• pickersplock said on Apr 16, 2008....

  I've often thought things were much better when there was no insurance involved.
  Our old country doctor practiced out of his house, he knew everyone in town, worked on a cash basis, and if you couldn't pay, he worked something out.
  When he retired, we found another small town doctor, same thing, she was wonderful.
  I doubt if there are too many of those doctors left. 
   It's a real shame.

• TinSoldier said on Apr 16, 2008....

  I'm going to come back to this later when I have more time and can read the article, but I have a question for you:
  
  What constitutes "universal health care", "socialized medicine", or "national health care"? Are all three the same thing, or are there differences?
  
  Regardless of who is elected something needs to change. When we're 37th in the world in providing health care to ourselves and yet we pay more money both as individuals as well as through taxes than any other country does for health care, then something is very very wrong.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 16, 2008....

  Marked

• andora said on Apr 16, 2008....

  When a country spends more money on killing machines than it spends on the citizens health, retirement and infrastructure, then there is something really wrong.
  
  giving adequate pay, housing and education to the lowest of the low in any society will automatically reduce crime, which automatically saves loads of cash (costs over $35,000 per year to house an inmate). However if there is no poverty who would sign up to go to war...only the warmongers!
  
  Poverty is a blight and the US is pointing Her fingers all over the place as She walks over the bodies of the sick, demented, homeless human garbage that she creates through negligence and elitism. In my not so humble opinion.
  
  I'm uninsured, but very creative when it comes to preventative health...also, it has helped very much to have a daughter who is a Dr. of Chinese Medicine...we believe in plant medicine and are planting 36 acres of medicinal plants on Maui. Education about these types of solutions would help considerably...but Americans love to eat poison they call food...that is one reason I am glad i live on an island with the worlds biggest mote :}
  
  aloha D6fer
  sorry I didn't take the time to read your attached article but I'm going out now. I'll check in with this blog another time
  

• secretlife said on Apr 16, 2008....

  if the government attempts to manage healthcare, that'll be the end of healthcare in this country.
   
  look at how well the government manages the airlines the past few weeks?
   
  look at how well the government manages social security.
   
  what makes anyone think that we'd be better off with the government in the middle of our healthcare is a mystery to me.
   
  democrats want more government.  that's why i'm not a democrat.

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 16, 2008....

  Great I have to double ROFL cus both of the last posts are stupid.
   
  Andora there is more wrong than right in your post, so I can't really argue with you.
   
  SL: What has the government done so wrong with airlines the last few weeks?

• D6fer said on Apr 16, 2008....

  Pickers......those were the days!
  
  Tin.....good question.....I guess I always consider them one and the same....I have a problem with statistics regarding this subject, when the statistics that are given to whichever organization that gathered them are taken at face value and not at all scrutinized.....just like in the source article....Michal Moore found the elitist hospital in Cuba to use as an example, while people else where in cuba are suffering. And that they don't use the same methods for mortality rates.
  
  andora.....I don't think that it as simple as giving the poor "adequate pay" ......I have known plenty of people that worked their fingers to the bone at several jobs to get ahead.....they proved themselves as good workers....moved up the pay scale....and are doing fine.....those that don't want to work hard get what they deserve.
  I am surprised that you didn't bring up the over medication of America....I know you have some strong feelings about that.
  
  Secret.......I agree.....how could anyone in their right mind want our government to financially manage our healthcare? Say that over and over to yourselves and see if it doesn't start sounding stupid.....say "I trust the U.S. Government to financially manage my healthcare"
  "I trust the Congress with my childrens healthcare dollars."
  

• TinSoldier said on Apr 16, 2008....

  Umm, I still need to come back to this ('cause I've been having computer problems) but I want to point out one thing to secretlife: the government does not manage the airlines in this country, unlike in most other countries.
  
  I still want to post something substantive here, but no time now! Later.
  
  Oh, BTW, I don't like or watch Michael Moore. You should know that by now, D6. So I have very little idea of what you are talking about.
  

• anonymous said on Apr 16, 2008....

  well sean, the world's largest airline was crippled for basically a week this week.
  at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars in an economy that is not good, to say the least.
  The FAA decided that it didn't enforce safety regulations strictly enough last year with Southwest, so they're cracking down this year to make up for it.
  I agree with Times online that this was "purely a bureaucratic overreaction because this agency was embarrassed by the disclosure last month that FAA inspectors were letting Southwest ignore airworthiness directives — or that the top brass, shocked at how lax the safety review system had become, has finally awakened and ordered a high-impact new way of doing business."-
   
  Don't worry though, they're putting together a task force as i type
  
   
   

• secretlife said on Apr 16, 2008....

  that was my comment.  not sure why it's anonymous.

• secretlife said on Apr 16, 2008....

  Wikkipedia:  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is an agency of the United States Department of Transportation with authority to regulate and oversee all aspects of civil aviation in the U.S. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 created the group under the name "Federal Aviation Agency", and adopted its current name in 1967 when it became a part of the United States Department of Transportation.

  The FAA is the single most influential governmentally-run aviation agency in the world, with the European Aviation Safety Agency in a close second.

   

   

  Sorry D6.......back to healthcare.  There's got to be some other solution to this issue besides having the government manage it. 

• TinSoldier said on Apr 16, 2008....

  Not sure on your meaning there, sl. Regulation =/= running. You do realize that other countries' governments are far more involved in subsidizing and actually running their airline industries, right?
  
  As for health care, I see it as an essential public service much like police and fire.
  
  Maybe someone should make a blog about the airline thing, but IMO I'm glad the safety checks were done. Not that it matters, since flying anywhere is beyond my economic means anyway.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 16, 2008....

  The world's largest Airline company failed to meet regulations.  Wait that means that government took control?  ROFL. 
   
  Tin pretty much covered it.  The goverment saying that you have to perform to a certain level of excellence is vastly different from them taking control.  But of course the challenger to this is an anon which pretty much automatically discredits there opionion

• secretlife said on Apr 17, 2008....

  My point is, and I'll stop here because this airline stuff is off topic-

  we have a government agency whose purpose it is to regulate air safety- like it or not-  but i think we need to really ask what value that agency provides.  and to stick your head in the sand and say that these large airlines failed to meet regulations, is just a naive perspective.  You see, the impression is they're doing their job and protecting us.  But that's not really the case at all.  Our "protection" is not their real concern.  And all this hubbub around American....it isn't about safety- not underneath.

  What happened and has been happening this month, is that the government's supposed airline watchdog  was called on the fact that for years, they (FAA)  ignored safety violations at Southwest Airlines.   When whistleblowers reported what was going on at Southwest, the FAA downplayed it and said it was all  just a "high profile event" involving one carrier....

  But since then, what Congress has been hearing about is corruption within this agency- at the highest levels.  FAA inspectors report being pressured by FAA supervisors to soften or ignore findings-  At all the major airlines....

  You have to at least ask yourself if the FAA has been doing their job all along, why this sudden need for so many inspections?  why this havoc?

  This is just an example of what happens with too much government - years of corruption take more years to be made public.....in the meantime, the real issues with airline safety that should be being addressed - the shortage of qualified air traffic controllers, doesn't get addressed. 

  Now sean, you can laugh at me if you like-  but i don't particularly find this a laughing matter-  surely you've heard this stuff in the news since the start of april....

  Tin-  i don't really view health care as a basic right i guess-  access to it?  yes i see that.   but there's no 'free ride'- there really isn't.  In one way or the other, we have to pay for it.  And i have no problem with that-  it's just i don't want another government agency taking away billions that could be spent where its needed ineptly and corruptly "managing" it.  Do we need reform?  Oh yes.  Is government control of it the answer in my opinion?  Nope. 

   

   

   

• TinSoldier said on Apr 17, 2008....

  sl -- I don't see it as a basic right either, any more than I see fire or police protection as a basic right. I see them as essential public services, preferably centered at a local or state not national level.
  
  I already pay far more for health care than I consume, and my last several encounters with the so-called health care system in this country made me go WTF am I paying all of this money for this level of (non) service??
  
  But health care isn't a monolithic product, which is one point that I want to make. You've got catastrophic health care -- what you need if you suffer from a major accident or illness which both costs a lot of money to treat and causes you to not be able to work, you've got chronic  health care -- what you need if you have some kind of condition that requires regular treatment like diabetes or hypertension, and you have regular acute health care -- the day to day illnesses and minor broken bones and stitches and stuff like that.
  
  There are some things that kinda fall in between, like pregnancies, but I still think that it breaks down pretty well.
  
  The first one, catastrophic health care, cannot by definition be planned for. This is what insurance should really be for. You pay into a risk pool and if your (un)lucky number comes up then you're covered.
  
  The third category, acute health care, is something that should be pretty easy to pay with copays. These services should not be very expensive to provide, and if preventative medicine is included then overall costs should go down. Individuals should be able to pay for this level of care for the most part.
  
  The second category, chronic health care, is something that almost everyone will eventually face as we age. I think there's an aspect of preventative care to it as well as paying for prescriptions. I think that this and the catastrophic coverage are the ones best served by some kind of universal structure.
  
  In the end, though, I don't really care if it's done by government or by private companies. Right now, private companies aren't doing the job, they regularly deny claims or deny coverage for chronic conditions, and people lose almost all health care coverage if they lose their jobs. And then, when the people without health care coverage condition get so bad that they finally do get the care they need the rest of us are paying for it anyway!
  
  Because we are a compassionate enough society that we're not just going to let someone die of something treatable.
  
  You know what's funny? I've actually had government sponsored health care for most of my life. When I was growing up we were poor enough to qualify for medicaid. When I was in the military I had probably the best health care that I've ever had. YMMV, of course.
  

• TinSoldier said on Apr 17, 2008....

  Just to clarify: I'm not looking for a "free ride". I know TANSTAAFL.
  
  (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch).
  
  I would just like to see my dollars used more effectively, and to more effectively cover the folks who aren't being covered.
  

• andora said on Apr 17, 2008....

  On many points I agree with you Tin Soldier...HMO's are as corrupt as Enron. And, there already is government run medical care. Having HMO's as middle-men has shown, those who care enough to look beyond their bias, that they take money and fail to provide what the government health-care is  providing.
  
  I do not believe that medicaid and medicare are very efficient, and when you add the corruption of HMO insurers and the Pharmaceutical Corps giving bribes to Doctors to prescribe, and the Doctors giving unnecessary treatment to add to the corruption, we get what we have...graft, neglect, conspiracy and corruption.
  
  Consolidating Medical treatment (which I agree is a basic right, not an elitist privilege) medical records, centralizing information and providing preventative care only makes sense. Eliminating HMO would put care back where it needs to be, between the doctor and the patient. Educating the public about nutrition would make a huge difference as well, but doctors only get about 4 hours of nutrition in medical school and are basically educated by UPJOHN on how to prescribe isolated chemicals that are toxic.
  
  for those of you who refuse to watch what Moore researched, you do not belong in this conversation. The rebuttal put forward on D6's link made its entire argument based upon only a minor point that Moore was presenting - 'whether or not the Cuban hospital was typical' while shamelessly neglecting to address the REAL points in Moore's film. This is a typical way to kill the conversation by steering it into minutia that has little to do with the body of evidence presented. For those of you who are falling for this ploy... I can only say that you have been hypnotized by propaganda and you deserve what you get...a corrupt medical industry that is the 4th leading cause of death in the US. Sucks to be you!
  

• TinSoldier said on Apr 17, 2008....

  Heh. I guess that I don't belong in this conversation then ;-)
  
  I don't think that HMOs are corrupt either. Just inefficient.
  

• andora said on Apr 17, 2008....

  apparently not

• bloc said on Apr 17, 2008....

  tin said the most important thing. We spend far more than most industrialized service and we get far less with that money. Our system is clearly worse than just about any other industrialized country. You know people are being idealogical when something like this doesn't affect their opinion.

• bloc said on Apr 17, 2008....

  "industrialized service" shoudl have said "industrialized countries"

• D6fer said on Apr 17, 2008....

  bloc...how can we make fair comparisons to other countries, when they lie and skew the results to make themselves sound better? You are being idealogical when you refuse to see that.

• TinSoldier said on Apr 18, 2008....

  Which countries? Besides Cuba, I mean?
  
  Are you implying that the US is the only truthful country in the world? If so, then I've got some real nice ocean front property for you, it even comes with a bridge!
  
  At some point you have to trust your sources, even if you disagree with what they are telling you.
  

• bloc said on Apr 18, 2008....

  @d6
  are you saying that we really have the best system of all industrialized countries and that we do NOT pay more than the rest per capita?
  

• andora said on Apr 18, 2008....

  we pay very high taxes and do not get the perks, unless you call nation-building in the Middle East a perk
  
  Hillary makes some very good points about consolidation and how to pay for universal healthcare. Not to say I'm voting for her, but she makes the transition sound very reasonable. I think it would be cheaper to care for the uninsured than having them run at the emergency wards all the time.
  

• bloc said on Apr 18, 2008....

  "I think it would be cheaper to care for the uninsured than having them run at the emergency wards all the time."
  
  exactly! Not only that, preventive care is cheaper than waiting until it's bad enough to go to the emergency room. Healthcare is cheaper when it can keep people healthy rather than treating the already ill.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 18, 2008....

  I said all this earlier.  LoL.  But since you're good at finding this stuff where are the facts and figures on how much we spend in comparison to other countries?

• andora said on Apr 18, 2008....

  Good question sean, not one I am willing to answer.
  
  bloc, I feel as tho both the right and the left of this argument agree with you on the emergency ward phenom, and as far as preventative medicine goes, I tried to help the women on a different thread at SC understand how I was cured from breast cancer without mutilation or chemo. They acted like I was some kind of freak and cast me out with their silence. Granted, I am a freak of nature, but it hurts none-the-less...I had spoken from a desire to help.
  
  I do not think people want solutions, as much as they want instant relief. As well, many here have already admitted to me that they just want to die already. Attempting to devise a solution for a self-destructive society with self-destructive individuals calling death and disease 'God's Will' is like jumping into a toilet about to flush. I keep thinking that the masses want solutions but the religious and the secular are both in agreement that these are the end-times! it is a good time to stand back and let them have a group apocollypse. its a very predictable pattern when history is observed.
  
  aloha
  

• bloc said on Apr 18, 2008....

  I've linked this stuff before.
  
  "The United States continues to spend significantly more on health care than any country in the world. In 2002, Americans spent 53 percent per capita more than the next highest country, Switzerland, and 140 percent above the median industrialized country, according to new research from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The study authors analyzed whether two possible reasons—supply constraints and malpractice litigation—could explain the difference in health care costs. They found that neither factor accounted for a large portion of the U.S. spending differential." source
  
  
  "Consuming over 10 percent of gross domestic product of most developed nations, health care can form an enormous part of a country's economy. In 2003, health care costs paid to hospitals, physicians, nursing homes, diagnostic laboratories, pharmacies, medical device manufacturers and other components of the health care system, consumed 16.3 percent[7] of the GDP of the United States, the largest of any country in the world. For the United States, the health share of gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to hold steady in 2006 before resuming its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2016.[8] In 2001, for the OECD countries the average was 8.4 percent[9] with the United States (13.9%), Switzerland (10.9%), and Germany (10.7%) being the top three." source
  
  

• D6fer said on Apr 18, 2008....

  The government makes insurance expensive by mandating the medical services that policies must cover. Required services vary state by state and include massage therapy, pastoral counseling, acupuncture, hair prosthesis and dentures. Such mandates are a reason why an individual policy in New Jersey costs around $4,000 a year while a policy in Iowa costs only a third of that. Yet insurance regulations make it illegal for someone in New Jersey to buy a policy from out of state.

• D6fer said on Apr 18, 2008....

  Our health-care system has become totally removed from the competitive market forces that have improved every other area of the economy. If patients cared about cost, health-care providers would compete to attract patients. They'd do innovative things to keep costs low while increasing quality.

• D6fer said on Apr 18, 2008....

  when patients are in control of their health-care spending, things get better. Lasik surgery isn't covered by most insurance policies, so patients pay for this high-tech procedure out of their own pocket.
  Competition has  made Lasik cheaper: While in nearly every other field of medicine, prices have gone up faster than consumer prices in general, the price of Lasik has fallen by as much as 30 percent.
  

• D6fer said on Apr 18, 2008....

  Health Savings Accounts are the answer........competition....not government.
  
  Again....repeat after me..."I want the U.S. Government to manage my healthcare"
  "I want Nancy Pelosi to manage my healthcare" "I want Ted Stevens to manage my healthcare" ........doesn't that sound wrong to any of you?
  

• TinSoldier said on Apr 18, 2008....

  The government makes insurance expensive by mandating the medical services that policies must cover. Required services vary state by state and include massage therapy, pastoral counseling, acupuncture, hair prosthesis and dentures. Such mandates are a reason why an individual policy in New Jersey costs around $4,000 a year while a policy in Iowa costs only a third of that. Yet insurance regulations make it illegal for someone in New Jersey to buy a policy from out of state.
  
  
  You got anything to back that up? I know that regulations vary state by state (thank goodness, since we are a federal republic and not a monolithic nation-state), but many of these companies are interstate corporations.
  
  Let's see, my insurance coverage costs about $9600 a year. I probably use less than a tenth of that.
  
  And I certainly do care about costs. But my wages wouldn't go up by $9600 a year if I dropped my health insurance, I would only gain the portion that I pay, about $1200-$1300 a year.
  
  
  Our health-care system has become totally removed from the competitive market forces that have improved every other area of the economy. If patients cared about cost, health-care providers would compete to attract patients. They'd do innovative things to keep costs low while increasing quality.
  
  
  I agree that consumers have been removed from the costs of their health care (unless they don't have any), but I disagree with the second part. Like food and water, health care is kinda difficult to do without when you need it.
  
  
  when patients are in control of their health-care spending, things get better. Lasik surgery isn't covered by most insurance policies, so patients pay for this high-tech procedure out of their own pocket.
  Competition has  made Lasik cheaper: While in nearly every other field of medicine, prices have gone up faster than consumer prices in general, the price of Lasik has fallen by as much as 30 percent.
  
  
  You do realize that Lasik surgery is voluntary, right? Not a necessity? As in, I don't know, what's the word... a luxury?
  
  You haven't answered my points above about the different kinds of health care. How would putting all of those costs directly on the consumer instead of some kind of shared risk lower the cost of catastrophic care? Chronic care?
  

• TinSoldier said on Apr 18, 2008....

  Health Savings Accounts are the answer........competition....not government.
  
  Again....repeat after me..."I want the U.S. Government to manage my healthcare"
  "I want Nancy Pelosi to manage my healthcare" "I want Ted Stevens to manage my healthcare" ........doesn't that sound wrong to any of you?
  
  
  And what happens if I suffer a catastrophic illness that I don't have enough money saved up for? Do they kick me out on the street when the money runs out?
  
  No, I don't want Nancy Pelosi or Ted Stevens running my health care. I want professional administrators who have my best interests at heart doing so. And not just because I have a big fat health savings account.
  

• D6fer said on Apr 18, 2008....

  yes lasik is voluntary.....but some would consider some of the procedures such as massage therapy, pastoral counseling, acupuncture, hair prosthesis and dentures to be un-necessary as well....but in some states they are mandated coverage.
   

• D6fer said on Apr 19, 2008....

  Heath Savings Accounts come with a lower cost high deductible insurance....you are covered.

• silverwhisper said on Apr 19, 2008....

  um...guys, a lot of the reason that healthcare is so damned expensive is b/c we regulate the fuck out of it.
  
  doctors and nurses have to be licensed (money), hospitals have at least a moral if not legal obligation to treat people requiring urgent medical care irrespective of ability to pay for such service (tons of money), medicine has to be tested often for up to a decade (unimaginable sums of money)...let's add all the malpractice cases, which used to be rare once upon a time and the attendant malpractice insurance, which doctors and hospitals are also required to carry (money)...
  
  who ultimately pays the cost for all of those legal requirements?
  
  yep: you and me.
  
  i'm not suggesting that deregulating these things is the solution, mind: my libertarian sensibilities will only carry me so far. these are massively complex matters that have spawned whole libraries of caselaw and legislation, and such things are always incredibly resistant to being jettisoned outright.
  
  part of the problem is that americans are accustomed to getting treatment when it's needed, on an ad hoc basis. we expect to have a certain minimum standard of care, when it's urgently needed, within a reasonable amount of time: hours or days.
  
  the capability of deploying that many assets (human, pharmaceutical, equipment or otherwise) on a relatively short turnaround is intrinsically expensive. we take a similar approach to the american ability to deploy military power: we used to be able to deploy a meaningful military force anywhere in the world within 48 hours, IIRC (sean, TS, bloc?).
  
  TS, i like the way you broke down the larger concept of healthcare into three discrete items. i wanna think about that more before responding at any length.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Apr 19, 2008....

  @ed
  the other countries have essentially the same, if not more regulation, and they pay significantly less.
  
  
  @d6
  "The government makes insurance expensive by mandating the medical services that policies must cover."
  
  
  Again, other countries do the same, to a greater degree, and still pay far less.
  
  
  competition is not the answer. The market is not the optimal system for everything. The fact that it works great for commodities does not mean it works great for everything else. Saying so is a non sequitur. When you have a catastrophic accident you don't get to shop around for the best price or best doctor. You get rushed to the hospital. This is one of many examples of how the market doesn't work for healthcare.
  
  
  At the end of the day the fact of the matter is clear. Countries with national healthcare pay less and get more for their money, by a significant amount. In america millions go without insurance and millions more go bankrupt due to healthcare costs. It's the leading cause of bankruptcy in america. And, we pay far more per capita for this. 

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 19, 2008....

  I'm not sure why you think the Market is bad for this.  I mean when you wreck your car you don't shop around either, but it seems that car insurance works as well as could be expected.
   
  I do agree with your bottom line here, I don't see why we don't handle this the same way we handle our schools.  A free public one that "most" think is in adequate, in particular those who know best, teachers. (and in this case it would be anybdoy with any medical training) would never submit a loved one to and then paid for insurance.  Or some kind of secondary level.
   
  I mean even if they are exaggerated there seems to be ample reason to believe that universal health care causes exactly what supply and demand economics suggest would happen if you charge nothing for an item.  Demand becomes infinitte with no checks.  We'd have people regulally checking in over hang nails and sore throats and people with legit problems would be forced to wait i long lines.

• D6fer said on Apr 19, 2008....

  bloc....the problems with other countries systems far out weigh any financial benefits.
  Look at the example that I posted above on Lasik surgery....it is not covered by insurance and the free market drove the price down.
  Take the bureaucracy out of health care and give people more of their own paychecks to take care of their own health care through HSAs.......knock down the medical borders between states and have a North America Medical Free Trade Agreement, then we will see more manageable costs.
  The real problem is that the free market health care that once existed in this country was injected with too much socialism....adding more will not fix it correctly.
  

• D6fer said on Apr 19, 2008....

  Sean.....schools? you think that public schooling gives us more bang for our buck? That is a joke....$25,000 per kid annually in NY vs about $15,000 for the same private school that Bill and Hillary sent their kid to.....definitely a subject for another post...thanks!
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 19, 2008....

  Then why did it fix it around the world D6?  Obviously our system isn't working as well as what other westernized nations re doing.  That's not an opinion it's a fact.
   
  http://www.aneki.com/expectancy.html
  http://www.wnbc.com/health/14106810/detail.html?rss=ny&psp=nationalnews
   
  We don't even rate for longest life and ultimately that's what matters right?  Unless you're suggesting that in every other country they are completely lying through their teeth and not only do they die sooner but they live horribly painful lives wracked with disease?
   
  Edit:  D6, don't be dumb.  The public school is paid for by the entire community, mostly rich people who pay the majority of taxes in this country.  It's 25k of Bill Gates and Trumps money vs 1500 of MY money.  Big difference.  

• andora said on Apr 19, 2008....

  well said bloc!
  D6, why would dentures be a luxury? Isn't eating a vital act?
  
  this is my wish list: centralized national medical records computer system
  
  free medical and dental to those under the poverty line
  
  national medical insurance that is based upon household income
  
  malpractice laws that create a national malpractice insurer; creating insurance pool for new doctors to pay on a sliding-scale commiserate with their income - as a doctor's practice grows the insurance can be adjusted; doctors with poor records of malpractice will have their premiums adjusted so that their poor practices do not punish those who give good care; a mediation review board to screen for frivolous law suits
  
  preventative health education becomes a school requirement; school lunches become fresh foods without empty calories; physical ed becomes a dominant aspect of education
  
  require drug companies to test drugs through independent labs, ending the 'Fast Track' corruption; end the diet and penis enlargement drugs (etc) that are sold on tv without any vetting
  
  as a nation we rethink our antibiotic craze and how it has created generations of sick people...MARSA is evidence of which I speak
  
  Last, but not least, as a nation we need to create geriatric care that connects our invalid elderly with the outdoors, gardens, pets, youth - instead of housing them in cubicles with little quality of life as if their lives are over before they die. We could afford to get creative on behalf of our elderly...they deserve it!
  
  Including our youth (who are inheriting substantial debt) in a 2 yr civil works program will give them access to college funding while utilizing their energy to develop old-folks homes, water reclamation, infrastructure projects, etc... will help them to feel as though they are investing in their country while improving their perspective about the "real world".
  
  

• D6fer said on Apr 19, 2008....

  andora....there is so much of what you just said that I totally agree with.....just knock the socialism aspects out of it as much as possible and then we are getting somewhere! ;)
  
  Sean.....you haven't been paying attention....all countries don't count deaths in infants in their mortality rates...that drives up the average age...thats bullshit.
  I just did a new post on the education thing...we can take that discussion there.
  
  

• andora said on Apr 19, 2008....

  ps
  all those who collect disability should be entered into a work force that takes their disabilities into consideration. There are millions getting these checks everywhere across the land. I think they should contribute on some level...with the right administrative system this work force could begin to feel better about themselves by becoming part of their society once again.
  
  as it is today, these folks are just sitting around and getting rancid!
  

• D6fer said on Apr 19, 2008....

  andora....I agree with you there....that is the real way to give respect and dignity....not just a pity check!
  

• andora said on Apr 19, 2008....

  wow D6 could this mean that red and blue are having nookie in the purple party of social justice has a simultaneous orgasm in the arms of capitalism?
  
  hmmm....purple
  

• D6fer said on Apr 19, 2008....

  could be!....I think that what you are suggesting is really common sense....who could disagree with that?
  
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 19, 2008....

  Maybe I'm mistaken, I woudl like to see stats on how many people who are collecting disability aren't working.  I mean I know dozens of people who are on disability pay checks of a few hundred a month for various BS injuries they got in the military and they have jobs.  (half of them don't have disabilities)  I wonder how many others are like this, people who say have a hurt knee but DO work a desk job.
   
  So I'm not criticizing either of you.  I agree with what you are both saying I would just like a statistic on how many of these disabled people don't have work.  Are they not counted as unemployed when we poll for that?

• andora said on Apr 19, 2008....

  I'm not sure about that Sean, but I have met many young and mid-aged people on Maui that get disability for 'bi-polar disorder', even HUD benefits. I feel as tho this confusion about the 'normal human condition' has created a class of people that get benefits for continuing to act crazy..in essence rewarding their behavior. Probably a few that camp out right here at SC.
  
  I do not wish to suggest that we should punish anyone or throw them into the streets...I feel as though we need to look deeper for the root causes, because running around putting our finger in the leaking dam of a broken paradigm will only repeat our folly and collapse our system. usually sparks warfare.
  
  I could be verifiably labeled as insane, considering my belief-structure, but I feel that being well-adjusted to such a sick society is not a good sign of health! Getting outraged at the broken among us is not compassionate or effective. I feel as tho the criminals, addicts and mentally deranged are asking us as a species to re-examine our Agreement Field and what it is we believe in as a group.
  
  It is happening in my world...
  
  and thanks to the communications we have, we can mutate into a society that is not fundamentally self-destructive and polarized (heartless). We will never fix it, however, until we collectively agree it is broken and that no one really is to blame for such an ancient misunderstanding as we suffer from.
  
  aloha

• bloc said on Apr 19, 2008....

  @d6
  i continue to bury your head in the sand. Most other industrialized countries have better healthcare for less money and they all have a more regulated system.
  
  This reminds me of the idealogical communists. Someone points out that communism has been tried many times and it never works yet the communists say, but this, but that. We all know the truth, pure communism didn't work and reality is there to back that up.
  
  Reality is here to back up that the universal healthcare systems of industrialized countries are the best in the world. You can say, but this, but that, but lasik. In the end reality has spoken, our system is a wreck and the more socialized systems are much better. There are no good free market systems to be found for modern medicine.
  

• D6fer said on Apr 19, 2008....

  bloc....you can throw out all of the skewed and biased "facts" you want....we could go back and forth all day....you post a link of how it's better in x country, and I can post one to say how it is worse.
  Do you think that what I am proposing will not work at all, or do you just think that socialism and bureacrisy is better?
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 19, 2008....

  you haven't posted anything even suggesting that it might be worse.  Only hearsay about lines and waits.

• D6fer said on Apr 19, 2008....

  
  ok....how about this?

• D6fer said on Apr 19, 2008....

  
  or this.

• bloc said on Apr 19, 2008....

  the study I linked by johns hopkins is an ubiased look at reality. We pay far more for our healthcare, and the leading cause of bankruptcy in america is healthcare costs, this isn't true in these countries that pay less than we do. We have millions uninsured which doesn't happen in these countries that pay less than us. 
  
  
  Our system is factually worse. Your delusions do not change this fact.

• D6fer said on Apr 19, 2008....

  
  oh we should listen to michael moore!

• D6fer said on Apr 19, 2008....

  
  part 2

• D6fer said on Apr 19, 2008....

  
  part 3

• D6fer said on Apr 19, 2008....

  
  part 4

• D6fer said on Apr 19, 2008....

  
  part 5

• D6fer said on Apr 19, 2008....

  
  part 6 (last one)

• TinSoldier said on Apr 19, 2008....

  So what would have happened to Mr. McCreith if he had been uninsured in America? Or if he would have had a preexisting condition?
  
  Oh, yeah. He would have died anyway.
  
  Watching the second video seems to undermine your position, D6fer.
  

• D6fer said on Apr 19, 2008....

  he would have gotten care....thats bull....keep watching.

• TinSoldier said on Apr 19, 2008....

  he would have gotten care....thats bull....keep watching.
  
  
  From whom?
  
  Oh, and I'm not watching Michael Moore. I can't stand him.
  

• bloc said on Apr 19, 2008....

  d6 doesn't care about what works and what doesn't. He's decided what he wants to believe prior to investigating the reality of the situation. He now will throw out as much b.s. as he can, and avoid any thought on the subject. 

• D6fer said on Apr 19, 2008....

  I just posted 8 vids that expose the reality! Whats your problem?

• silverwhisper said on Apr 20, 2008....

  bloc: it's easy to say that other countries have similar legislation. if you can show me a reputable study that compares the related healthcare legislation in the US vs other developed nations, great, but until then it's to me an unsupported assertion.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Apr 20, 2008....

  @ed
  
  
  point by point
  
  
  "doctors and nurses have to be licensed (money)"
  
  
  do I really need to prove that doctors have to be licensed in countries like france?
  
  
  "hospitals have at least a moral if not legal obligation to treat people requiring urgent medical care irrespective of ability to pay for such service (tons of money)"
  
  
  countries with universal healthcare do this by default. Do I need to prove to you that france is has universal healthcare?
  
  
  "medicine has to be tested often for up to a decade (unimaginable sums of money)"
  
  
  I'm sure there is some variation on this one, but again, do I need to prove that countries like france require testing of medicine?
  
  
  "...let's add all the malpractice cases"
  
  
  The link I posted, a study from johns hopkins, said that malpractice suits were an insignificant factor in the cost of american healthcare. 
  
  
  I'm unsure what you are claiming.

• silverwhisper said on Apr 20, 2008....

  actually, your statement that i'm challenging is that they have as much regulation if not more.
  
  of course medical professionals are licensed, and of course pharmaceutical products require testing. the question is do they require 10 months of testing, 10 years of testing, something else? do MDs undergo residency & internships that are as demanding as in the US?
  
  if you can't answer those questions, it's impossible to say that an apples: apples comparison can be made.
  
  ed

• D6fer said on Apr 20, 2008....

  Who is going to want to be a doctor, if they are paid like communists?
  
  This will drive down the number of qualified people in the field, leading to substandard care.
  
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 20, 2008....

  We already can't find enough students who want to be doctors and get the majority of our doctors from overseas from what I read not to long ago.  We simply don't have the grades. 

  We could probably start though by having a lower level of doctor that people visit for stupid shit.  Something that doesn't require you spend your life in school because preventive care isn't heart surgery and would of course lead to less heart surgery.

• D6fer said on Apr 20, 2008....

  We already can't find enough students who want to be doctors and get the majority of our doctors from overseas from what I read not to long ago.
  
  Exactly.....the socialism that we have already injected into our health care system has seen to this....it is already hardly worth the effort to become a doctor....lets face it, people don't become doctors simply because they want to help people....it is a financial vehicle for them.
  

• TinSoldier said on Apr 20, 2008....

  We could probably start though by having a lower level of doctor that people visit for stupid shit.  Something that doesn't require you spend your life in school because preventive care isn't heart surgery and would of course lead to less heart surgery.
  
  
  You know, we think alike. More nurse practitioners and the like.
  

• bloc said on Apr 20, 2008....

  @d6
  do you have any clue how healthcare works in these other countries? Your statements are simply ignorant. 
  
  
  "Who is going to want to be a doctor, if they are paid like communists?"
  
  
  does this apply to teachers as well? Honestly I don't think pay is the issue. Our education system isn't producing enough programmers either and it's a free market. I've been trying to hire a programmer and am offering 6 figures for someone with 5-10 years of experience. They have to be good though, yet it's taken me a long time to find one (hired one last week). It take less education to make 6 figures as a programmer yet it's harder to find a programmer than a teacher. I know because my wife is a teacher and she makes half of what we're willing to pay a programmer and job openings at her school get lots of qualified applicants. The truth is that being a good doctor, programmer, or teacher requires passion and no reasonable amount of money will generate that passion. 
  
  
  @ed
  why is it I who must answer. I think the responsibility should be on you to show that our regulation is the cause of our higher costs. I've shown that we have higher costs. For all I care we could mimic their regulation! My point is that our healthcare system is fucked up, most other industrialized nations have better systems that cost less and provide better service to more people (as a ratio). This is the issue. If you say it's because of our regulation then let's scrap it and go with regulation similar to that in countries with universal healthcare like france or japan. I was assuming that requiring universal care was more regulation than our country, but it is apples and oranges. 
  
  
  Also, these other countries don't have healthcare costs as the leading cause of bankruptcy, we do.
  
  

• D6fer said on Apr 20, 2008....

  I can agree with that....that could fit in with any health system IMHO....take your sniveling kids to a non-urgent care center rather than to the ER....if they needed a higher level of care they could always be referred on to higher care.
  
  The reason that there is a need for this in the first place is a bigger part of the problem.....the system that had been established and then was bastardized by unions and socialists created this problem.....unions made insurance an entitlement....then they made more and more of it the responsibility of the employer....the employee doesn't care, because he doesn't have to pay for it....his kid gets a sniffle and its off to the ER....part number 3 of the above vids explains this very well.
  

• D6fer said on Apr 20, 2008....

  that last comment was directed towards ed and sean....i'll reply to blocs comments as time allows (busy remodling today)

• bloc said on Apr 20, 2008....

  i dont' know what kind of insurance you have, but we don't take our kid to the ER because they are sick. We take them to our family doctor who then refers her if something is really wrong. 
  
  
  The only people that use the ER as a doctor are people who have no insurance or believe their need is really urgent. You can talk around this issue all you want, but the facts are clear. Univerisal care as done by most other countries is better than are system. There is no country that has your system that you can point to as doing well. I think that says a lot. 

• D6fer said on Apr 20, 2008....

  bloc....I am not sure you really understand how the health care system works in any of those countries either....there is plenty of evidence available to indicate that those systems don't work in some way or another, as the videos above indicate and to me the trade off doesn't seem worth it.
  
  You seem to think that socialism fixes everything.....but if you look at how this country has crept in that direction over the last 40 years and all of the problems that have arose as a direct consequence of those socialist practices....I really don't see how more of it can be the answer.
  
  education? you want to discuss education? go here
  

• D6fer said on Apr 20, 2008....

  I was once one of those who took their kid there bloc....so don't tell me I don't know about it....and I had insurance! The deductible was lower for ER than a regular doctor!

• D6fer said on Apr 20, 2008....

  France's state-subsidized medical system is considered liberal because doctors and dentists establish private practices, and patients, who are free to choose their own providers, are reimbursed by the state for up to 85% of medical costs. Hospital facilities, although greatly expanded since World War II, are still considered inadequate. Doctors tend to be concentrated in the cities and are in short supply in some rural areas. The death rate, life expectancy, and infant mortality rate are similar to those of other industrialized nations. As is true of most developed countries, the principal causes of death are cancer and cardiovascular diseases.
  
  does this sound better to you? substandard care?
  

• D6fer said on Apr 20, 2008....

  Like most industrialized countries, Japan is faced with a rapidly aging population and a declining birthrate. In addition, Japan's economic growth has been stagnant for the past 10 years and continues to decline. These factors are plunging the overall medical system into deficit and increasing the burden on younger people, who must contribute more money to compensate for shrinking government revenue and the growing number of elderly people.
  
  That doesn't sound too good either.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 20, 2008....

  Source?

• D6fer said on Apr 20, 2008....

  in regard to france...here
  
  in regard to japan...here
  

• D6fer said on Apr 20, 2008....

  In the U.S., the culture and the civil negligence liability system dictates that doctors and hospitals disclose to prospective patients what the illness and proposed course of treatment are, including the benefits and risks. Generally speaking, patients in the U.S. and their families, want to know what their condition is, even if they have an incurable and/or fatal problem.

  Because in most cases patients pay for all or some part of health insurance and medical bills, such bills or quite complete reports about them are sent to patients after the fact. This culture of disclosure is backed up in many states with laws. But even when such laws don't apply, disclosure is usually forthcoming.

  In Japan, the opposite is true. As a general rule, doctors and hospitals disclose very little, if anything. Doctors and the health establishment in general believe that informing a patient of a fatal condition is announcing a death sentence. In the Japanese culture, this is thought to be an unthinkable cruelty. This culture extends to other non-fatal conditions as well. In fact, it appears to extend across the board. In addition, the law apparently does not grant patients extensive rights to information. On the rare occasions that it does, it is still not clear that doctors or health and health-related institutions comply.
  

  source
  

• D6fer said on Apr 20, 2008....

  If universal care were the genuine cure-all, the one country where it should work is Japan. They have a homogenous population, healthier lifestyle, eat more fish and soy, more vegetables and far less obesity than here. If universal care does not work there why should it work anywhere?

  
  According to Japanese legislator Takashi Yamamoto, who was just diagnosed with cancer, "abandoned cancer refugees are roaming the Japanese archipelago." Patients are told they¹ll never get better, even when treatments exist, and many are not even informed of their diagnoses. Cancer mortality rates in Japan have been steadily climbing and are now more than 250 per 100,000, while U.S. rates are now around 180 per 100,000.

  source
  

• D6fer said on Apr 20, 2008....

  And when you compare the outcome for specific diseases, like cancer or heart disease, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the world. When former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi needed heart surgery last year, he didn't go to an Italian hospital or to France, Canada or Cuba. He came to the Cleveland Clinic.
  
  Source
  
  I could do this all day! Do you guys really want to be socialists? Are you reading any of this? Did you watch any of the vids?
  

• bloc said on Apr 20, 2008....

  "I was once one of those who took their kid there bloc....so don't tell me I don't know about it....and I had insurance! The deductible was lower for ER than a regular doctor!"
  
  
  Then you had shitty insurance. 
  
  
  "there is plenty of evidence available to indicate that those systems don't work in some way or another,"
  
  
  They work, people go to the doctor and get treated. What you are pointing out is that they aren't perfect. This is true, none are perfect. What is true is that they are better than our systems. You can link to 100 issues that show they aren't perfect, but the fact remains that we pay far more, we don't cover everyone, and millions of americans file for bankruptcy due to health care costs. These other systems aren't perfect, but they are better than ours. 

• bloc said on Apr 20, 2008....

   btw, the idea that universal healthcare will make us socialists is a little silly. Pure socialism does not work, but neither does pure capitalism. What we are trying to do is find the right balance, and a balance is the best approach.
  
  
  The idea that we can only be pure socialists or pure capitalists is a false choice. 

• D6fer said on Apr 20, 2008....

  Critics of the U.S. health care system frequently point to other countries as models for reform. They point out that many countries spend far less on health care than the United States yet seem to enjoy better health outcomes. The United States should follow the lead of those countries, the critics say, and adopt a government- run, national health care system.

  However, a closer look shows that nearly all health care systems worldwide are wrestling with problems of rising costs and lack of access to care. There is no single international model for national health care, of course. Countries vary dramatically in the degree of central control, regulation, and cost sharing they impose, and in the role of private insurance. Still, overall trends from national health care systems around the world suggest the following:  continued
  

• D6fer said on Apr 20, 2008....

  Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the solution bloc.....kicking the socialists out of the bathtub would be a good start!

• bloc said on Apr 20, 2008....

  more ideology. I'm wondering if you can let go of the ideology at all.

• D6fer said on Apr 20, 2008....

  ideology is a big part of the problem bloc....I am simply pointing out how the ideology of socialism has created the mess that we now have to clean up.

• bloc said on Apr 20, 2008....

  how is it that socialism causes our mess, yet more socialist countries have better systems. Saying that with a straight face is ideology. 

• D6fer said on Apr 20, 2008....

  they don't have better....proof above.

• silverwhisper said on Apr 21, 2008....

  bloc: you should be the one answering b/c you're the one who made the assertion in the first place, no?
  
  ed

• bloc said on Apr 21, 2008....

  I didn't make any assertions about regulations. I said that they spend less than we do per capita and that we should move our healthcare system in that direction. 
  
  
  @d6
  what you cited does not show that their systems are worse than ours. Pointing out flaws in A does not mean prove that B is better. For example, I recall a huge controversy where one of the hospitals out here in L.A. was dumping patients on skid row while still in their hospital gowns. Our system has just as many problems, but we pay far more for it, cover fewer people, and cause many of our citizens to go bankrupt. 

• TinSoldier said on Apr 21, 2008....

  Per capita costs are something that we've discussed before.
  
  I was surprised myself when I found out that the US government spends more on health care per capita than do other countries with universal health care systems.
  
  Original source: World Health Organization. I haven't checked for updated statistics.
  
  David Broder's excellent editorial from six months ago.
  
  Personally, I'm surprised that more employers aren't screaming bloody murder the way that health care costs have risen in the last several years.
  

• bloc said on Apr 21, 2008....

  "Personally, I'm surprised that more employers aren't screaming bloody murder the way that health care costs have risen in the last several years."
  
  
  this is one of the reasons I'm confident things will change. It's an enormous burden on businesses, especially small ones. 

• D6fer said on Apr 21, 2008....

  Thanks to labor unions.

• TinSoldier said on Apr 21, 2008....

  Um, I've never been in a union and all of my adult jobs have offered some kind of health insurance as a benefit.
  
  It's become an expected benefit so that companies can attract better people, along with other benefits like paid time off and other perks.
  
  I mean, even the US military gives health care to its members and their families, and I know that no one has unionized them yet.
  
  Add to the fact that union membership has been on the decline for over fifty years, while health insurance coverage by employers has remained relatively flat (although the percentage paid by the employee has risen). I really don't see the link.
  
  
  

• TinSoldier said on Apr 21, 2008....

  Just digging around, I found this anecdote to be at least as interesting as the ones that D6fer posted above (of the ones that I actually watched): Is Health Insurance a Good Bet? at the Motley Fool.
  
  
  

• D6fer said on Apr 22, 2008....

  Evidently, that guy has never heard of an HSA......he claims to be able to afford the outrageous rates he described....he would be a perfect candidate for it.

• silverwhisper said on Apr 22, 2008....

  bloc: would the fact then that when most people want premium healthcare services, they fly from abroad to the US be meaningful, then?
  
  d6: as TS pointed out, it's got nothing to do w/ labor unions. it actually relates to employment law.
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Apr 22, 2008....

  D6fer, between what I pay and what my employer pays for insurance, I pay more than what was in the article. Out of my paycheck I pay over $200 a month and my employer pays over $800 a month.
  
  Now, this is the cheapest coverage that my employer provides, and it's through an HMO.
  
  When I was looking at taking a contracting job recently, I would have had to pay over $800 a month to insure my family with the contract employer paying maybe about $200.
  
  And my last several forays to the doctor show that it's (almost) not worth it.
  

• bloc said on Apr 22, 2008....

  "would the fact then that when most people want premium healthcare services, they fly from abroad to the US be meaningful, then?"
  
  
  I don't think that most people fly to the use for premium services. Most of whom, and what is a premium service?
  
  
  @d6 and tin
  My health insurance costs about $1100/month for an hmo. Anyone that says there are cheaper options is making a giant assumption, that you don't need significant medical service. If you do then it will cost a lot more.

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 22, 2008....

  Premium service I think is those things that can't be done anyplace else.  You know kinda like despite our basic education being shit people from around the world come here to go to college.

• bloc said on Apr 22, 2008....

  I'd be interested in seeing some stats on that. My guess is that it's a fraction of all healthcare and that most americans don't get that same care. I'd be hard pressed to say that americas system is better based on services most americans can't get.

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 22, 2008....

  I don't know for sure if that's even true, I just think that is where the perception is.  That when you're kid has been diagnosed with chronic necrosis of the brain that Lorenzo's oil is going to be developed in the US.  I don't know if it's true by any means and like you mention even if it is true that wouldn't have a lot of bearing on the overall situation anyway.

• andora said on Apr 22, 2008....

  $11,000.oo per month??????? OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  
  This healthcare system is definitely broke!
  
  To me, preventative care is the solution to much of this GRAFT. That is all I can say about paying that much per month...GRAFT! HMO=graft!!!!!!!!
  
  No amount of money will help those caught up in the MARSA pandemic - in fact - hospitals are THE place to contract this new bug...let's not forget that billions of young and old alike are radiating their heads daily with cell phones. People act as though there has already been extensive study about the affects of this NEW technology...as they give their children these little devises!
  
  As you all argue the minutiae of healthcare policy all I hear is this great big silence around some very big issues, whether one is covered or not. this conversation seems like it would be best illustrated as a group of frogs sitting in a pot of water....a big hand moves forward and turns the burner under the pan on and the frogs continue their banter...the right details vs. wrong details minutiae, as the heat is silently building. Yes, I understand that this particular thread is about the pro's and con's of socialized medicine...but, has any of you questioned such statistics as part of a deep and dark morass that is bypassing the real issues? I apologize ahead of time for digressing...
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 22, 2008....

  I don't even see what your point was with any of that

• bloc said on Apr 22, 2008....

  @andora
  $1,100 not $11,000
  
  
  "this great big silence around some very big issues, whether one is covered or not."
  
  
  I've mentioned this several times in this thread.
  
  
  @everyone
  one thing that has occurred to me that isn't mentioned much is that americans may be less healthy than people in other countries. I'm sure this doesn't explain all of the difference, but it could be a factor.

• D6fer said on Apr 23, 2008....

  one thing that has occurred to me that isn't mentioned much is that americans may be less healthy than people in other countries. I'm sure this doesn't explain all of the difference, but it could be a factor.
  
  I think that this is a result of the wealth of our society.....there is a fast food joint on every corner......we are eating way more convenience foods than ever.....I bet the stats on that would be staggering!
  

• D6fer said on Apr 23, 2008....

  ed.....labor unions introduced employer paid insurance....not labor law.

• silverwhisper said on Apr 23, 2008....

  bloc: as sean said, service not otherwise available--or highest quality healthcare. this isn't to say that other nations don't have great medical professionals--they do, i'm sure--but there's certainly a very, very pervasive perception abroad that american healthcare is the cadillac. in a sense, the US healthcare system is a lot like windows: it can do a lot, but it's so weighed down under its complexity that the average user is left struggling desperately to make it do the most routine things.
  
  d6: that doesn't make sense. labor unions pushed for paid insurance--and got it--from their employers only. labor unions can't make law, d6.
  
  ed

• TinSoldier said on Apr 23, 2008....

  About the only thing you could say was whether the labor unions lobbied the government for the health insurance tax break that employers get.
  
  *shrug*
  

Comment on "The real meat of politics....todays issue: Healthcare"

Currently tagged	healthcare politics Elderly Care bi-polar craze socialized medicine Universal Health Care confusion perks (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously