What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
152 Comments
- Nomoreclintons, on 02/09/2008, -8/+61Yeah Hillary force everyone to pay for health insurance or else garnish it right out of their paychecks or pay a penalty. What a great idea!!!!!! Especially for those who have to choose between gas,food, heat...... for their family.
- winmywii, on 02/09/2008, -1/+38I bet the insurance companies love the idea.
- inactive, on 02/09/2008, -3/+36Obama understands everyone isn't rich like Hillary.
- NoDrama, on 02/09/2008, -5/+31Well, the NY Times likes Hillary's plan... but they gloss over that problem of garnishing wages to pay for it and the fact that mandatory insurance is only 85% effective for automobiles.
- groo68, on 02/09/2008, -1/+17It's as if there was some crazy corporate conspiracy where they could have drafted the idea and attached it to their donations to her campaign.
- burntsac, on 02/09/2008, -3/+18aren't my wages already garnished?
- arzim, on 02/09/2008, -0/+14Hillary's health care plan effectively is "No Person Left Uninsured" - there are inherent openings for the government to punish and to coerce its constituents in the same way as NCLB punishes and coerces under-performing schools. The government exists to serve its people, and governs only with the consent of its people. These are the "founding principles" (a term popularly touted by Dems and Repubs alike) upon which this nation was based. Tell me, then, how does willful coercion of its states and its peoples by the gov't serve its people?
The only ones to benefit from Hills' plan are the insurance companies. - schnikies79, on 02/09/2008, -3/+16Wrong. Everyone will have to pay. The poorest of the poor already receive free health care, it's called Medicade.
Anyway, it shouldn't be up to the government how rich people spend their money. The government needs to stay the hell out of it's citizens business. - sandilincoln, on 02/09/2008, -10/+21FANTASTIC! Nice endorsement!
- inactive, on 02/09/2008, -4/+12 Why do people on this thread so many times use the "...should the government pay for it..."?
It's 'your' money not the governments. But, please wake up Right wing neophytes, Most countries look after the health of all it's citizens, because they are all in it together. America is not in it together. And cut the crap about how it hurts the economy, most Countries with universal health are doing better financially than you, and way less debt. - dylanwalker, on 02/09/2008, -0/+8When the US government sanctioned HMOs under Nixon, they guaranteed their involvement from that point forward. Getting rid of a system like that after decades of policy is nontrivial, to say the least.
- skycriesx, on 02/09/2008, -4/+12As much as we are a free market economy, whenever I visit other western countries I am always jealous of the easily accessible socialized health care. Will we as a society ever accept the tax burden of such a socialized service in our lifetime? Hard to say....
- tschau, on 02/09/2008, -1/+8common sense and human decency = groundbreaking policy.
sheesh, do you not pay attention? - rswelling, on 02/09/2008, -2/+8Is everyone missing the other real issue? People who are insured don't trust the system and their supposed coverage. What will be done about that? It seems all of these plans are just taking yet more of our money and dumping them into an already predatory broken system that is refusing to pay many legitimate claims.
- inactive, on 02/09/2008, -0/+6Hillary is not fit to lead.
- 99Casimir, on 02/09/2008, -4/+10Bush also uses a Mac, so do you support him?
- inactive, on 08/11/2008, -3/+9I think this is the first Obama vs Hillary article I've seen on Digg that isn't blatant propaganda. Dugg.
- slearwig, on 02/09/2008, -0/+6I think that's because The N.Y. Times is supporting Hillary. On Super Tuesday I noticed the Times declared Hillary as the winner in California with only 25% of the ballots counted.
- JettaMan, on 02/09/2008, -5/+11Why is the government even becoming involved in this issue? They should have less influence on healthcare, not more! It has only gotten worse since they became involved in the early 70's.
- bossm4n, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5Please explain how it is the federal governments job to provide socialized anything to the American people. Show me a well-run, well-organized, non-corrupt, government program in the US that is not wrapped in endless layers of bureaucracy? As utterly screwed up as our health care system is, as well as the entire insurance industry, I can only imagine the disaster that would be health care managed by the feds. The first step in solving the majority of these issues is to get rid of the professional lobbyists who are STILL lining the pockets of our representatives. Of course at that point they are no longer our representatives are they. They pretty much belong to the corporations signing those checks.
- schnikies79, on 02/09/2008, -1/+6Open source is NOT socialism. It's not even related. Socialism is forced upon you by taxes, open source is about choice.
- scotticus, on 02/09/2008, -2/+7correlation, not causation.
that said, I'm against mandates. - hexydes, on 02/09/2008, -1/+6Sternkrone, you have to be one of the most ignorant people I have ever seen on Digg before. When these services get implemented, it's true that poor people don't pay anything, but the rich just find ways to shelter their income. The only people that get burdened by it are the ones that are doing well-enough as-is without the government getting their hands even further into the mix, namely the middle class (i.e. the class that makes up the majority of the population).
Lower-income people already have healthcare options, as was already explained to you. What you describe is a scenario that benefits exactly two parties, a) the insurance companies, and b) politicians and the government at large. Neither of those parties deserves to get any more money than they already take out of every one of my paychecks. - hierophantus, on 02/09/2008, -1/+6In three different states. Pay for your bastard kids, you deadbeat!
- Error601, on 02/09/2008, -10/+15Political ***** goes under politics.
- Pake, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4What about housing, food, transportation, and employment? Are those fundamental basic needs? At what point do you draw the line? A 100% service would do more harm than good. A voluntary UHC is much better.
- greevar, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4For all of you who are afraid of tax funded health care I but one question. Do you want your life to be decided by your insurance provider's profit margins? When it comes to your life or their profits, it doesn't take a 200 I.Q. to figure out which they will choose. Far too many people in America have died from lack of care because the insurance provider refused to pay for it. These are top name companies, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Human, Cigna, and so on.
I don't want the government to control our health care, I just want them to pay for it so that when I come into the emergency room with two of my fingers severed, I don't have to choose the cheaper fix. It's a known fact that people have come forward and gone on public record that they were offered paid incentive to deny payment for care, much of which was life threatening. - RedShirtNumber2, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4I pointed it out on an earlier thread but it's worth mentioning again. Hillary's healthcare plan is just like the healthcare insurance plan Mitt Romney, you know the "real conservative", pushed for and passed in Massachusetts. It has the same mandates and fines for people who fall through the cracks and can not afford health insurance but make to much to pass the low income level required to recieve government subsidies. I prefer Obama's plan to hers because he doesn't use mandates but neither of them are going to fix healthcare in the US. We need a single payer system. It is the only way to lower costs and cover everyone.
- jon30041, on 02/09/2008, -1/+4There's a big window of people between those who qualify for Medicaid and those who are able to pay for their medical expenses on their own.
I had an infection in my finger. A prescription of Augmentin and a lance: $400 ***** dollars. - 0xception, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3i think that is the core of most of the plans (fixing the current corruption, and efficiency issues within the system) ... but since there really isn't much disagreement there it's not a "issue"... however it would be interesting to read up on the differences that they have in their plans regarding that topic specifically.
- hexydes, on 02/09/2008, -1/+4Do you still take home money in your paycheck? Then the government says, "No, we can do better!
- Hitpoint, on 02/09/2008, -5/+8I don't know if this is a ground breaking policy, more of common sense and human decency.
- imaxami, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3If you've never had your wages garnisheed, then you haven't been to the edge of financial stability, and good for you. Wish that it doesn't happen, because it's like a punch to the stomach everytime...
- wakananda, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3"Pigs"? Eat *****, moron. And when you're done, go die in the desert for your globalist corporatocracy, so a real human being doesn't have to.
- inactive, on 02/09/2008, -1/+4This is going to demolish the middle income folks. Those earning between $40k to $70k.
- inactive, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Of course the WSJ likes a plan to give tax money to insurance corporations.
- cutaneousrabbit, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3I completely agree. Hillary Clinton is attacking Obama by claiming she has "Universal Health Care" and Obama doesn't, yet her plan is only universal in that it mandates everyone buy health insurance, benefiting the insurance companies and hurting those who can't afford insurance. Universal health care is supposed to mean free or near-free universal coverage, usually funded by taxes. She is co opting this term to sound positive, and her plan just makes the insurance companies richer. Yes, the argument is that by mandating health care, the money gets spread more evenly, reducing costs, but the insurance companies are already making giant profits. Why do they need to make even more money to reduce the cost per person.
Obama's plan is simply taking the position that if we arn't going to have real, free, universal health care, then why mandate it. What we want is cheaper, affordable health care and regulation to prevent clauses like "pre-existing condition", who cares if everyone has it or not... what is important is that its affordable.
I will be graduating in 4 months and due to a pre-existing condition, I can't buy insurance. Yes, there is cobra for 2 years, which will cost me roughly $600 a month. How is this at all sane for a just graduated undergrad who thinks $100 is a lot of money. If I get a job with group insurance, I will be covered, but getting a cushy job right after graduating with a major in philosophy is pretty hard. I have a good resume, too - many jobs in college, even a few part-time office jobs. And I'm a smart, resourceful person. But insurance costs are huge and due to a pre-existing condition, I don't have the option of not having insurance. Its really a screwed up system. - Telexen, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2I would still prefer a government funded system. Drones can cry all they want about it supposedly ruining the "quality" of care in the U.S. ... but when the goal of the system that pays for it is to make money and NOT help people we'll never get quality care. Insurance companies need to be left behind.
Not to mention, it would actually cost a small fraction what we've spent in Iraq. - SlimFastForYou, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2http://alkogolikov.net/forum/files/linux-communism ...
http://fakebill.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/noweeo ... zing! - audi100quattro, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3This is the most right-wing editorial page in the nation at a respected newspaper--which was recently bought by Murdoch. Obama wears this endorsement on his sleeve at his peril.
- Sternkrone, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3Sorry, I'm not as willing as you are to let other people in my country "die out."
- hexydes, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Exactly. Open-source is just an alternative option on the free, capitalistic market. When it makes good business sense to use or pursue an open-source option, then it is taken, as opposed to socialism, which forces choices down a population's throat whether they agree or not.
- smotpoker, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Very true, she has a lot of lobbyists backing her and has accepted millions in funding from them. She has been doing so since before her presidential campaign and some of them have healthcare ties (surprising isn't it, since she was supposed to be their arch rival since she first proposed universal healthcare). Perhaps she's found some way to appease them or vice-versa so that they can be more profitable. Either way, they seem profitable enough already and more profitable for them == less profitable for the people
- inactive, on 02/09/2008, -2/+4I like my current health plan and I don't want to have to give it up for some form of European Medicaid with 6 month waiting lists for appointments. I don't want to have to be forced to see some doctor who barely graduated from Mexican med school. In Europe and Canada, people die all the time because they can't make it to the doctor due to a long waiting list. The reason we have slightly shorter life expectancies here than in Europe is that we're all fat-asses who can't stop eating McDonald's and watching TV without ever exercising (proven by average weight statistics). Hillary's plan unnecessarily increases bureaucracy when not everyone needs or wants government healthcare. Obama's plan is much better.
- Pake, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2At what point do you stop them from taxing us for 100% of our income and deciding how we live our lives? Forced universal health care is a bad idea. Optional universal health care is a good idea. The reason is that first and foremost, people like options. Second, a forced system would put THOUSANDS of people out of work and shut down lots of companies. Third, you claim rich people wouldn't opt into the system, but if the service is comparable to current services, not only would it force health insurance companies to improve their services, it would drop the prices dramatically.
- hexydes, on 02/09/2008, -2/+4God, amen. I'm so sick of political nonsense somehow getting to my front page, after I SPECIFICALLY changed the setting to exclude politics. This is not medicine, it is politics. How do you tell the difference? If the headline specifically revolves around a political figure, regardless of their message, it is politics. Bush is against abortion? This is politics, not medicine. Clinton wants to put money towards science R&D? Sorry, that's politics, not science.
STOP PUTTING POLITICAL STORIES IN OTHER CATEGORIES JUST TO GET AROUND FILTERS - Thumper13, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3"The Census Bureau says 38% of the uninsured earned more than $50,000 in 2006, 19% above $75,000. They aren't a major public policy problem --"
This is an important stat. Is Hillary going to mandate that these people get in the program?
Silly. If people want to pay out of pocket to go where they want, then leave them alone. - Pake, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3I like socialistic ideas to a degree, but not to the degree that it shuts down businesses. Competition is required to improve society, but baselines and options need to exist. You have to sit in the middle where the government doesn't control it all and the corporations don't control it all.
- smotpoker, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3I know it isn't socialism, but that didn't stop anti-socialist propaganda/paranoia from slowing it down it's adoption. And it does have some socialist components (GPL inheretence and such) which is partly responsible for it's success. Don't get all huffy that what your parents told you isn't true and some other systems are actually feasible in some situations. Everyone can be wrong sometimes. It's when they reject direct evidence that makes them stupid
-
Show 51 - 100 of 155 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
