What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
80 Comments
- KSUdesigner, on 11/03/2009, -4/+20Social Security and Medicare have helped a hell of a lot of people over the years, so those programs aren't entirely failures. These programs are flawed and need to be reformed for sure, but the millions of people who have benefitted from those programs would disagree with you about them being failures.
- Igrift, on 11/03/2009, -5/+17"But how in the world could Senate Democrats get to the point where the concept of the public option is even particularly controversial?"
Simply research those republicans that are stirring the pot to find out where they get most of their funding from. Their strings are being pulled by the companies that want this to go away. - BigT383, on 11/03/2009, -3/+12Seriously. There are 2, and only 2 arguments against the public option, and they are diametrically opposed.
1) It'll be too good and wipe out all the private insurers, becoming single-payer.
2) It will be less efficient than private insurance and will simply be a waste of money.
#2 is solved because, since it's optional, if nobody joins it then it costs no money. Besides- it's paid for by premiums, not taxes. Therefore, it's worth enacting even if there's the CHANCE it could slow the 3*inflation growth of health costs.
#1 shouldn't even be a concern, since the job of health care reform is to get people health care, not look out for health insurance companies. - 5thdigg, on 11/03/2009, -3/+10What exactly is unconstitutional about it? Is medicare unconstitutional? I'm not even burying you, i'd really like to know.
- darkened, on 11/03/2009, -3/+8The public option is no different than public schools. Public schools are an option but you pay for them whether or not you goto them or send your children to them.
- detcade, on 11/03/2009, -2/+7Diggerals? Like... digger + liberal? That's so cute.
It looks like you're demonizing Igrift pretty well, apparently only because you don't agree with him (I see no facts or logic in the rest of your post). Are you certain you're not being hypocritical?
People opposing healthcare reform receive huge funding from private healthcare. It's no secret, and it's not a debate. - Zomgondo, on 11/03/2009, -2/+6#1 wipes out my right to rip people off however I see fit!!! It's socialist and unconstitutional!
/s - stonebear, on 11/03/2009, -2/+6And that's not to mention the blatant conflict of interest if that mandate involves insurance companies in any way.
- diggduggDOOM, on 11/03/2009, -1/+5<p>
- govsucks, on 11/03/2009, -2/+6HAH, you are so full of *****. I live in a neighborhood that is almost 100% latino. I know ladies who have had 4 and 6 children, and the state paid for ALL of them. My wife and I are getting ready to have our second child and our co pays alone cost us 3000. No telling what else we will get to eat before its over with. The level that these illegals are eating at our resources infuriates my wife.
If YOU want to pay for their children so bad it should come out of YOUR salary, not mine. - monarch00, on 11/03/2009, -0/+4@settlesdown: The constitution does not say that you need to have insurance on your car either, but liability is required by law (at a minimum) in every state. Without this, costs could run huge and people would not be protected. Why is health insurance any different? Are car insurance requirements unconstitutional?
If I slip fall through the ceiling today and need life saving surgery, does my family deserve to have to file bankruptcy because I wasn't employed at the time and can't afford the $100k bill? Why should not everyone be required to pay into a system that protects individuals and health care providers against this? - sHockz, on 11/03/2009, -2/+6yes, the illegals go to an ER and pay nothing, while the bill is footed by the taxpayer. HEALTHCARE REFORM SHOULD INCLUDE SOME TYPE OF WAY TO OFFSET THIS. instead, the bill does not do anything in regards to solving this issue, and will continue to let illegals suck off americas tit's. so, while i am forced to pay a tax at the end of the year or be faced with jail time, the illegals get to continue to use the healthcare i paid for, for their headaches and migraines.
when will you people ever learn to read - rkthoadan, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3sHockz, you're not addressing the real question there. Would ER's still be required to try to verify that all patients are legal citizens or not? What if that patient is an unconscious half-naked blood soaked body that just arrived via ambulance. Was the ambulance crew supposed to find out before they transported them?
I feel I should also point out that approximately 2/3 of the illegal immigrants are paying the same taxes as you and me, and they don't have a way to file for a refund.
Link: http://reason.org/news/show/122411.html
Quote:
"And another vital thing happened in 1996: the Internal Revenue Service began issuing identification numbers to enable illegal immigrants who don't have Social Security numbers to file taxes.
One might have imagined that those fearing deportation or confronting the prospect of paying for their safety net through their own meager wages would take a pass on the IRS' scheme. Not so. Close to 8 million of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the country today file personal income taxes using these numbers, contributing billions to federal coffers." - 5thdigg, on 11/03/2009, -3/+6The majority of illegal immigrants pay taxes out of their income, some are completely under the table, but many pay taxes. As for the rest, I find it amusing that people are agonizing over paying for our OWN healthcare, when we have no problem throwing 320 million dollars a day for just gasoline in afghanistan. No one had a hernia about starting two wars, well a couple did, but no where near the amount of people now that apparently want to still be over charged and denied health care.
Ironic how easily people are manipulated. - bobbydiamondz, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3Every once in a while I need a good laugh to break me from my political-comment-reading trance. Thank you.
- govsucks, on 11/03/2009, -7/+10"What does that make Social Security or Medicare? America's embrace of Marxism?"
Well it sure as hell doesn't make it Americans embracing of liberty and personal responsibility does it?
America, home of liberty, as long as everyone agrees. - Trifold, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3You forgot to add </HTML> at the end of your post, which I bet is why the tags still showed up. Be sure to put one of those at the end of each and every one of your comments.
- TimtheTaxMan, on 11/03/2009, -9/+12I’m still against it. Government should not be in the business of providing healthcare. If healthcare reform meant making it easier to encourage competition among insurance companies and more tax breaks for health costs, I’d be all for it.
Adding more government to an already bloated and inefficient system will not drive down costs or improve care. In fact, the solution is less coverage, not more. Because of the rise of complete (verses catastrophic) insurance coverage for healthcare, the market has become horribly distorted. It’s like having auto insurance that would cover putting gas in your car. How often would you shop around for gas or oil changes if your insurer paid 90% of the cost. High deductable plans would encourage people to shop around for routine care and help drive down costs by adding competition to the market. - iskin, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3There is no private sector for Medicare! That is why the Federal government created it.
- pauldy, on 11/03/2009, -3/+6You have it right but because your option requires people take responsibility for their own actions and have an active part in their own lives they want no part in it.
- chingazo, on 11/03/2009, -1/+3I'm getting sick of being forced to pay for health insurance for mainly the 47% of Americans who pay no Federal income taxes. It might just be me, but it seems like the the folks who are almost demanding the govt provide health care for the masses are the ones who do not pay taxes to begin with, so they in effect, get something that other folks are required to pay for. I see no benefit to this. I have employer provided health insurance, and pay a lot in taxes, and I would be penalized for being independent of the govt rather than low income with state or federal assistance cause I can't provide for myself. It's stupid.
- detcade, on 11/03/2009, -5/+7Why is the legislation worthless? Just a question.
- EntropyFan, on 11/03/2009, -3/+5when will you people learn to read: http://tinyurl.com/l5z5pd
Seriously, that point is over and done.
And as it is currently, illegal immigrants have little choice but to simply go to the emergency room, the most expensive health care on the planet. And there is no way we will be denying anyone that.
So thanks to those stopping health care reform, we still get to foot that bill. - 5thdigg, on 11/03/2009, -2/+4What? Our strong health care system? Lol wtf are you smoking dude. Not even the craziest neocon can lie and say that our current system is sustainable for 10 more years.
you are right about payments, but guess what, private insurance companies do the exact same thing. so what exactly is your point? - twinklyJesus, on 11/03/2009, -1/+3WORKING? Liberals don't work, that's for conservatives, liberals whine, protest and demand more of what they deserve.
- BigT383, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3@drunkCatholic - Actually I do "get" the public option as I have been following this debate very closely.
@TimtheTaxMan - General fund money may be used to set up the public option initially, but that's covered in the cost of the bill. After that it's funded entirely by premiums. Since the CBO has projected that the bills currently going through congress end up reducing the deficit over 10 years, the cost of the bill (and thus the initial taxpayer money used to set up any public option) will be recouped with the savings.
@darkened - um, no? You're describing a medicare-like system. In such a system as you describe it (ie, similar to public schools), it would be free for anybody to go to the doctor, and the government would pay the doctor with money collected through taxes. That's what happens with kids and teachers, that's what they have in Canada for doctors, and what we have for people over 65. US Seniors on Medicare are free to use their own money to pay for procedures not covered by Medicare, which would be analogous to choosing a private school in your description. I personally would be fine with such a system, however THIS DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE PUBLIC OPTION in the bills currently moving through congress. The Public Option is a non-profit insurance option paid for by premiums, not taxes. You still have to pay for it just like you do private insurance.
@scamper22 - Tax money will be used to pay for the public option indirectly, however this is money that is also available to private insurers. This may sound like I'm backtracking on what I said earlier, but I'm not. The government isn't saying "Here's Tax money, public option, because you're run by the government". The tax money I'm talking about is Medicaid. So the government is saying "Hey poor people, here's some tax credits you can use to purchase insurance with. Go pick whatever insurance you want with it, you can choose the Public Option if you want to"- basically it's tax money to help poor people pay their premiums. So if the Medicaid recipients choose private insurance, the private insurers get that money. If they choose the public option, it goes back to the government. Without a public option 100% of that tax money goes to private insurers. Now, the health reform bills currently moving through congress make these credits available to more people, however that has nothing at all to do with the public option.
@jpop - I'm not familiar with Hawaii's system, however that is an impossible scenario for the public option as currently under discussion. It WOULD be a possible result if the public option were paid for with a set amount of the budget every year (as it sounds like Hawaii's was), but as I've already covered it's paid for by premiums paid by people that choose it, not by the government. So the more people that choose it, the more money it has. So how can it run out of money? It actually works better the more people that join it, because not everybody requires medical attention all the time, therefore some people are paying premiums and not getting sick. Because the public option would be non-profit, 100% of money taken in by premiums and not given out to pay doctors would then go to reducing the premiums you have to pay. That's the whole idea of making it run by the federal government instead of co-ops or run by states, etc. - the more people the better it performs. That's also the reason that I believe that limiting the public option availability to those unable to get private insurance - which is what is currently proposed - is a mistake. Senator Ron Wyden agrees, and is also a proponent of letting anybody into the public option if they want it.
Please, keep 'em coming. I like correcting people's misconceptions. - jpop, on 11/03/2009, -1/+3You missed #3. It'll be barely adequate, but people will join it because they are paying for it anyway, and this way they can save the money they're paying the insurers. Since more people join it than expected, it runs out of money and goes under. Oh wait, that ALREADY HAPPENED in Hawaii.
- sHockz, on 11/03/2009, -2/+4because the health care reform does not deny them the ability to continue what they can do right now, and that is walk into an ER with a headache and receive medical care FOR NOTHING, and the tax payer has to pay the bill.
DO YOU GET IT NOW? - TimtheTaxMan, on 11/03/2009, -2/+4It's not entirely paid for with premiums, general fund money will be used as well.
If it that were only funded with premiums, I'm sure people wouldn't be nearly as upset. You’re are given an “option”, but you have to pay part of the cost regardless of whether you use it. - detcade, on 11/03/2009, -2/+3In effect, you're saying that the economic and social policy the government should have is "survival of the fittest", or, "If you can't provide for yourself, too bad", which is not what America was founded on. "By the people, for the people" means giving /all/ the people a chance to life, liberty, and happiness. I'm sure you're not going to be reduced to horrible poverty if this bill is passed, or even be effected, but that's what the opposition wants you to think.
- sHockz, on 11/03/2009, -3/+4BOY O BOY, you are just a democratic parrot arent you? i dont listen to rush, i dont listen to beck, i dont watch fox news.
one thing that you refuse to acknowledge, is that the reform bill DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that illegals can just stroll into an ER and still get free healthcare on the tax payers dime. I NEVER SAID ILLEGALS GET COVERED, i said they will continue to receive free healthcare...big difference. - chingazo, on 11/03/2009, -1/+2How can "providing for yourself" in any way, shape or form be likened to "survival of the fittest"? Why do folks seem so comfortable being DEPENDENT on the govt? I don't. Every citizen has a chance for life, liberty, and happiness just by being an American, but it cannot and should not mean that it is given to you. You gotta earn that, and you are right that America was not founded on the things you mentioned. It was founded on ridiculous taxation by the Brits. I will be affected by this bill. Every tax payer will be. I think it is retarded and hope it fails.
- jpop, on 11/03/2009, -1/+2The #1 thing I want to see in the Obamacare plan. That it applies to all branches of government and replaces their current coverage. We'll see how all fired they are to shove it down our throats then...
- detcade, on 11/03/2009, -2/+3Ok, so what do you propose we do about that? That's the way it is now, and that only applies to ER medical care, so maybe we should focus on illegal immigrant policies to reduce that?
Does the Republican health care reform bill deny illegal immigrants ER care? - pauldy, on 11/03/2009, -7/+8Baltimore Sun = BS, and that pretty much sums it up.
- Thistlejack, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1The Congressional Budget Office (a non-partisan group that sits around and does budget projections) projected that only 2% of Americans would sign up for the Public Option. Republicans- it's not going to destroy the country! Democrats- It's not going to save the country! Both sides need to get past this.
- Latentk, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1I agree, but unfortunately, and though most of America agrees, they seem to be proceeding anyways!
- waspbr, on 11/03/2009, -1/+2Aside from the fact that investing in the general population health can be seen as a capital investment, since a health population will result in a healthier workforce.
On top of that, if people don't need to spend as much on their health care, then they will have 'extra' to spend on basic inelastic goods, in case of the poor and other consumer goods, boosting the economy.
Long story short, healthcare needs to be seen as an investment and not just as a cost.
One thing that would do wonders for the cost of health-care, would be to negotiate with the AMA reduce the labor costs, though this would probably be harder than passing the public option bill itself. - ramfire98, on 11/04/2009, -0/+11000+ pages of convoluted legaleese that hardly anybody understands, legislation that is being crafted by special interests/ lobbyists in lieu of our elected officials, and price tags that are going to cost the taxpayers into the trillions of dolllars along side the countless other government programs that the government cannot sustain.
Worthless.
What makes it even more worthless, is the government can't balance a checkbook, stay on a budget, eliminate earrmarks/pork, fix their already busted programs (SS, Medicare, and Medicaid come to mind), enforce a border, or prosecute those here Illegally and those that hire them, but yet they can SOMEHOW fix Healthcare?
There is no problem that government can't colosally frak up twelve times worse than the original problem.... - twinklyJesus, on 11/03/2009, -1/+2You are assuming incorrectly. You assume that the government is going to save the taxpayer money by paying for their health care for them...in fact, the government has no money to pay for anything, unless they take it from the taxpayer. they will not be redirecting tax money already earmarked, but increasing taxes on a segment (unnamed) who will pay for the other group's health care.
Ultimately, we'll find out that there is not enough money there, taxes will be raised on business and on the middle class, and, prices will increase to offset the increase in taxes passed to business and manufacturing, which in turn will be passed on to the consumer (taxpayer).
Its a dumb idea. - mrcoderga, on 11/07/2009, -0/+1War is the health-care of the state
And it already is every single tax-payer. - Latentk, on 11/03/2009, -2/+3Nope to easy, not enough bribery, extortion, sex, or drugs involved for it to be possible. /s
- darkened, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1lmao it's funny anytime people bring up facts like Hawaii or MA and what occurred there.
- settlesdown, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1you make an awesome point! I concede haha.
- settlesdown, on 11/03/2009, -6/+7the government does not have a constitutional mandate to require you to have health insurance.
- Latentk, on 11/03/2009, -3/+4I agree with the above sentiments, you put it beautifully. However, the above comment is correct. The people in this country no longer hold themselves or their actions accountable. It is a society of victims, and your system (though it makes beautiful economical sense) would destroy that fact...
I wish that I was NOT ordered to do something merely because the government decided to tell me such. I wish I could be on my own way, and make my own life free of restriction, or limitation. - sHockz, on 11/03/2009, -1/+2i am all for reducing healthcare costs, and i realize it is an investment into the future of all americans, but i think we are addressing the issues in the wrong way.....or at least leaving some critical parts of reform out of the bill.
i dont think trying to reduce labor costs will offset the total cost by much, and even if you brought down the prices of medical supplies, it still wouldnt do too much. we need to tap resources that are currently untapped, like illegal immigrants. if they started paying into the system, imagine how much more money would be flowing in.
oh and btw, thx for a real response. im digging you up - rkthoadan, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Don't like that link? Try these instead:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04- ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/13/national ...
Keep in mind that all immigrants pay sales taxes and property taxes (through rent). You can pretend that nobody knows how many are here, but it's not that tough to get an estimate. It might be off by a Million or two, but the estimates from various sources don't vary by that much.
Let me address your two payment suggestions. US debt owned to foreign countries is not generally owed to the government of those countries, but to private investors within those countries. In cases where the governments may own US debt directly they can simply sell it off easily. You also can't simply retroactively change contracts. Your military solution is certainly unique, but I doubt the Military is really going to want illegal immigrants anyway. Good communication is vital in the military and I doubt most illegals English is going to be adequate. There is also an issue there in that it is not a crime to owe debt to someone. From a legal perspective the Federal Government can't treat illegals with unpaid healthcare bills any different from illegals without any healthcare bills.
The more I've looked into it (and my investigation started this past summer when I read the article I linked above) the more I've realized that on the whole illegal immigrants are a huge benefit to society and contribute more to the tax base than they get back, although there are problems in California and Texas due to the high concentration of illegals there. Instantly deporting all the illegals in the country would probably devastate our economy. Most illegals are young, healthy adults with a strong work ethic and often better morals, family values and desire for education than many Americans. They are the kind of people we need more of! I'm not sure what the answer is for healthcare, but the overall problem of illegal immigration really needs a much easier and quicker path to becoming legal. - novenator, on 11/04/2009, -2/+2What's that comment about these comments again?
- Taiyoryu, on 11/04/2009, -1/+1Make sure you tell your Congress critter the same thing when they vote for a war.
-
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is