What is Digg?341 Comments
- epicstruggle, on 10/28/2007, -9/+44You know what, I have no problem with giving more health insurance to poor/middle class kids. But in return I want an honest debate about who should get it, and what we expect from those who want it. Yes an honest debate, no parading of children, no demonizing those who disagree with you.
If you want me to pay for it, I think I should expect parents to start ***** doing their part too. Stop making your kids obese by feeding them junk food and make sure they exercise. - inactive, on 10/27/2007, -15/+39if my memory serves me well, bush vetoed ONE bill while the republicans were in charge of congress. thats 6 years, and it was stem cell research.
now he finds the flimsiest excuses to obstruct the democrats. I hope the democrats play hardball and keep sending him bills he won't sign. its a sad day when we, the people, hope for political gear-lock as our best option. - lyserious, on 10/28/2007, -14/+38***** TAXES!
***** this bill, Ive actually read it. its ***** propaganda designed to make the administration look bad. It does nothing to address the issue of the SCHIP program. They purposely made this bill so ridiculous that the president has to veto it and be called "Bush hates healthy kids"
Jesus guys read! SCHIP is suppose to be welfare for poor people. this expands it to 25yr olds and people who has incomes up to 80k. Its ridiculous. - anonatron, on 10/28/2007, -10/+32It is like he wants to be the most hated man in history...
- inactive, on 10/28/2007, -1/+18It takes a MD to tell a parent not to stuff their 4 year olds with big macs and french fries?
- ratherplayhalo, on 10/28/2007, -10/+24It is not the government's job to provide health insurance for everyone.
- Synth3t1c, on 10/29/2007, -29/+43C'mon everyone - why would we want this? It's taking money away from are totally awesome crus..errr war on TERRORISM.
What is more important - our children or killing the terrorists that aren't terrorizing us? - Pimptastic, on 10/28/2007, -4/+18Stop with using common sense, this is Digg and your talking about congress, they have to parade children around to make everyone think that disagreeing is just about hating the children.
But I agree 100% with that last statement. Parents need to step up and teach their kids to be live healthy. Maybe congress should figure out why they need to have children's health care instead of putting a band aid on a problem and thinking they are heroes for being for the children. - jonnyeuchre, on 10/28/2007, -9/+22
If the children would just attack us, we could find 2.4 trillion for them. Dumb-ass kids... - hansk, on 10/27/2007, -9/+22That'll teach those kids not to be of voting age, and that teir parents would rather spend 400$ a month on Starbucks than on them.
- scuvball, on 10/28/2007, -5/+18While I generally agree with your sentiment, government should stay out of our pockets except for the necessities (like infrastructure), our REPUBLICAN goverment is currently spending money that contributes NO good to the people of this country.
If I had my choice right now between Republican spending and Democrat spending, I would have to choose the latter. Ideally though, government shouldn't be spending any money on the welfare state. - epicstruggle, on 10/27/2007, -3/+15Most people have heard of Medicaid though, and even with that millions of children who are eligible for Medicaid dont enroll in it. Good parenting huh?
- Alphateam, on 10/28/2007, -12/+23Dude you are an idiot....we are surrounded by terrorists. They are EVERYWHERE. Haven't you ever seen those 90 year old ladies in electric wheel chairs at the airport getting a cavity search....terrorist for sure. Hell the terrorists started the California fires. I saw it on the news it MUST be true. Maybe if these money grubbing poor kids with no insurance would get off their ass and get a job putting out these fires they would have insurance.
(do I really need the /sarcasm tag?) - YZBot, on 10/28/2007, -4/+15I fail to see how government healthcare solves the problem of health care costs. Cost is the underlying issue here. If it wasn't so damned expensive, more people would have it. Subsidizing it doesn't solve that problem. We need to open up the health care market and allow for more competition between states to drive costs down. Once the costs are down it won't take so much money to actually subsidize the truly poor. This SCHIP bill is typical government, it doesn't nothing to solve the actual problem.
- DUSTOFF101, on 10/28/2007, -3/+14Agreed. People bitch and moan about the government, but somehow, they national health care is going to be their shining gold star. Hell, they have trouble enough with the VA, but yeah, Hillary, she's going to change all that isn't she? NOT!
- GruntboyX, on 10/28/2007, -6/+16This Bill is just to get America in bed with the idea of Socialized medicine. If they slowly implement it then no one will care and apathy will take over. Just shows me the idea is not popular enough to implement on its own merits.
- badenglishihave, on 10/26/2007, -6/+16How the **** is a tax break a free handout? It means I get to keep MY OWN money which I've worked hard earning.
- SinisterDexter, on 10/28/2007, -1/+10We will have to worry about it because the expansion of this bill is basically the introduction of Hillary Care. Like another person said 'If they slowly implement it then no one will care and apathy will take over'.
- Shambla, on 10/31/2007, -2/+11Hitler: "This guy's good!"
- badqat, on 10/31/2007, -2/+11Any parent who can afford $400 a month at Starbucks can afford to pay for their children to have health insurance. That's $4800 a year on Starbucks...damn, buy a coffee maker and get buy your own damn coffee! Or make a whole lot more.
I have an idea...how about in addition to providing universal health care, the feds also provide us free Starbucks. And cars. And homes. Yeah, that's the ticket! - heartcoldfusion, on 10/28/2007, -3/+12Yeah, I can't wait till Hillary starts redistributing the wealth. Maybe then you can get a new intercooler for your evo 8 LOL.
- awtripp, on 10/26/2007, -1/+10I don't think you RTFA. It clearly states that the 83k limit was an exaggeration, something that wasn't in the legislation and they revised it to clearly state that "...the threshold this year at about $62,000 for a family of four. Bush has said SCHIP should focus on families earning less than double the federal poverty line." 62k is about three times the federal poverty level of just over 20k. 20,000 a year for a family of four is such a ***** poverty line, that is living in destitution. That's like trying to support two kids with both parents working fulltime at McDonalds, and maybe not even that good. There is NO WAY that poverty line can be that low. There needs to be a major revision of that.
- YZBot, on 10/28/2007, -0/+8One. I've never voted for Bush.
Two, the market fails in healthcare because it's NOT a free market. The government regulates the industry. State regulations make it impossible to buy insurance from other states. It's no wonder it's failing, the government is ***** with it beyond what is neccessary.
Third, I just read your posts in this thread. You've not made any case at all. Your posts are filled with anti-Bush drivel.
Again, how exactly does subsidized health care solve the cost issue? Open up the health industry, let competetion drive down costs. - Pimptastic, on 10/26/2007, -3/+11a big part of that veto record was that with republicans in charge they would only send things through that would be garenteed to be signed. Now we have Democrats in power and they will send things that barely pass by a few votes. So then it gets sent back to fix the problem as to why it was vetoed, or have the congress overturn the veto.
The problem is that attitude of "lets send him everything we know he will veto". That doesn't accomplish anything but show they want these to get vetoed to prove a political point. I rather they send something that has merit and can gain support that will ensure an overturning of a veto if it is vetoed. - halik, on 10/27/2007, -5/+13Also the nation with the most advanced health care... notice the correlation?
- badenglishihave, on 10/28/2007, -2/+10Wow, somebody who actually realizes that we do not live in a "Democracy" persay, but a Constitutional Republic with elected officials along with checks and balances. Astounding.
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/27/2007, -14/+22That will teach those poor kids to get sick!
- inactive, on 10/28/2007, -23/+31Agreed. People can barely wipe their own asses anymore. If you want socialism, move to a socialist country and leave this Constitutional Republic alone.
- badenglishihave, on 10/28/2007, -3/+10About 6 or 7 years ago when I was living with my parents, my father was nearly unable to pay for health insurance. As an independent consultant making over $100,000 (BEFORE taxes), he did not receive health benefits as he would while working for a company.
I have three siblings and my family lived frugally, yet we were still struggling to pay for health care costs because of the high tax bracket we were in. And what are those tax dollars paying for? Somebody else's health care! Ironic, isn't it?
We do not need more programs that make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy inside that talk about "caring for the children" when we have real American families hurting from programs like this one. - YZBot, on 10/28/2007, -1/+8We also won't have to worry about what we do with out paychecks. It will all just go to the government.
- badqat, on 10/26/2007, -3/+10Agreed...the federal government is way too big and out of control. They need to revert to powers granted under the constitution.
- Elranzer, on 10/26/2007, -4/+10He has to make up for all the non-vetoing he wasn't doing when Republicans controlled all three branches of government.
- thejokell, on 10/26/2007, -2/+8My guess is the majority of people for this bill have never heard of the 10th Amendment.
- TheFed, on 10/27/2007, -15/+21Seriously, the government can't even handle our Socialist Security program - why the **** would we want them to "take care" of our children? Same goes for the national health care system - let the free market take care of it. And not the "free market" mentioned in the news - a true, non-government-interventionist free market!
- InfiniteNothing, on 10/26/2007, -0/+6It's better than doing nothing which is what they are accused of lately.
- cranium, on 10/26/2007, -1/+7Not that it gets mentioned a dozen times in EVERY ***** THREAD or anything.
- lyserious, on 10/28/2007, -1/+7Government is inherently evil and inefficiently. We trust the forests to the government...and California is on fire. We trust the government to handle foriegn policy and not misrepresent us to the the world. And we trust the government to take care of the men and women who BLED for it.
Republicans and Democrats are NO DIFFERENT. Read the book 1984. you know what its called...controlled opposition
.
All of it is an utter failure. Dont trust the government to take care of you. Every liberty and freedom you give up for security and stability. You loose both. - badenglishihave, on 10/28/2007, -4/+10Thank God there are some smart people on digg. You pointed out this bill for what it actually means: more taxes! I got dugg down by replying in an earlier post about how tax breaks are not "free handouts". How ignorant can people get?
- aigulf, on 10/26/2007, -0/+6I think that was his point.
- thebaron2, on 10/28/2007, -1/+6And what do you think is going to happen when people actually do stop smoking because of the cost? All of a sudden that incredible revenue stream runs dry. Do you think they'll axe the program, or do you think they'll find some other way to take more of our paychecks?
Taxing the ***** out of cigarettes to pay for everything, at the federal AND state levels, is a recipe for disaster. Eventually people WILL smoke less, and all that money will have to come from somewhere else to control all of the bloat that it was previously financing. - bicyclethief, on 10/28/2007, -1/+6Now if anyone could only afford that advanced health care, we'd be set.
- zosoo7, on 10/28/2007, -4/+9With all the Ron Paul enthusiasts here on digg, I'd expect more people to admit that this bill is just another way to expand government function, and this is exactly what Ron Paul wants to move away from.
- thedarkrabbit, on 10/27/2007, -14/+19Terrorists win if children get health insurance...
- halik, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5Interesting - I'm a full time Grad student making about 12K a year part time and I can afford to pay my health insurance. Maybe it's an issue of spending money in the wrong places? At 100K/year you can definitely insure a family of 5
- badenglishihave, on 10/26/2007, -1/+6No, you dumbass. We had a minivan and an old honda civic. We didn't own a TV till I was 13 (I'm 21 now). We didn't own a house till I was 10 and my father had saved for 15 years to put a down payment on one. Watch what you assume.
- awtripp, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5Destitution is the extreme of poverty.
- lyserious, on 10/27/2007, -1/+6Since when were Canadians and Mexicans, the US government? For Israel, thank the Zionist lobbyist, the newish apologist and sick ***** like pat Robertson.
Leave our nieghbors out of the hole we dug for ourselves. If you are going to say it...say it right you euro trash garbage and not lump us and our nieghbors together. - bonhoeffer, on 10/28/2007, -7/+12If Democrat's want to modify the bill, why don't they add to the treatment available through S-CHIP? Answer: Democrats aren't as concerned about the quality of health-care as they are about herding everyone into a federal entitlement program.
- evilbob333, on 10/28/2007, -3/+7Because this bill with result in people who already have private healthcare coverage moving to the government healthcare coverage. It's not about addressing a need. Its a move to socialized healthcare.
- way2muchsense, on 10/26/2007, -1/+5It's notable that in the same breath, Bush bitched and complained about how Congress isn't immediately passing what Bush wants. Not needs, but wants. For example, where is all that money being spent on Iraq going? If I were the majority leader, I'd say I want to do a detailed cost/benefit analysis on each line item being asked for regarding the middle east before a dime gets appropriated. Bush might be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, but Congress gets to say what gets spent where. It's in that "goddamned piece of paper" people keep waving in George's face as if that would impress him somehow. I'd have a more interesting discussion of politics with my cat.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 328 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is