What is Digg?332 Comments
- alethes1973, on 06/09/2009, -18/+126How do we get the economy going again? Oh, I know! Take more money away from people and give it to government to waste.
Better add a /s just in case. - chockster, on 06/09/2009, -14/+72"It's also something John McCain proposed last year"
Yes, I can see how Democrats are clearly the only people behind ideas like this. - tonmil, on 06/09/2009, -10/+66Employers shouldn't be paying for insurance. That's one reason US companies are at a disadvantage to Canadian and European companies.
I worked for a corporation that decided to shut down a US site vs a Canadian site. The deciding factor was the healthcare cost. There was no cost for the Canadian site. - jdames1980, on 06/09/2009, -10/+56Except that this was also part of McCain's plan. This is a dual party fail.
- mikebrinkman, on 06/09/2009, -23/+63They're not morons, this is intentional. Destroy private health insurance, then the government will swoop in and take over. Government's idea of helping you is breaking your leg and then handing you a crutch.
- funkedup, on 06/09/2009, -8/+44Believe it or not there are plenty of people that want higher taxes. There seem to be a lot of them on Digg.
- mGARANDEUR1, on 06/09/2009, -13/+40The government likes to tax everything. You all should have learned this by now.
- SpykerSpeed, on 06/09/2009, -14/+40I can't keep track of all the taxes... all the laws... it's just too much.
This country sucks donkey balls. - mjparme, on 06/09/2009, -1/+27“The problem with socialism is that you eventually,
run out of other people’s money.” - Margaret Thatcher - inactive, on 06/09/2009, -12/+38yeah tax me more! don't worry, i'll vote you in next time.
- jeffiek, on 06/09/2009, -2/+27And then charging you for it.
- boozedrinker, on 06/09/2009, -8/+32Let me reiterate something I said in the comments earlier today:
I REALLY don't understand why in the ***** most people on digg hate Republicans. I mean TRUE Republicans, after all, believe in smaller and less powerful government. Isn't that what you guys want? A smaller government that doesn't ***** with your rights and interfere in every little part of your life and take money that you earned?
Don't even point to Bush - he was about as far from a true Republican as it gets. I have a feeling it's because of the whole "old, rich, white guy" mentality. People on digg, please remember - DEMOCRATS are the ***** that want a larger and more powerful government, not TRUE Republicans. I mean, look at Obama's Czar *****, controlling of private industry, outright purchase of big auto, and now he's trying to make socialized healthcare - exactly what England is running from because it doesn't work. Imagine the same amount of doctors in the US having to take care of quadruple the amount of patients...Welcome to the waiting list! - Bullislander05, on 06/09/2009, -2/+24Here. I've got an idea. How about instead of a $787B stimulus bill and a couple trillion in bailouts and stuff, why don't we just give every American child, parent, and grandparent the $30,000 of theirs we just spent! Let's see. If I got $30,000 back from the government, I'd consider buying a new CAR, which might just STIMULATE the economy.
Why do we think the people in Congress have our best interests in mind? Do we really trust only 535 people to know the BEST way to spend that exorbitant of an amount of money? I don't think so. I think if everyone got their little piece of the pie and used it towards what they wanted, the economy would do just fine. - mulling, on 06/09/2009, -11/+32Uh, John McCain was running with this idea as his plan for the health care system.
- backflipper, on 06/09/2009, -5/+24Yes, Mccain proposed this in order to pay for his $5,000 health care tax credit. He was immediatly called out by Obama and other democrats, saying this was a terrible idea.
Now democrats in congress are proposing this, which will get little to no support from republicans since they do not want government run health care. - mulling, on 06/09/2009, -10/+27Why the confusion? We tax things we want to punish--drinking, gambling, providing health insurance to your employees. This makes perfect sense when you understand that the US legal system is designed to maximize healthcare-related bankruptcies.
- TreatsTheBear, on 06/09/2009, -2/+18Employer based insurance also distorts the market for labor. How many people do you know that stay at crappy jobs they hate because they can't get insurance otherwise?
That is a market inefficiency. They could be more productive somewhere else if they weren't tied to their health care. - Chakat, on 06/09/2009, -2/+18Yes, and he was promptly taken to task for it, by obama even.
- jeffiek, on 06/09/2009, -4/+20I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Canadians pay for health care through taxes. Unlike America, Canada doesn't print much money. Which means it has to come from somewhere. Corporate taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, whatever.
It's like squeezing a balloon. Squeeze here, it gets bigger there.
Any single situation, like yours, might come out ahead. But on the average, there shouldn't be that much of an advantage (simple math).
Unless Canadian tax law is playing favorites. Governments do that all the time. "favored" corporations (worldwide) get "incentives" to relocate. - norman619, on 06/09/2009, -1/+16And then Obama turns around and wants to apply it. More proof we had no real choices this past election.
- AlterLite, on 06/09/2009, -6/+21So much for not taxing families that make less than 250k... remember folks Change you can believe in!
- ayeroxor, on 06/09/2009, -11/+25Yeah. In Canada and Europe, everyone takes care of each other and themselves through non-profit healthcare systems that are a right for everybody.
- Hercules, on 06/09/2009, -10/+24Simple solution: Implement single payer (ie, socialized, nationalized, whatever dirty word) with a HIGH deductible and high copays. Your employer can provide you private insurance that lowers the copays you pay by letting a private company use your health history to get you better rates. If you're not a smoker, not fat, don't have any heart condition or whatever, you can possibly pay less.
This system is simple. It doesn't let people abuse it because they PAY TO GO TO THE DOCTOR. So if you have a cold, or the sniffles, you go to the doctor and you will pay. Until you hit the deductible, which is classified by your tax bracket. So this way you don't have lonely old men going into the doctor to 'chat'.
But the benefit here is that if somebody in your family gets cancer, then you can get them treatment without going bankrupt. Number one form of bankruptcy is medical bills folks, remember that. You and I already pay for that, incase you forget.
This way you get a base coverage for everybody, employers can get you better coverage, we aren't paying for everybody to go to the doctor every five minutes and healthcare doesn't become a game of profit so much any more, though there's still a lot of money to be made if you're you know -- a doctor. - otbeverly, on 06/09/2009, -0/+14Maybe if Congress would show a gesture of goodwill to the people by not giving themselves 100% free heathcare for life, locked-in pension and benefit plans for life once sworn into office, then this kind of stuff would aggravate me so much.
Hey government, if you want to maintain some support, why don't you go by the same rules you set for the people, Mmm-kay? It might not piss everyone else off so much when you tax everyone else and then vote for raises for yourselves.
(The following was not thought out for more than the time required to write this disclaimer so feel free to mock this statement for being made off the cuff): *****, man. Maybe it's time to just kick the District of Columbia out of the Union and ex-patriate everyone there for a while. - mydigglogin, on 06/09/2009, -7/+20It'll be interesting to see if republicans remember that this was McCain's plan before the election...
- norman619, on 06/09/2009, -3/+16w/o the /s you sound like an Obama supporter. :-)
- nj10ii, on 06/09/2009, -3/+15Still a bad idea regardless of who mentioned it or when.
- brandozilla, on 06/09/2009, -22/+34Not just the morons in congress, the moron in the white house is now on board.
- craftyguy, on 06/09/2009, -6/+18Well "politicians" have to pay for socializing health care, failing social security, and welfare somehow...
Funny that people support the idea of all the above, but are unwilling to pay for it because they do not take cost into consideration.. - TherealObadiah, on 06/09/2009, -57/+68Title should read "DEMOCRATS in Congress Want to Tax Employer-provided Healthcare". Obamanomics at work right before your eyes. You can pretty much subtract 20% out of each one of your paychecks to pay for givernment run "free" healthcare. And with this "free" healthcare you had better not get sick!
- ChoosyMother, on 06/09/2009, -1/+12Classic Cloward-Piven strategy. When most healthy people simply opt-in for the free version, who exactly is going to be left to tax? Don't forget it's healthy people who keep health care afloat as it is.
- appleofdischord, on 06/09/2009, -4/+14That would be socialist wealth redistribution.
- otbeverly, on 06/09/2009, -7/+17So what's your source on that? That's pretty much an anti-universal healthcare talking point that's been refuted time and time again.
Unless you're nit-picking over the circumstances involved, it's not even close to the truth. Quit lying; it's time for everyone to be honest. The only people spreading these lies are either misinformed, ignorant or stand to benefit themselves. I feel sorry for anyone whose only goal in life is to make money and acquire wealth for themselves (often unknowingly at the expense of everyone else around them, including loved ones). - jjesusfreak01, on 06/09/2009, -3/+13And we are the stupid sheeple that vote for the same politicians for 20 years in a row.
- Unimatrix0, on 06/09/2009, -2/+12The title could have stopped with just "Morons In Congress"...that pretty much sums it up.
In 2010 I urge everyone to vote against every incumbent running for office.. I don't care if you vote Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Independent, just vote to throw every incumbent out of office. And we should keep doing so until we get people in there that will do what is honestly good for the USA and people living in it. - diggduggDOOM, on 06/09/2009, -7/+17I believe Toyota recently decided to build a factory in Canada instead of the US for the same reason (also listed as a reaon was a relative lack of education of the local work force).
- jeffiek, on 06/09/2009, -0/+10I definitely agree that employees should have an equal standing under tax law.
Their payments for health insurance should also be tax deductible. There problem solved.
How many people know how this whole mess got started? There were wage and price controls after WWII. Employers were not allowed to give higher wages to attract employees ( yes - you read that right employers wanted to pay more), but they were allowed to give benefits. Health insurance being one.
And of course it was tax deductible. It wasn't a big problem at first, but small advantages tend to grow (simple math) and they gained in popularity. Employers effectively "leveraged" their dollar and the employees got the apparent "benefit". For a while.
We see how that turned out.
Government. Create a problem. Pass a law to solve it. Which creates another problem. And another law, which creates ..... - PeppermintPig, on 06/09/2009, -0/+10"Whether such a system of social security is a good or a bad policy is essentially a political problem. One may try to justify it by declaring that the wage earners lack the insight and the moral strength to provide spontaneously for their own future. But then it is not easy to silence the voices of those who ask whether it is not paradoxical to entrust the nation's welfare to the decisions of voters whom the law itself considers incapable of managing their own affairs; whether it is not absurd to make those people supreme in the conduct of government who are manifestly in need of a guardian to prevent them from spending their own income foolishly." Mises, from Human Action
- vbullinger, on 06/09/2009, -1/+10John McCain is pretty much a Democrat. He wanted to switch parties in 2004 and run as Kerry's running mate. No joke.
He's the most liberal "Republican" out there. - transfire, on 06/09/2009, -3/+12Big Insurance's idea of helping you is making you pay for the crutch before you ever break your leg. Should you ever do so then they'll deny you the crutch anyway b/c you forgot to tell them you have a prior condition of flat feet.
Looks like we're getting screwed from both ends here.
Tell you what. let's make a deal. Let government (preferably State governments) cover severe life and limb emergencies for all, and then get rid of all the damn private insurance companies. Then if you need Viagra or whatever damn non-emergency care you can just go to you doctor and actually pay the doctor for what you want. What a concept! - otbeverly, on 06/09/2009, -3/+12You can thank NeoCons for destroying anything the Republican Party (once) stood for. You know it, I know it and everyone else knows it. The Republican Party might be on a course parallel to its traditional course, the problem is the 16-year tangent known as the Reagan-Bush I-Bush II administrations. Of course that tangential line was probably tripled, if not quadrupled by the Bush II admin.
- goes211, on 06/09/2009, -1/+9True but at least the Democrats are smart enough to not want them back.
What I would like to see is both the Democrats and Republicans unite on their mutual hatred of the neocons. I can dream can't I? - SwampAss, on 06/09/2009, -0/+8Thats when its better not to work and leech off the system. When they run out of money they will just print more and tax you that way as well.
- VigRoco, on 06/09/2009, -4/+12Doctors over treat to protect themselves from lawsuits. The real problem here is the US litigation system.
- TherealObadiah, on 06/09/2009, -9/+17Uh yeah, John McCain, pfft.. Get back to me when you can demonstrate that this isn't being driven by Democrats with the usual suspect Republicans (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, etc.) gloming on so you guys can claim faux bipartisan political cover.
- tonmil, on 06/09/2009, -3/+11Of course someone pays for insurance in Canada.
I meant that my former EMPLOYER did not have to pay for insurance for the employees at the Canadian site. That's why they fired the 650 U.S. employees. The U.S. employees cost more because the company had to pay for their health insurance. - eaglessuperbowl, on 06/09/2009, -8/+16who are the morons? the non-taxation of employer-sponsored health benefits was a fluke byproduct of a bill passed in the 1950s. No one predicted that health insurance would become the behemoth of employee-compensation that it is now, to the point that it probably directly led to the sinking of US automakers, so they passed the tax-exemption as a means to attract employees when the government capped salaries after world war 2. the ones who stand most to gain from this tax-exemption are those that are making the most bloated salaries. meanwhile, medicare is predicted to run out of its allocation in a little less than 10 years. where will the government get money to pay for your grandparents, your parents, and your government-sponsored healthcare then? oh, maybe we'll all just stay employed until we die.
- norman619, on 06/09/2009, -1/+9His own biased ignorance.
- Akairenn, on 06/09/2009, -5/+13"it'll be cheaper than getting raped by for profit insurance companies."
*****. The gross inefficiency of the Federal government is legendary. If you think government run programs are going to be any cheaper than the free market, please let me know where you're getting your LSD from. Got to be damned good stuff. - goes211, on 06/09/2009, -1/+8How is anyone denying you ACCESS to healthcare? Have your doctors refused to treat you? Did the emergency room leave you bleeding at the curb?
Sounds more like you want SOMEONE ELSE to pay for YOUR usage of healthcare which is a completely different issue than access to healthcare. -
Show 51 - 100 of 340 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is