What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
63 Comments
- novenator, on 11/09/2009, -11/+46Here's a small sampling FTA:
"I don't have to read it or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyways,"
-Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla (notorious anti-science, big oil pet)
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN 6th) told Fox News the House bill would make private insurance illegal.
"there are no Americans who don't have health care."
-Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, warned that health care "rationing" is inevitable"
I sometimes wonder if these people are really this stupid or just pretending to be to scare people into action, then I remember all of the people I have met in my travels who have no grasp on reality, and realize, yes, they really are that idiotic. I have sympathy for them, but their lies and fear-mongering still need to be countered by everyone. - redfan, on 11/09/2009, -0/+26"I get paid enormously, and it's no great credit to me, I was just lucky at birth. It's nice to give me a fair amount of the benefits from that but I shouldn't delude myself into thinking that I'm some superior individual because of that.
I don't think society ought to count entirely on the goodwill of the rich to decide on the proportions that go back. So I believe in a very progressive tax on income.
As my friend Bill Gates says, if I've been born in some different place or some different time I'd have been some animal's lunch. I'd have been running real fast, and the animal would have been chasing me and I'd say "I allocate capital" and the animal would say "well, those are the kind that taste the best". I've been in the right place at the right time, and I'm lucky, I think a fair amount of that luck should be shared with others."
-Warren Buffett - crunchdigg, on 11/08/2009, -7/+27I am unsure if people are this stupid, or they are just trying to create a cloud of misinformation around the issue, to create uncertainty among the general public, and outrage among the people who write checks to Republican candidates.
Maybe some of both.
With the repeat offenders (King, Bachmann, Foxx) it's easier to guess, especially when they are talking about slitting their own wrists. Yes, Michelle, slitting your wrist is an EXCELLENT way to prevent people from getting healthcare. Keep praying about it. - redfan, on 11/09/2009, -3/+23Republicans ran the country for eight years and all we got was neverending war, the worst recession we've seen in a long time, soaring government deficits, and hardworking Americans struggling to make ends meet.
What do they say about people in glass houses? - algaeturd, on 11/09/2009, -4/+23These people are crazy and they're liars for the most part. And these quotes prove it.
You're a politician. You serve the public. You serve your constituents who voted for you. That's your ONLY job. Yet you lie to them, you try to scare them so they'll think the same way you've been convinced to think because your pockets are lined by lobbyists' dollars from the health insurance industry.
There should be a new standard in America. If you are a public servant as a politician and you spread lies through the media, you should lose your job IMMEDIATELY. No questions asked. Think twice before you speak, get the facts.
I understand that would leave us with a lot of empty slots but that's the point.
If you're an acting representative or senator and you lie or spread continuous false information, you should lose your job. Period. These people are trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator of those too dumb to know the truth and fire up the troops for the next teabagger fest so they can all walk around holding signs about the anti-christ, socialism, marxism, communism, fascism.
DUMB AS *****. - EndAntiSemitism, on 11/09/2009, -3/+18"Let them die. If people do not care enough to donate, then those people [poor people] should not be saved [by government healthcare]"
-thecoolestguy
10/18/2009 - redfan, on 11/09/2009, -1/+15I'm certainly not going to defend the job the Democratic Congress has done in general, but it's still wildly hypocritical for people to just now start complaining about huge deficits, corporate welfare, and the erosion of civil liberties, considering we had much worse examples of these from 2001 and before.
- MrJ777, on 11/09/2009, -2/+15"there are no Americans who don't have health care."
Someone elected a person who really thinks that? Let me give you the French version of that statement... "Let them eat cake!" - Thistlejack, on 11/09/2009, -1/+14That only applies to emergency care. If you walk into the ER complaining of Chest Pains and they diagnose it as lung cancer, they're not obliged to give you six months of chemotherapy.
- novenator, on 11/09/2009, -1/+13Let me ask you this, if all of the poor people suddenly quit their jobs and started subsistence living off the land, how long before the rich people in society would literally starve? They LIVE off the labor of the poor and middle class, the numbers in their bank accounts really are inconsequential to what they do for society.
That said, nobody is talking about anything unreasonable here, only rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the richest of the rich, the top 0.3%. Even then, only income in excess of $500,000 ($1 million by some versions) will be subject to the 39.5% tax rate, which is the same it was under Clinton.
Society will not collapse, life will go on, and the rich will continue to make their precious money so they can buy more boats and that third manor on the coast. - zoomer123, on 11/09/2009, -2/+12You want to talk about "immoral"? Whats immoral is a private corporation dropping one's "ability to see a doctor" for some silly pre-existing condition.
Forcing one group to subsidize? SO YOU'RE 100% IN OPPOSITION OF TAX? Did you know that your tax dollars went to funding the FBI that solved a serial killer case? So you're asking me why the government is forcing us to subsidize the paychecks for every male and female soldier overseas? How is healthcare any different? Please enlighten me.
Your campaign for liberty only protects you from government oppression but it fails to even acknowledge the insurance companies oppression. - zoomer123, on 11/09/2009, -2/+10It's funny...because during the election periods, the same exact people created this cloud of misinformation about Barack Obama -- muslim, elitist, the one, etc.
They did the same with health care -- death panels, rationing, etc.
And Obama won the election. So guess what's gonna happen with health care reform? Republicans need to rethink their strategy. King, Bachmann, and Foxx are "friends" of the democrats. And I hope this trend will continue. - TSK05, on 11/09/2009, -2/+9"There should be a new standard in America. If you are a public servant as a politician and you spread lies through the media, you should lose your job IMMEDIATELY."
I don't think the guys passing the laws, you know, the politicians, are going to go for that. - geodebug, on 11/09/2009, -3/+10Government spending can cut the deficit. It's called investment. Not saying whether or not this bill will do so but it is black and white thinking to assume that spending cannot yield prosperity.
One example: Interstate highways, where would our commerce be without them yet they are funded by tax dollars. Another quick example: the internet
I'm not an economics expert (nobody here at digg is, which is why I laugh at the cut & paste arguments from the fringe websites) so I won't make any crystal ball predictions but it isn't that hard to guess that more people may take a stab at starting a small business if they don't have to worry as much about the insurance burdens that small companies face.
Regarding the exact estimates,etc you can read the CBO report here: http://www.cbo.gov/health. Up to you to decide if they got their maths correct. - Atario, on 11/09/2009, -0/+7Wow. That must have been a marathon session, narrowing it down to just ten.
- bjornski, on 11/09/2009, -1/+8@thecoolestguy
You're right. Letting people die is much more moral. - Kaegro, on 11/09/2009, -1/+8Now all that needs to be done is stop the war and Obama will have done more than most others
before him. - novenator, on 11/09/2009, -1/+7Ts, this link works (pdf) http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10710&type=1
- mlmorg, on 11/09/2009, -1/+5I'm surprised you can count
- ibeetle, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4I love the don't give government control of our lives statements.
They are the Congress. They are the government. Their actions already control our lives.
If they are so anti-government they why do they spend millions being a part of it. - Kaegro, on 11/09/2009, -2/+5It's a good article. Must you bitch about the title that some one else came up with instead of the author?
- bjornski, on 11/09/2009, -1/+4You need a hobby.
- johnsawyercjs, on 11/10/2009, -0/+2Give me a break. It won't "destroy society". High taxes on the rich in the US has already been tried, and it created for the US some of its best times in terms of strength of society, and it didn't eliminate the rich by any means either. Tax rates were at nearly their lowest in the US for about five years prior to the Great Depression (you have to go back to 1915 to find lower tax rates), and is felt to be one of its many causes. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, one of the most socially and economically healthy periods in the US, the rich were taxed as high as 90%. None paid that much, since they had good lawyers and accountants who knew how to take advantage of loopholes, but during that time, more tax money in terms of percentage of income was still paid by the rich than has been paid ever since. When Johnson took office, the tax cuts for everyone (both rich and not) began, dropping the top tax rate down to about 70%. Nixon increased it up to about 77%, and then Reagan started tax cuts for everyone again, but only a little for the non-rich, and a lot for for the rich, and it's been going downhill since then--the top tax rate is now about 35%--which is one factor that has allowed a concentration of wealth that has hurt everyone but the very rich. Currently proposed taxation to once again bring up the top tax rate on rich people doesn't come nearly as high as even the first Reagan administration's 50%, and so it will have a very small effect on their "wealth", while allowing the people they suck off of every day, to get by a little better.
- bjornski, on 11/09/2009, -2/+4@sierrabravo
You need your information broken down into small, easy-to-read lists like a Letterman top-10 list?
Damn, sucks to be you. - askantik, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1Here's an intelligent statement regarding HR 3962:
http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=com_content&am ... - johnsawyercjs, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1Your numbers are vague, and not those that reflect the ones actually in play in the health insurance reform debate.
- johnsawyercjs, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1Yes, those evil nurses who have nobody's interests at heart other than their own.
You don't really know too many nurses personally, do you? Or not enough of them to form any opinion that applies to them as a whole.
And you really think a lot of women in America really want eight babies, all at once, but the only thing holding them back is not being able to get the government to pay for them?? Let's just say you don't know too many women, period, to form any opinion about them. - crunchdigg, on 11/09/2009, -1/+2If you are right, that misinformation isn't needed, why do you suppose the lies keep coming?
Habit? Personal preference? Lack of moral compass? - geodebug, on 11/09/2009, -1/+2@NorthMass I gave you two examples in my post of government investment that has yielded more prosperity (and thus more tax money). Not my fault if you choose to ignore them in your quest to be the most extreme digg poster.
- johnsawyercjs, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1None of the bills before Congress is designed to give free medical care to people who can afford it. It's designed to allow people who can't afford it, to have it, only partly through subsidies, in a way that isn't burdensome to the rest. You really need to learn all the exact specifics on funding in the bills, instead of the vague notions that you currently have.
As for using the impracticability of the US saving everyone in Africa as a reason for why the US shouldn't help anyone within the borders of the US who needs it but can't afford it: do you really believe this is a rational argument to support your point? - inactive, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1Ron Paul is just pointing out the fact that health care was far more affordable before the government became so heavily involved in it. Unlike you he isn't resorting to name calling and scare tactics. Are you one of those people who think that before Medicare all people dropped dead when they turned 65? Do you ignore the fact that the elderly now pay twice as much out of pocket (adjusted for inflation) today than they did before Medicare was created? Do you think that before Social Security all old people were poor too? And that before the drug war everyone was addicted to drugs and could get them whenever they wanted... oh wait a second, I can get whatever drugs I want whenever I want despite the fact that they are illegal. Government doesn't work.
- mah2cent, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1So, that is all you can come up with as an argument for a free market approach?
As for Reagan, I could care less. Just another big spending politician, no different from Bush I, Bush II and Obama who is setting new records of pork and deceit. There is NO difference between Republicans and Democrats except in name. Both want to expand the wars, both buy votes with government spending aimed at special interests. I could go on but there is no point.
And just for the sake of argument, Reagan, while espousing free markets, didn't in reality. - geodebug, on 11/09/2009, -1/+2"you're saying the CBO report is that the deficit will decrease due to this bill"
Nope, just that you were talking about the demon pundits and where they got their magic numbers so I figured you may want to go to the source. Sorry my first link sucked, was trying from memory. Google "cbo health care costs" to get:
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health ...
That's the home page for CBO and health care related stuff. The specific estimate I think is under the 'cost estimates' section. - DDRSkata, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1Because she's in Congress, Bachmann has government health insurance, which would take care of her if she did slit her wrists.
- DDRSkata, on 11/10/2009, -1/+1Helping people destroys society. Being altruistic as a society, definitely a society-killer. That's why the entire rest of the world (except for most of Africa, which doesn't have that damn socialist health care) has collapsed instead of, say, paying less to cover everyone with better care and having their life expectancies go up and their infant mortality rates go down.
- inactive, on 11/13/2009, -1/+1When Medicare was created in 1965 they projected its cost. They said in 1990 it would cost 3 billion dollars (12 billion adjusted for inflation). It actually ended up costing 98 billion. Now tell me why I should believe the outlandish statement that says this will be deficit neutral. Can anyone name one government program that hasn't gone over budget or that hasn't expanded much farther than what it was originally intended for? Not to mention Medicare was supposed to make it cheaper to see doctors for the elderly, and it did initially. But the elderly now pay twice as much on health care out of pocket adjusted for inflation than they did before Medicare was created. So this program which went totally over budget actually achieved the opposite of what it was supposed to achieve. And now you are telling me more government will fix the problem? No thanks, I'll listen to history not politicians (professional liars).
- johnsawyercjs, on 11/10/2009, -0/+0The "they do it anyway" comment was in reference to the part of the Constitution which refers to the "general welfare", and general funding procedures, which were written in a purposely general fashion by the founding fathers since they weren't so full of themselves to think they could anticipate the specifics of every need that would arise, or seen as a need, in the nation's future. It was this that Clyburn was referring to. For example, Congress funded the interstate highway system, even though the Constitution doesn't cite the need for one, since it was later considered good for the general welfare. There are many, many other examples.
- digitalArtform, on 11/09/2009, -1/+1Health care is self-rationed now by many, and there is no shortage of resulting horror stories.
We are already paying for universal health care. We are just not getting it, yet.
http://www.counterpunch.org/deraymond01262007.html
And since you want to be taken seriously calling it 'Obamacare,' maybe we should dub your version 'Reaganrape.' What do you think? Kind of catchy, no? - DealCracker, on 11/09/2009, -2/+1Buried for misleading title. If you want to make a political statement, then make the damn statement. Don't disguise it as a "nutty" article.
- datruef, on 11/09/2009, -3/+1the craziest things i've heard about health care?
that a goverment run option will help fix it...... - thecoolestguy, on 11/09/2009, -3/+1--to be honest i dont really care if a state has some sort of health insurance program, it might even work as it would be locally run, but in general libertarianism works and socialism doesn't, imo.---
Exactly. States should decide their own health care policy. The federal government should not impose government health care on all 50 states. This is such a simple point, that those on the single payer bandwagon don't grasp. - NoLibertarians, on 11/09/2009, -6/+4My personal favorite:
Dr. Ron Paul:" Health care Is Not A Right"
Apparently he thinks dying is! Yes Ron, screw all those sick kids. Let them die and decrease the surplus population!
Nice quote Dr Scrooge! - TSK05, on 11/09/2009, -6/+3Your link doesn't work and I couldn't find it on their website. Link it again and just so I am clear, you're saying the CBO report is that the deficit will decrease due to this bill?
Also, please link me to somewhere that says the bill decreases burdens on small business. Because from what I've read, small business right now don't have to provide insurance whereas the bill forces them to or they have to pay fines. - starlon2, on 11/09/2009, -7/+4Apple needs to come up with an electronic device called the iLie. You enter your problem and instantly a lie is produced. Of course nobody would be caught dead with one, so they're cleverly disguised according to your unique wishes.
- Barackalypse, on 11/09/2009, -9/+6Here's a crazy statement someone said about how much this bill with cost individual consumers:
"An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income."
Of course, the Congressional Budget Office said that.
http://digg.com/politics/The_real_costs_of_the_Pel ... - thecoolestguy, on 11/09/2009, -4/+1@bjornski, putting a gun to someone's head to force them to pay for the medical expenses of a poor individual is more immoral than not being charitable and saving someone's life when you can afford to
This is really simple stuff. This is basic morality. You don't force people to do things on the premise that the ends justify the means.
@zoomer,
--You want to talk about "immoral"? Whats immoral is a private corporation dropping one's "ability to see a doctor" for some silly pre-existing condition.---
You sign a contract with an insurance company that stipulates what obligations they have to you. If they violate that contract, you can take them to court. If they did not commit to covering a certain condition, then they are under no obligation to do so.
It's an individual's own responsibility to check the contract they sign. People shouldn't be treated like children. They should be free to make their own decisions, and should be responsible for the consequences of those decisions. - Barackalypse, on 11/09/2009, -8/+4Actually the Democrats have controlled Congress since 2007, and now they control the Presidency and we've still got a never ending war (now with 21,000 more troops on the ground), majority ownership of a crappy car company (GM), the highest budget deficit in the history of the World, and 10.2% unemplyoment despite adding $787 billion to that huge deficit, and now someone has the brilliant idea to add a trillion dollar health care program to it, despite the fact the Government's existing health care program (Medicare) is projected to be insolvent within the decade.
- Toshibi, on 11/09/2009, -7/+3As a libertarian I found the wars and the domestic intrusion during the last 8 years to be horrible (I also said that it would lead to Democrats being in power and that they would never give up the powers the republicans gained...) but I also find this whole health care issue deplorable, both in how it stands now with regulations limiting competition, the welfare system creating inflated prices, etc. and the notion that either people will be forced to pay for it through taxation or be forced to buy insurance even if they do not want it (like myself, where I make enough to live a comfortable single mans life but do not have extra cash for health insurance when I've found a GP and a Dentist that are willing to take cash, because I'm like the majority of 20 to 35 year old white men and in perfect health meaning that buying insurance is more than I'll spend on health care in a year in the first place.)
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is