Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Wall Street Journal notes strength of Obama health care plan
online.wsj.com — In an editorial today (Feb 7), the Wall Street journal highlights the persuasive logic of the voluntary Obama health care plan which emphasizes making insurance affordable and thus attractive. It has support on both sides of the political divide. In contrast "Many Americans are uncomfortable with the coercion of the [Hillary Clinton] mandate,
ScientistSteve- 1517 diggs
- digg it
- 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.
- 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.
- EditorResponse, on 02/09/2008, -11/+2I bet liberal socialist ***** pigs love both programs. You know....A.K.A the ***** DEMOCRATS.
California already bailed on their program and Romney's program is on its way to bankruptcy. Need I say more?- Elranzer, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2Yeah, you can remind me which party Romney belonged to...
- 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.
- franklymister, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Of course they do. This sounds like it could have come straight from the CEO of Kaiser Permanente.
America: "46 million people have no health insurance. Something has to be done!"
Clinton: "Ok, we'll force everyone to buy health insurance by law."
I don't think The Onion themselves could come up with a more absurd solution to the problem.
- 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.
- scotticus, on 02/09/2008, -2/+7correlation, not causation.
that said, I'm against mandates.- 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.
- scotticus, on 02/09/2008, -2/+7correlation, not causation.
- Sternkrone, on 02/09/2008, -10/+3The point is that the people you're talking about who are in such dire need, under Clinton's plan, would probably receive free healthcare that they previously couldn't afford, paid for by rich people who probably shouldn't be spending it on that second Hummer. Come on guys, it's not that hard to grasp…
- 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.- Sternkrone, on 02/09/2008, -7/+4Don't tell me you think it'll be a flat tax on every citizen that'll pay for this. It'll be added to income tax, which I hope you know is based on your income. Poor people benefit from taxes and tax-funded services, it's not a burden on anyone but the rich.
And if you don't want the government to intervene in people's finances, good luck funding a government, military, police force, schools… - 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.- 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. - EditorResponse, on 02/09/2008, -1/+4This is going to demolish the middle income folks. Those earning between $40k to $70k.
- franklymister, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1I agree with EditorResponse, but I'd raise that number on "middle income." In major cities like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc., $70k is pretty paltry, even for a single person - never mind what it takes to raise a family. I don't know where I'd put the bar for "upper class" vs. "middle class," but it would be a lot higher than that in my opinion.
- 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.
- Sternkrone, on 02/09/2008, -3/+1Of course there is medical coverage for people in extreme poverty funded by the government, but really, why should even lower middle class citizens be forced to pay so much for medical bills when there are people blowing that money on useless luxuries? It's stupid. There are millions of people out there who don't qualify for free government insurance but who still find themselves choosing between medical bills and other basic needs, and that's a choice that no one should ever have to make.
- Sternkrone, on 02/09/2008, -7/+4Don't tell me you think it'll be a flat tax on every citizen that'll pay for this. It'll be added to income tax, which I hope you know is based on your income. Poor people benefit from taxes and tax-funded services, it's not a burden on anyone but the rich.
- 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.
- LukasSmith, on 02/09/2008, -6/+7Government shouldn't be giving out health insurance of any kind. We deport all our illegal immigrants all the money hospitals save can be used on poor citizens instead. I remember my grandfather telling me they used to just round them up in trucks and take them back to Mexico. Now they just let them go and say hey please come back so we can deport you because they are afraid of discrimination lawsuits or the ACLU. Chances the illegal will return to be deported, slim. Illegal immigrants are a drain on hospitals, don't pay taxes(how? you ask? ever heard of bieng paid in cash? You think all those people standing around at work centers to mow your lawns get a company paycheck?), and in general have little respect for our border. Well obviously, whats really sad is the majority of children of immigrants who were a.Anchor babies b.have a illegal relative c. Have had illegal parents, grow up to have little or no respect for the border either and they are legal. Since illegals have more children then US citizens have let us hope these children grow up to be as clueless about the right to vote as their parents who cant vote.
- swicklund, on 02/09/2008, -3/+3Great, the WSJ endorses Obama's plan. Now, I've really got to double check my choice for Saturday's caucus...
Look, we already have a government madated program that garnishes your wages - Medicaide! The reason it makes sense to force everyone in is because young healthy people will opt out, thus making coverage for everyone that much more per capita. Insurance works by spreading risk.
If people were allowed to opt out of social security, how many would jump in at 59? And if you denied them the right to jump in, how many would freeze or starve because they never planned for getting old?
And all this talk of people choosing between housing, food and healthcare is bunk. Of course there will be a graduated rate based on income.
I'll still be voting for Obama tomorrow. But I really do hope when he is president that he will see the light that it's just silly to let people "opt out" of medical insurance. In fact, I think he knows the problem with his loophole, and recognizes that you have to start with an opt in plan and only once its frailty is made obvious can you expand it to a forced mandate. - Locke2053, on 02/09/2008, -2/+3If you don't think everyone should be required to have medical coverage, then YOU need to be willing to put a gun to someone's head and pull the trigger if they don't buy insurance and end up needing expensive emergency care.
People who don't buy insurance still need hospitals. Would you rather they die? Or do you prefer paying for them ANYWAY, in the form of higher rates for YOURSELF (since hospitals will always be required to provide ER care even to people who will never pay).
Which is it, smart guy?- LukasSmith, on 02/09/2008, -7/+2Survival of the fittest. Since when is man so consumed with this every human life is sacred boloney. Must be jesus's fault. That guy has doomed us all with weakness. Besides you are all hypocrites you say oh every life is sacred. Then why do you let children die of hunger in Africa? Even half what you eat could feed a whole African family for a day. Shame shame.
- winmywii, on 02/09/2008, -1/+38I bet the insurance companies love the idea.
- NoDrama, on 02/09/2008, -5/+32Well, 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.
- 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.
- sandilincoln, on 02/09/2008, -10/+21FANTASTIC! Nice endorsement!
- FatLoser, on 02/09/2008, -13/+1When a black man in a suit says something, I am simply mesmerized. This guy is going to be President and I am going to vote for him because he is black and I like him. I would shine HIS shoes if I had a shine box and he was in need of a shoe shining. AND I AM WHITE!!!
- audi100quattro, on 02/09/2008, -3/+1This 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.
- 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.
- poxonyou, on 02/09/2008, -1/+1Yeah, if this came from an advocacy group for universal health care, or even Michael Moore, it would mean a lot. It means nothing coming from the WSJ.
The problem is the insurance companies, and neither Obama's plan nor Clinton's deal with that. Their plans, especially Clinton's, just force people onto expensive, untrustworthy private insurance plans. They say they'll help the less fortunate, but what about those who are barely in the middle now, who could be stuck with these outrageous insurance plans? Deductibles so high that it's nearly impossible to meet it in a year, and still have to pay $100-$400 a month on top of that. Btw, Moore did comment on the plans on Larry King Live the other night. He doesn't like either plan.
- FatLoser, on 02/09/2008, -13/+1When a black man in a suit says something, I am simply mesmerized. This guy is going to be President and I am going to vote for him because he is black and I like him. I would shine HIS shoes if I had a shine box and he was in need of a shoe shining. AND I AM WHITE!!!
- Error601, on 02/09/2008, -10/+15Political ***** goes under politics.
- 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
- 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.
- KiwiMark, on 02/09/2008, -17/+12Or just get the government to provide it, like everyone else in the world.
- bphicke, on 02/09/2008, -3/+3All the cool kids are doing it. Obviously we should too!
- Cyberen, on 02/09/2008, -4/+4This is obviously the solution, but most Diggers would hate to admit it.
- StormCommander, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1You are obviously confused. What do you not understand about this? It's like free shipping. NOTHING is free. You'd just be forced to pay for it.
- dsmx, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Even if the government does do it you still have to pay higher taxes, unless the government is willing to cut back on the military.
- KiwiMark, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Well, that is true. Most countries don't spend $493,584,475,307 on wars with countries who have done nothing to them. Imagine the health care you could have for that.
- 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.
- aMammoth, on 02/09/2008, -21/+6Buried as wrong topics, i specifically block out politics cause I'm sick of the people in it. The Democrats are corrupt and the Republicans are stupid.
- d00by, on 02/09/2008, -6/+3While i agree with you about the topic thing, because I can't stand to see politics on digg (because I believe most of you are among the uneducated masses Digg frequently makes fun of), I highly disagree with your statements about both parties. The only corruption in the democratic party is Hillary, because she's a communist. And you are obviously a low-educated member of the middle class if you believe republicans are stupid. Republican is the party of minimal government involvement while creating priavte industrial growth. Democrat is the party of those who tolerate higher taxes for a more active government involvement.
- burntsac, on 02/09/2008, -3/+18aren't my wages already garnished?
- hierophantus, on 02/09/2008, -1/+6In three different states. Pay for your bastard kids, you deadbeat!
- thedaylights, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Would you like a pickle with those wages?
- hexydes, on 02/09/2008, -1/+4Do you still take home money in your paycheck? Then the government says, "No, we can do better!
- nsummy, on 02/09/2008, -7/+8A Journalist noted the strengths of Obama's plan, not the Journal. I've read so many glowing editorials in that newspaper about ***** conservative politicians that I know longer trust their political opinions.
- Hitpoint, on 02/09/2008, -5/+8I don't know if this is a ground breaking policy, more of common sense and human decency.
- tschau, on 02/09/2008, -1/+8common sense and human decency = groundbreaking policy.
sheesh, do you not pay attention?
- tschau, on 02/09/2008, -1/+8common sense and human decency = groundbreaking policy.
- AppleMacMan, on 02/09/2008, -8/+3Because Obama is a Mac user, he has my vote!
- 99Casimir, on 02/09/2008, -4/+10Bush also uses a Mac, so do you support him?
- 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.
- 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.
- pleasureismine, on 02/09/2008, -3/+37Obama understands everyone isn't rich like Hillary.
- Sternkrone, on 02/09/2008, -7/+1?
Hillary's plan is going to be much more effective in taking money from rich people to pay for poor people to stay alive. Obama's plan is going to let rich people buy more things they don't need while lacking the funding to have quality.- ryanadc, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2No, Hillary's plan sounds like it would do wonders for taking more money away from the low-income citizens who really can't afford it.
- ZenMojo, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Didn't you know, the top 6% of earners are just upper-upper-upper-upper-middle class.
- Sternkrone, on 02/09/2008, -7/+1?
- 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....
- smotpoker, on 02/09/2008, -5/+5People are too prejudiced against any form of "socialism", primarily due to political indoctrination passed down from the generations. Look at how long it took to legitimize Opensource tech. Maybe one day but right now there is still too much dogma that it is communism and any form of that is inherently evil (despite it's success EVERYWHERE else).
- 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.
- 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 02/10/2008, -0/+1And?
At it's core, socialism is just an alternative philosophy that emphasizes sharing/cooperation. When applied to small communities, It usually involved sharing the wealth, to a degree but the intent was to make sure NEEDS of ALL are addressed before anything else. When twisted by dictators and used for large scale exploitation is when it became demonized as a whole, eventhough the basic tenants of it are exercised by us all in every day life.
You have a valuable resource, that is collectively owned/maintained, that anyone can use whenever they want (for the most part). I agree OpenSource isn't socialism. I don't agree that socialist ideals are evil or have to be exclusive of capitalist ideals. For instance, our public transit and Postal services are partly socialized and so are a lot of other things.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates ...
- smotpoker, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1And?
- skycriesx, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Agree. Open source is about free market competition and not about socialism in any way I can think of.
- 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
- SlimFastForYou, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2http://alkogolikov.net/forum/files/linux-communism ...
http://fakebill.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/noweeo ... zing!
- 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.
- 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.
- skycriesx, on 02/09/2008, -1/+0Well you correct in a sense, it is not the government's job to provide socialized services. Our current healthcare system would be wonderful if big-pharm/big-insurance etc. weren't so out to line their pockets by putting a price tag on our health. If that were the case then perhaps health care would cost the same it does in countries with socialized healthcare via taxes.
- smotpoker, on 02/09/2008, -1/+0Currently, there are too many politicians, businessmen, etc in our government, but that doesn't make it impossible. Our entire current federal legislative and executive branches need to be replaced anyway. We need to stop electing people and forgetting about them for decades at a time and holding them accountable (protesting, demanding legal action, etc). These guys are getting to be like mafia and *****. We just need to examine other countries and use that info to evaluate what is best for us. We could have universal healthcare that is better than theirs (which is already pretty good)
- smotpoker, on 02/09/2008, -2/+0Oh, and how is it the government's responsibility to provide something OTHER than more enemies and big business support? Hmm..... Well, we PAY them and it is their job to do what the people want/need. Medical care is a necessity that benefits society as a whole. Anyone can tell you that preventative care is less costly and more healthy but still out of economic range of a large portion of americans. Many go unknowingly without urgently needed care and as a result wind up disabled and such rather than incur more debt - sometimes the result of abandonment by insurance companies
- skycriesx, on 02/09/2008, -1/+0Well you correct in a sense, it is not the government's job to provide socialized services. Our current healthcare system would be wonderful if big-pharm/big-insurance etc. weren't so out to line their pockets by putting a price tag on our health. If that were the case then perhaps health care would cost the same it does in countries with socialized healthcare via taxes.
- 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.
- eir574, on 02/09/2008, -2/+3Agreed. Even if socialism is a bad form of government, that doesn't mean that every single idea that came out of it is so horrifically terrible that it could never be adapted and modified for use here. I wish that people who responded to discussions about universal health care with "socialism is bad" would just tell me why they think the *particular idea* is bad. And then, although I don't know the financial situation of each digg user, I'd ask what people would think if, despite working hard all their lives, they couldn't afford good health care for their families. Or, what they'd think if a preexisting condition was keeping a family member from getting insurance at anywhere near an affordable rate, My father did not have an answer for that one.
- Pake, on 02/09/2008, -2/+2"I wish that people who responded to discussions about universal health care with "socialism is bad" would just tell me why they think the *particular idea* is bad."
***Warning! For those who just read the first few sentences, you aren't getting the entirety of my post. Read it all before you digg me down or up***
Simple. Want to know which country is the leading country in medical technology? Want to know which country has the most, newest technology currently implemented? Having a capitalistic society creates incentive to innovate and invent. We have the most research facilities in the world. By making universal health care the only plan, not only do you kill off thousands and thousands of jobs, you hurt development of these technologies. You make doctor's less willing to work in the country when the government is intruding on their job and creating a maximum wage limit. This also causes a lot of people to lose the desire to become doctors. Those are why it's bad. Obviously there is a lot of good too, but this is why we shouldn't like Hillary's plan. We shouldn't like no plan either, which leaves only one plan left and that's a hybrid plan that creates a voluntary universal health care system operated by the government, yet allows current companies to co-exist and recreate their plans to compete with the "baseline."- eir574, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2I like that general plan, too, but there seem to be so many people who shout "socialism" any time the topic of universal health coverage comes up. Like you said, it doesn't have to mean a national health service where all health care professionals work for the government and there's no choice for patients at all. But, since universal coverage is associated with socialism, often it seems that's as far as the conversation gets, because surely any government involvement in health care would start some sort of inevitable slide down a slippery slope to a totally socialist government.
- 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.
- cutaneousrabbit, on 02/09/2008, -2/+2I disagree completely. The capitalist moto is that only capitalism can inspire innovation and create jobs. If this is true, how is the health care in all the other wealthy nations rated better than ours, more efficient, doctors get paid very well, and yet everyone gets free health care!? By the way, they all live longer. Correlation without causation? I don't think so.
- Pake, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2Doctors in countries with HC get paid like crap, which is why we have so many doctors in the USA and most of them are foreign. Also, read what I said about medical technology. The capitalistic environment is inspiring jobs and innovation in the medical engineering and technology fields.
- smotpoker, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1@Pake - Not [always] true. Look at great brittain. Doctors make more there than they do here. They also have incentive programs that provide them with bonuses for having most healthiest patients and such. Insurance premiums and medications eat at least half of everything you spend for care (doctors have to pay for costly malpractice insurance now ya know). Only a fraction of anything we pay actually goes to the doctors or staff.
The problem is that insurance industry (all forms of insurance from what I can tell) have been running along almost completely unregulated (it seems) for decades. With any form of competition, success is measured somehow. In capitalism, it is primarily measured by how much MONEY you get.
This results in capitalistic medicine being, naturally, business-like and run/maintained by people primarily focused on making a profit (more profit == better business/more competitive).
Properly permanently maintaining multiple copies related records data all the personnel throughout this infrastructure costs overhead as well, which further hikes medical costs... add to that the overhead of a dozen people just sitting around trying to figure out how to cut more costs and hike more prices as they watch the money roll in.
Same thing with capitalist insurance. We've all had to deal with insurance and know they fold on obligations any chance they get. It results in 10 people at the top collecting all the money while everyone else scurries around for the scraps. You may think all rich people are pumping their money right back into the economy but many hold on to large sums for long periods of time, especially if it's "earned" illegally etc.
With our country in debt, such a large portion ALREADY poverty stricken, large quantities tied up in investments and stashed away for laundering, did you ever consider that perhaps, just *maybe* there isn't ENOUGH to for everyone to get adequate health care at current insurance and medical rates? Even if you force them drop their rates to something very fair, there will still be lots of cases where, for whatever reason, people will not have insurance or be covered and the people who that is likely to hurt the most are the ones who can afford to be hurt the least.
For the record, these are views I have established on my own over the years, based primarily on the experience of myself and those close to me and my own principles. I prioritize them thus: Life > Freedom > Knowledge. My right to Freedom is more important than your right to knowledge, however your right to life trumps my right to freedom. See how that works? I try to apply that to all people in any sort of really confusing/deadlocked dispute where the outcome of an idea is known/recorded. (if there's any question, "Health" counts in the "Life" priority)
- eir574, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2I like that general plan, too, but there seem to be so many people who shout "socialism" any time the topic of universal health coverage comes up. Like you said, it doesn't have to mean a national health service where all health care professionals work for the government and there's no choice for patients at all. But, since universal coverage is associated with socialism, often it seems that's as far as the conversation gets, because surely any government involvement in health care would start some sort of inevitable slide down a slippery slope to a totally socialist government.
- skycriesx, on 02/09/2008, -2/+1The health and well being of a country's citizens is not a luxury companies should not be able to profit off of.
/flamesuiton- sonicdevo, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2Yes, lets put it in the hands of the politicians... they'll do so much better
- Pake, on 02/09/2008, -2/+2"I wish that people who responded to discussions about universal health care with "socialism is bad" would just tell me why they think the *particular idea* is bad."
- jessehadden, on 02/09/2008, -1/+1The thing is, we already do spend more in our taxes on health care than people in any other industrialized nation. The difference is, our money gets siphoned to the big corps, who take a chunk of profit and focus on very expensive emergency care. In other nations, the focus is on preventative medicine. Calling it "socialized" or "free market" is irrelevant because neither way of doing it has anything to do with those terms -- that's just a red herring to forestall debate. One may as well talk about the "socialized war" that eats up the American budget.
- dsmx, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2If you view healthcare as a basic human right then it should be "free".While agreeing with michael moore on this one would make a lot of people feel dirty there is a reason why almost every country with "free" healthcare is above the US in healthcare rankings.
- joebonk, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1we in the usa already pay more than they do
- smotpoker, on 02/09/2008, -5/+5People are too prejudiced against any form of "socialism", primarily due to political indoctrination passed down from the generations. Look at how long it took to legitimize Opensource tech. Maybe one day but right now there is still too much dogma that it is communism and any form of that is inherently evil (despite it's success EVERYWHERE else).
- krnldmp, on 02/09/2008, -8/+2That sketch is not Barack Obama, its Barack Albumen, a superposition of Obama and GWB.
- TeakJolson, on 02/09/2008, -9/+3good another elitist paper supports Obama, reflects well on his credentials
- 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...
- HeroicLife, on 02/09/2008, -17/+12Any government-mandated "plan" can only lead to disaster. Say no to health socialism! http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/socialized-healt ...
- jessehadden, on 02/09/2008, -4/+1The word "miser" comes to mind.
- absurdist, on 02/09/2008, -2/+1Of course. In the same way it's been such a disaster for Canada and all of Western Europe. And yes, I've traveled to Canada and most of Western Europe and actually talked to people there about the issue.
Imbecile,.
- 10GunSalute, on 02/09/2008, -3/+9I think this is the first Obama vs Hillary article I've seen on Digg that isn't blatant propaganda. Dugg.
- Sternkrone, on 02/09/2008, -9/+4Wake up! Why do all Americans automatically freak out whenever anyone suggests a tax hike or garnishing wages? The fact is that taxes are for the common good, and if the government didn't take your money there would be no military, no medicare…I think that if anything is worth having my wages garnished it's the health of the people in our country who can't afford to take care of themselves or their kids when they're sick. I don't see why a billionaire should keep on buying caviar when that money could keep people healthy. Rich people AREN'T going to opt into the Obama plan; it's just going to be shoddy and underfunded because people are taxophobic and wet their pants when anyone suggests taking more of their precious cash.
- dusanmal, on 02/09/2008, -2/+3Because this country have been founded on the revolution stemming from the TAX REBELLION. Fortunately, the spark is still there.
Billionaire eating caviar is consequence of the only natural system that leads to betterment: competition. He competed, won and prosper. The loser dies out. Works in the Nature as an evolution. Make the winner support the failing - no more evolution or prosperity. Proven in very short time in the (now)ex-communist countries.- Sternkrone, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3Sorry, I'm not as willing as you are to let other people in my country "die out."
- sonicdevo, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Then get down to the local clinic and start voluneteering, don't vote my money out of my pocket.
- slearwig, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2No. This contry was founded on the revolution stemming from POLITICAL PERSECUTION, of which the excessive taxations by Church and State were a small part of. Unfortunately, competition with the ultimate goal that 'a loser dies out' is the same persecution. 'Winner take all' is not the business model of trade for the good of the people.
And TAXES are stated as necessary by our Constitution in order to serve the functions of government, one of which is to "provide for the general welfare".- txgentleman, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1If you read the actual preamble it is "promote" the general welfare, not provide.....those two words mean something very different. The constitution has no mention of "taxes" in the document.
- jessehadden, on 02/09/2008, -2/+2I believe it was "no taxation without representation," not "no taxation." It seems like, by your logic, if lifting a finger to save your life did not benefit me in any material way, then I shouldn't lift my finger. That does not sound like a civilization to me.
- Sternkrone, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3Sorry, I'm not as willing as you are to let other people in my country "die out."
- smotpoker, on 02/09/2008, -1/+0According the article, garnishing wages for insurance would occur with everyone. It didn't mention a sliding scale, though it seems there would be one. The point of the article is that it would garnish wages from the poor as well as the rich. How bad that is depends on just how much/accurately that scale actually slides... if it were to say take the same amount as regular state/federal taxes it would likely impact some of the most poor negatively.
I don't know if I agree entirely. I believe universal healthcare is possible, but not sure if it is with Clinton's plan. Obama's at least means more people can afford it while noone is forced.- Sternkrone, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure either, but I'd assume Income Tax would handle it, meaning poorer people effectively wouldn't be paying for it, they'd just benefit.
- thedaylights, on 02/09/2008, -1/+1I used to think that too, but then I realized it's because the government only taxes individuals, and only middle class or lower. If you're rich enough, you put your money in a tax haven and you don't pay any tax. Warren Buffet has publicly stated he pays a lower percentage of income tax than his secretary does. As for corporations, they get wads of cash from the government (i.e. from your pockets) in the form of government contracts (see Iraq, Halliburton, pork barrel politics) as well as "incentives" to bring business to the state. Does this make sense? No. So that's why people get pissed when taxes go up for them.
I do agree with the sentiment that if you want to support some social spending, you're going to have to pay for it. - hexydes, on 02/09/2008, -2/+2Yeah, we get it, you're a socialist. You've posted basically the same blathering diatribe 4-5 times already in this story. Once is way more than enough.
- 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.
- burntsac, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0"But are we never to have palaces, never to have refined tastes, complex pleasures, never to let the imagination fulfil itself? Even a Marxist world must have some destination, must develop into some higher state, which can only mean a higher pleasure and richer happiness for the human beings in it."
- dusanmal, on 02/09/2008, -2/+3Because this country have been founded on the revolution stemming from the TAX REBELLION. Fortunately, the spark is still there.
- tufftugg, 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.- Bazillions, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1And way more taxes. Like you said. We're going to pay for it.
I don't want a system that has a terrible record of efficiently managing social programs, or even the budget itself, looking over my health care.
- Bazillions, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1And way more taxes. Like you said. We're going to pay for it.
- 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.- Sternkrone, on 02/09/2008, -2/+1I think universal healthcare is the ultimate example of the government serving its people. Health is one of the most fundamental basic needs (duh) and universal coverage means that Americans struggling to make ends meet won't go bankrupt paying for an illness. If that's not how a country should care for its people, what is?
- 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.
- smotpoker, on 02/09/2008, -3/+1Those are all issues the government can and should help when it can. It's the government's job to do what will benefit the most people at a given time depending on the current situation, not funneling all resources into one or two avenues that don't benefit a majority of people for decades at a time making the same people richer. Ignoring those in need deprives them of the ability to provide for themselves or the economy and makes them more likely to be a burden on it.
- Pake, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2So, would you be fine with the government taking 100% of our wages and evenly distributing it throughout the population? They can give all families 2 cars, a house, regulate our energy and water consumption, and give us certificates to purchase food and other items for. This would be the most beneficial system for the most people, which you should agree with.
- smotpoker, on 02/09/2008, -3/+1Those are all issues the government can and should help when it can. It's the government's job to do what will benefit the most people at a given time depending on the current situation, not funneling all resources into one or two avenues that don't benefit a majority of people for decades at a time making the same people richer. Ignoring those in need deprives them of the ability to provide for themselves or the economy and makes them more likely to be a burden on it.
- 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.
- smotpoker, on 02/09/2008, -1/+0That isn't true, a LOT of people would benefit. You have no idea how many people currently cannot afford insurance and/or end up in debt for years with ruined credit as a result (sometimes even WITH insurance). Much of that healthcare would be substantially less if preventative care could have been afforded, but it is currently unattainable if you do not have adequate resources for compensation. The only thing available to many is emergency treaatment and even that has a high price. I've seen aspirin sell for $12 each!
There is aboslutely no doubt that universal healthcare would greatly benefit EVERYONE. The only question is how much it will cost if implemented/maintained by lobbyist-appointed politicians and such (and if the lowest income families could take the immediate income impact)- 3tcp, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1"You have no idea how many people currently cannot afford insurance"
This is the problem and this is what should be addressed. There are a lot of things wrong with the system that contribute to peoples inability to afford it and those are what should be focused on. Obama will do that. Clinton doesn't care about the cost as long as she can say everyone has it regardless of how many young healthy people have to forgo their dreams of college, starting a business or buying a home because they had no choice but to pay for health care they couldn't afford and didn't need.
- 3tcp, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1"You have no idea how many people currently cannot afford insurance"
- Sternkrone, on 02/09/2008, -2/+1I think universal healthcare is the ultimate example of the government serving its people. Health is one of the most fundamental basic needs (duh) and universal coverage means that Americans struggling to make ends meet won't go bankrupt paying for an illness. If that's not how a country should care for its people, what is?
- GoneGreen, on 02/09/2008, -3/+4Hillary is in the pockets of big business, it is what it is... Obama however has a real plan; not universal health care but it's better than what we have now.
- 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
- edebolt, on 02/09/2008, -2/+1Their plans are nice visions but what would be enacted depends on the congress and compromise during the refinement and debate period. Does anyone remember "gays in the military". Bill Clinton got into office and found out the military did not like the idea at all. Within months he compromised with "don't ask don't tell"
- bobbarkerbilly, on 02/09/2008, -2/+0I've always been told that as a consumer we should speak with our money. If you don't like, don't buy it. I don't like the health insurance companies and I don't want to buy their product. Don't force me to keep the greedy assholes in business.
I would be far more accepting to pay in if the government wants to start a social program, like public education, public libraries, public health service, etc. - 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.- Richandler, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Do you want your health decisions decided buy a company making profit or one on the verge of bankrupcy?
- nicejai, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0Funds used to pay out for healthcare can be set up as a trust.
What this means, is that no matter what happens to the government, nobody can touch the money already in the trust for reasons other than to pay out healthcare.
It's like if you set up an education trust fund for your kid and then go bankrupt in 10 years, nobody can touch that money to pay off your debts.
And, if the U.S. government ever *does* go bankrupt.... healthcare will be the least of everyone's worries.- txgentleman, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Sort of like social security is in a "lockbox"....we see how much trouble that government program is in. Don't you realize that no funds are safe when it comes to our government, they will spend it as they please.
- nicejai, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0Funds used to pay out for healthcare can be set up as a trust.
- Richandler, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Do you want your health decisions decided buy a company making profit or one on the verge of bankrupcy?
- feenxfire, on 02/09/2008, -5/+0Buried; a Wall Street Journal endorsement isn't what Obama needs right now.
- powerfullogic, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Why? WSJ is a good paper.
- apc3161, on 02/09/2008, -5/+2and then people wonder why Obama and Hillary get the most money from the healthcare industry.
GG- smotpoker, on 02/09/2008, -1/+0Obama gets money from the healthcare industry? riiight
- Richandler, on 02/09/2008, -4/+1Obama's plan still mandates children. I grew up without healthcare and I know if my mother was mandated to provide me with healthcare there would have been nights with no food on the table.
- ZenMojo, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1You'd also be on SCHIP, which wouldn't cost your mother anything.
- usgovterrorists, on 02/09/2008, -6/+0Has Wall Street ever met a scam they didn't like?
Play Wall Street like a Ponzi Scheme! - burntsac, on 02/09/2008, -1/+0Lawyer: "If some sort of payment isn't made, I'll have to call your paper; garnishee your wages."
Fletch: "Now I can't have my wages garnisheed." - j031397, 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.
- SLuM, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2You've obviously never been to Europe stop making false accusations about socialized health care. Their standard of living is much higher than the US.
- stubarwick, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0I believe in the power of free markets...I really do, I'm an entrepreneur of sorts and like to think that I can do a lot better than most other people. But from personal experience with the US system and seeing the effects of a socialized system. I have to say that medicine/health care is one area where a more social approach is the way to go. In spite of the associated higher taxes, I would like to know that I can go to the doctor and get the help I need, without worrying whether or not they are in my network...or whether my problem's treatment will even get approved.
Now some might agree with j031397's comments about the apparent condition of a socialized system. But in my experience with a friend's injury in the UK and spending some time in Canada talking to longtime Canadian citizens, there are no lines, there are no worries...they just go to a doctor and get the help they need. Regardless of how it happens, I think that no lines, no worries and getting the right treatment at an affordable price are things any American wants...but under our current system it seems that only a small percentage gets this treatment on a consistent basis. It's time for change, this system doesn't work as well as it should.
- 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.- RedShirtNumber2, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1That sounds like a high income but when you have to pay to cover a family with health insurance out of your own pocket it can easily exceed $10,000 a year just for premiums. Not to mention co-pays, deductibles, etc.... That is 20% of your income on a $50,000 gross salary before taxes.
- crakbot, on 02/09/2008, -2/+3Well, if the WSJ endorses it, it must be good for the everyday Amercian. Rich business people always do what's best for average Joes.
- RedShirtNumber2, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0I don't think it is an endorsement of Obama as much as it is an attack on Clinton. The author is just using Obama's plan as a contrast. He even makes some jibes at Obama about raising taxes to pay for his plan.
- 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.
- 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.- mrbarker, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Do a bit more research before making a comment like that. The NHS, or the UK's universal health care system, costs roughly 170 billion dollars a year (www.abpi.org.uk/publications/Pdfs/pprs_05.pdf) compared to only 93 billion dollars spent on the Iraq war for 2007 (www.csmonitor.com/2007/0507/p14s01-cogn.html). It is also important to factor in that the UK has less then 1/5th of our population.
- iraq, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1You know, I can't read anything from WSJ now without being skeptical about the intent behind author's writings. Now that Rupert Murdoch owns them, I get this vibe like there is an agenda behind every article they publish.
- rexblade, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Noway! thats crazy talk!
- gatorgreenwell5, on 02/09/2008, -3/+2Wall Street Journal notes strength of Obama health care plan
What??? The article notes no such thing. It simply says that Obama's plan is not Hillary's. The title posted here on digg is very misleading. - powerfullogic, on 02/09/2008, -0/+6Hillary is not fit to lead.
- rexblade, on 02/09/2008, -3/+1The Wallstreet sorta said it? Well count me in!! This is so great it makes me want to give him more money. I for one am glad my phones tapped were gonna get Osama any second now.
- mugicha, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2wow those pictures so don't look like them.
- DuffyDirect, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2Guess who owns WSJ?
- chicofaraby, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Of course the WSJ likes a plan to give tax money to insurance corporations.
- govsucks, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Well I still don't understand how Obama is gonna "make" anything happen without force or coercion. The most telling line in that article was "except that a big reason they lack coverage is because it is more expensive than it needs to be thanks to government market interference." How about we get the government out of our ***** business in the first place and let the market decide. I went for a cat scan a few months ago, they charged my insurance company almost 9,000 for that cat scan. That is outrageous, if people had to make that choice, the hospital would immediatly have to lower the price because people would scoff at that amount for 5 minutes in that machine. But people don't make the choice, its lost in bureaucracy, and the hospitals know it and charge amazing sums that they send in to the faceless system to be collected. If they had to deal with the actual customer who would look at them and say "you charged me seven dollars for a single aspirin!!!" things would be different. People would hold them accountable, and the medical industry would either bring their prices within reason or lose customers.
- epmc, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2After all this talk of change and progressive from democrats, it's funny to see that there is still no support for a real universal health care system from either Obama or Clinton. Although I love Americans, I think I'm truly fortunate not to be an American.
- jakdracula, on 02/09/2008, -1/+1Yea, great. A Lou Grant union worker telling us what he thinks. Just what we need. Let's listen to the press, they're so honest and know everything.
- thrallie, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Isn't it funny how she goes after the free market because supposedly that is causing our health care crisis right now and then turns around and creates a system where the companies are still doing the health care but government intervention is included. We don't have any sort of free market right now, we live in a state of corporatism. If we had a true free market the government would be out of it completely, and that would create a fair ground for competition. If a government favors one company (or for instance makes laws to control a company) it gives the competing companies very little chance to succeed. There could be brand new health care ideas out there by brand new companies but our government is too busy massaging the big HMOs.
There is no way I could live in the united states under Hillary. I am planning on getting a job that includes full health care coverage, that is obviously both paid by the employer and taken out of my check. If Americans were to get a basic job with coverage (work as a data entry, or a secretary) they would have health care. I do not want to deal with government health care, there will be too many loops even if it does save me money. - ZenMojo, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1First, NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO GIVE UP YOUR PRIVATIZED HEALTHCARE. I have qualms with Hillary's plan, not because of what it does to people who can buy their own healthcare (nothing) but because of what it does to those who can't.
- briguymich, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0It's not right to allow the government to garnish wages for people who don't carry health insurance. However, maybe they should be given the right to garnish a percentage of wages for people who have unpaid medical bills due to lack of insurance. If some people didn't spend more in insurance than what they use, then the insurance industry would fold, and there are lots of people who are wiling to due that because the risk of not insuring is greater than the savings. Why would we penalize people who are willing to accept the risk that they might not need insurance, when the government could ensure they accept the consequences of that risk instead. It's better than penalizing everyone.
- elpollo, on 02/12/2008, -0/+0Socialize it and be done with it. Wait, they would not make any money then!
- dudley9, on 05/25/2008, -0/+0http://www.genericsmed.com/
http://www.generics.ws/
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
