
Railing against this seems to me to be like railing against a web site with health information on it because people should be getting this kind of information from their primary care physician. That's absolutely true. It's also true that many people don't have a PCP and many family's don't have a pediatrician, and *nobody* has a plan on the table to fix this. N
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that's even the low point of the "summary". The last sentence
Once again, Dilbert proves to be scarily prescient.
equates a private company abolishing its health care provision for employees with a government creating a scheme to provide people with information.
Re: (Score:2)
The implication is that the government is going to take away our private health insurance and make us *all* make do with text messages.
Of course everyone knows that's not true, but it doesn't stop some of us feeling like that is true.
Re:Uh, rant much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Given this, providing information to young mothers with cell phones makes sense. While the Dilbert cartoon brings up valid points on using the internet for self diagnosis because you potentially can't trust the source of the data and might misinterpret it, this program does the exact opposite by creating a trusted source of information. In addition, the Dilbert article is critiquing corporate practices of cutting health care - what the hell does that have to do with limited government sponsored initiative to distribute specific information via cell phone to potentially low income individuals who can afford a cell phone but not health care since they work at a low paying job without benefits? In addition, they're partnering with the commercial sector so the costs are offset from taxpayers in exchange for the advertising and goodwill publicity for those partner companies.
Also, the word "gushing" in the summary should be a big tipoff (potential dogwhistle?) to the bias of the summary writer. If you read press releases at all, you'll know they tend to be either gushing, or defensive, or editorializing in some way. They're press releases, not pieces of journalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, most libertarians I know aren't that bad at logical reasoning.
If having a political ideology means accepting any sloppy thinking that comes up with a conclusion your particular herd likes, then what does it mean to have a political ideology? It becomes a kind of irrational brand loyalty. We might as well duke it out in the streets as debate our positions.
Re:Uh, rant much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I think most stories are reader-submitted. Since the majority of readers are of like-mind, I would presume the majority of stories submitted would have one particular political slant. Even perfectly impartial editors would end up releasing submissions primarily focused toward the political views of the submitter base.
In short: If you want more stories with a specific view-point, submit them.
Spend ? (Score:3, Informative)
Separately, the White House announced plans to spend $3,000 on 'Game-Changing' Solutions to Childhood Obesity.
3,000 bucks sounds amiss. So, quoth the linked press release:
(Bold italics mine)
Ah, they mean to give each "winner" kid $3,000 as an incentive/prize for being fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to academic ability? Wouldn't this system further reinforce the kids who waste their childhood playing silly games, ultimately instilling a desire to contribute nothing to the development of mankind?
Additionally, I'm all for being healthy, but let's be honest here: no kid is going to be interested in these hollow shells of entertainment. Even at the age of 12 children can differentiate between what essentially amounts to government propaganda and actual entertainment. I'll give you a hint
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually no, the prize is to developers to make a game that promotes nutrition. That is there will be several 'medals' awarded to developer teams and each medal can get up to $3k. They are awarding two medals worth 3k and an undeclared but it looks like small number of medals for lesser competitors.
I would actually expect something more like what you described given how our society seems to work sometimes, but in this particular example it's NOT the case. I'm not sure what level of development they expec
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what level of development they expect for a possibility of $3k, but it will probably end up being bored flash developers and computer-precocious grammar school classes that compete.
Thanks for the correction - it was not entirely clear to me with all the buzzwords the measly $3k led me to think that it was for the kids (their families).
Now come to think of it, how on earth is a videogame going to make kids exercise and eat healthier? I remember a silly flash game on Dilbert.com where you caught fruit and other healthy morsels and dodged pizza, burritos, etc. as they fell down the screen.
WHAT (Score:2)
I'M NOT TELLING YOU THAT! YOU MEN YOU'RE ALL THE SAME!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I'M NOT TELLING YOU THAT! YOU MEN YOU'RE ALL THE SAME!"
That's rather harsh. We're not all like that.
Pics with timestamp will do.
ignoring the real problems (Score:2)
HIPAA privacy regulations are problematic (Score:2, Interesting)
Haven't these people heard about HIPAA? You can't just transmit personal health information over arbitrary text message networks. It doesn't matter if they have a "secure server" somewhere(*). The whole network needs to be secure and auditable. And something tells me that this isn't the case for text messages.
(*) Google can find exactly two mentions of text4baby and HIPAA, both of which just say that there is a secure server.
Re: (Score:2)
You fail to understand how HIPAA works:
A) you signed up for it
B) It's not specific, it's generic "Hey by the way" messages.
"You're 3 months along, you should expect morning sickness"
"Your child is 4 months old, he or she should start rolling over"
It's basic information that most people SHOULD know, but don't.
HIPPA only prevents personal identification. Drs can talk all they want about you, in front of others, but can't say your name. (Or vice versa, Guess who came to the office today, but can't say anything
Fanastic (Score:2)
---
Baby Care [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]
"Historic" (Score:3, Insightful)
Love how everybody's been throwing this term around lately.
This is not historic.
Re: (Score:2)
What is wrong with USA health care reform? (Score:2)
Coming from a country where we have public and private health care, I can't seem to understand why people are so against it in the USA. Worse yet, it appears that the people who it would benefit seem to be against it!? Can someone explain to me the issues?
France already has this, but it does something (Score:2)
France already has a benefit system for pregnant women. There's a sort of "coupon book", with coupons for various tests and examinations. Of course, France has a Government health care system.
What Choice ? What Open Market ? On which planet? (Score:2)
And in other places..... (Score:2)
Re:Great. (Score:5, Insightful)
Demographically, most people have a mobile phone.
Now, you have a nice, efficient, easy way to get a big win with about 90% or more of the population that could help stave off a lot of resource being spent in treatment down the line, and you gripe that it doesn't cover 100% of the population? Wow.
Being part of the NHS in the uk, I get to see a lot of initiatives rolled out. Some politically driven, and they're frequently not so great. Some well thought out. There's always discussion on who gets left out, or missed, and how they can be brought into the system effectively. There's a (much derided) program that has a web, and phone presence that gives you the general idea of whether or not you should go see a GP, or head to the hospital (or in some cases, take a paracetamol, and wait for a day to see what happens).
Though it's not the greatest system, in the majority of cases, it does the job. Now, for this, you need an internet access point, or a telephone. If you don't have either of those, then you can't use the service, and have to go to see your General Practitioner to see if you have a problem.
This isn't a "you take this service, or you have no support", it's a method of aleviating the load on the system by offering a lightweight alternative that you can use if you have the resources to use it, having a low cost on both sides (provider and client), rather than much higher resource cost (time and/or money) otherwise.
Improving the NHS (Score:3, Interesting)
However, when you have a unusual condition, as I apparently do [blogspot.com], and which standard testing doesn't reveal any insight into, then you can be basically ignored by the NHS until your condition becomes debilitating. Unfortunately, by that time, it's generally too late to do something about it.
I have no real idea why the consultants will not spend any extra time tryi
Re: (Score:2)
Often, it's down to the consultant. I've been to see one or two for various things, and they just haven't been interested, and I've seen some who pull out all the stops.
If you have no result from the consultant you've seen (having the condition marked as ideopathic), and you know that the problem is ongoing or worsening, as to be referred to another more senior consultant. If they refuse, to and talk to the Patient Liaison service (ask at the front desk of the hospital; they're a good avenue to follow to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not convinced this is true. Healthy young people may decide to forego health insurance, but at the same time couldn't live without a cell phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The advice that would help is not to breed what you can't care for, but the people who have the most brats are the least intelligent.