What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
62 Comments
- detcade, on 11/03/2009, -11/+32"Democrats have blown so many deadlines"
Yes let's demonize the Democrats for "blowing deadlines" while supporting those who are trying to delay the bill itself. Totally logical.
Nice job, politico(n). - DevilToo, on 11/03/2009, -14/+31I have a feeling it will be postponed so long that the citizens will forget about it and then it will disappear off the agenda.
- allnuts, on 11/03/2009, -24/+35They're afraid. They know they have to do this in the dead of night when no one is looking or there will be a huge revolt.
- Maddoktor2, on 11/04/2009, -5/+15Without a public option the bill becomes nothing but a gift on a silver platter to the insurance industry and needs to fail.
- drmangrum, on 11/03/2009, -17/+27If they would pass the no-brainers first, they would be in a much stronger position. But this constant push for something that half (depending on the poll and day) the country doesn't want just seems like a power grab.
Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.
Pass tort reform.
Tighten up Medicare procedures to help curb fraud.
Those are all no-brainers. They may not fix the system to the point of liberal satisfaction, but it damn sure won't hurt. If it doesn't work then at least they have the fall back position of being able to say "We told ya so." - thegrantman, on 11/04/2009, -7/+16I have no problem delaying a bill if it means getting it right in the long run.
- rignopolis, on 11/04/2009, -4/+10The Democrats first mistake was setting the deadline in the first place. Since they control both houses of congress and the White house, they have no one to blame but themselves.
- Laminarcissus, on 11/04/2009, -0/+5Something about this reminds me of when my brother used to grab my hand and hit me in the face, and then say, "why are you hitting yourself?"
- darkened, on 11/04/2009, -0/+5The solution is to remove the collusion of employers and insurance companies and pay employees their full salary. Then make all medical expenses be tax deductible.
- upnorthgirl, on 11/04/2009, -5/+10Hmmm...let's talk about Republicans not showing up to climate discussions. Let's talk about Republicans obstructing in Congress. Let's talk about the Congressional Republicans poll ratings.
Call it whatever you want, but the Republicans look like a bunch of losers to most of the general public - hayata, on 11/05/2009, -0/+5Wishful thinking I'm afraid. The Socialists have no intention of listening to the majority that disagree with them on meddling with health care. Every aspect of our lives will be under scrutiny... Much more than today, which is bad enough. This is THE power grab that takes your freedom away if you are an American. WAKE UP! Are you really willing to trade your liberty for your medical bills?
- elcalrissian, on 11/03/2009, -8/+12Spot on, and I'd call you out for plagiarism of a post I made a few weeks back, but I dont think mine was original either.
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Whats_the_Differ ...
In all logical simplicity, you'd think small movements at a time would be a good way to attack such a broad and sensitive industry like Healthcare.
Of course, in the Obama whitehouse/DEM congress, logic and simplicity are considered black magic, taboo.
As much as I dont want to play the negativity card, I really am starting to believe these 1k page, all-encompassing bills are REALLY all about pork spending, pet projects, and hooking up their own interests. - JediPii, on 11/03/2009, -12/+16Of course what you're saying makes perfect sense, that is, unless the stated goals aren't the actual goals.
This bill is a waypoint to a single-payer system.
It drives up medical costs, and will drive up the cost of health insurance premiums. This will force a far greater number of people toward the so-called 'public option,' and federal expenditures will go through the roof, while private health insurers falter into losses (remember, the entire industry only profits 2.2%), and suspend operations altogether.
Once the private insurance companies disappear, it'll be 100% government health care. That's their goal, plain and simple. In America, you can't pull that off in one fell swoop. It takes incrementalism. - darkened, on 11/04/2009, -2/+5@northgirl, actually in my book it looks like they're resounding winners. They're exerting massive influence over Congress even from their minority position.
How could you call that losing? Losing would be this bill gets passed the way it is and we're all *****. Then it's not just the Republicans in office that lost, it's America that has. - stompk291, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3is it really an opt-out, if you still have to pay for it ?
- Lomstradamus, on 11/04/2009, -2/+5I agree, the insurance companies have got to be stopped!
- hayata, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3Hey I'm glad they keep blowing deadlines. Unfortunately, the policies have not yet died. No, let's demonize the Democrats for abandoning all common sense and fiscal responsibilty during a serious economic downturn that was caused by them. Let's demonize the Democrats for yielding party control to Socialists, who have no intention of working with anyone who disagrees with them. If they manage to pass ObamaCare, we can demonize Democrats for bankrupting the country and stealing our freedom.
- Phernoree, on 11/04/2009, -3/+6"The government allows employers to provide health insurance to their employees on a tax-free basis, or the money comes out before it's taxed. Therefore, employees prefer to be compensated in the form of health insurance, rather than wages as money, because if they get money, they're going to have to pay taxes on it. So there's a built-in preference for insurance, and as a result, we have an over-utilization of insurance. People use insurance for things that they wouldn't ordinarily use insurance for."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6eIBvrMY5w - inactive, on 11/05/2009, -1/+4You could also blame the Democrats who have the oval office and a majority in both the house and the senate. You could more specifically blame Obama, Pelosi, and Reid for being ineffective...or you could just take the easy way out and blame the Republicans.
- JediPii, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4Where's the FUD? Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of economics can see the short term and potential long term effects of the proposals in all of the Democrat sponsored bills.
We have video of Obama, and other Democrats, openly advocating a single payer system.
At the start, the stated goal was to reduce costs, but nothing in these bills does reduces costs.
The sponsors claim the public option will create choice and promote competition, which they claim is good, but it falls far short of the competition and choices that would result from being able to shop across state lines.
These are facts. If they inspire Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, there's good reason. You should be hesitant to support an endeavor that will transform our health care system to 'third world' status. It terrifies me too. - Shadic, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3It has one, it just has a State Opt-Out. And just like we saw with the Stimulus, even those who spent all their time bitching about them were eager to get whatever they could.
- stompk291, on 11/04/2009, -3/+5we'll take credit for it. thanks.
remember us come next election, when your children still have SOME fiscal future left. - stompk291, on 11/03/2009, -13/+15please, God !
- Phernoree, on 11/04/2009, -11/+13Calling out the Democrats on their tardiness is not "demonizing."
- Katana, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3My answer is yes, I live in the UK where we have a single payer system that doesn't discriminate on any prior conditions. You could have been a junkie with every disease under the sun and they would still treat you, you could be a billionaire and they would treat you, you could weigh 300 lbs and they would treat you, it doesn't matter.
My original point was meant to be, the biggest problem with private sector health insurance is that they will discriminate based on prior conditions, and refuse to pay out due to any technicality, a public option in the USA wouldn't be allowed to do this, if you made insurance companies stop denying coverage and paying for costs then you wouldn't need a public option. - hayata, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2It's nice to see Republicans get a backbone every once in a while. Why show up for a "discussion" on climate change when they aren't allowed to say it is a ridiculous hoax? It is simply an end run on our constitutional freedoms. The sky is not falling. Yes, Republicans OBSTRUCT! OBSTRUCT! A little difficult without much chance to fillibuster. Democrats spent how many years doing the same thing, so get over it! Approval ratings? I believe you'll find this current Democrat controlled Congress to have the lowest approval ratings in US history. With the majority they enjoy, and little scrutiny from the press, that's pathetic! Yes, Republicans were losers (until last night's elections). The general public will have more to say on this in 2010.
- SwordofKahless, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2The US government has never forced you do anything other collect taxes from your earnings up until now. This is the biggest threat to civil liberties in American history yet liberal diggers that rightfully screamed about how bad Bush was remain silent on this issue or are defending it. Just goes to show the Dem liberals could not give a rats ass about civil liberties and it is all about just getting their rock star elected.
- Bagos1, on 11/05/2009, -1/+3I agree....but giving it to the government is not the solution.
- Moralogic, on 11/04/2009, -4/+6Allowing them to do the across state lines will just make it so they will all put their HQ in states that benefit them screwing over their customers, and then we are all ***** even more. So the across state lines is a double edge sword, and needs to have laws and provisions that force them to obey federal requirements.
My bill just went up 20%, and I know 2 other people who are in the same boat from different insurance companies.
Public Option or no reform is worth it. Far more than half the people support the Public Option, or else their would be more republicans voted into office. - spondie, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1Opt out and then get no federal funding to cover it. Strong arm tactics. You want free healthcare, join the armed services. They need the help.
- Bagos1, on 11/04/2009, -11/+12It will never be right.
- Moralogic, on 11/04/2009, -7/+8Looking at this election that just happened, it looks like people are very strongly focused on Healthcare, and don't really plan to let up much. I think the 2010 election will not only guarantee Healthcare Reform with a Public Option, but also a third party coming into the mix as the Republican party starts to fade into the dark.
- Homerr, on 11/04/2009, -4/+5You spew FUD. Stop it.
- stompk291, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1so most of the general public are for this, it's just the republicans in the way? is that what you are saying?
- Lomstradamus, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1We "the people" are the government. Do you recommend we continue to hand over the money to the insurance companies? Or should we just pray that they lower their costs for everyone?
lol! - govtdoesnotwork, on 11/04/2009, -2/+3As if I defend the right's BS?? Sheesh. Digg's even dumber than normal this morning.
- Moralogic, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1Except it has been dug more their buried, so most likely not. Great job of making an ass of yourself though.
- danfive555, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2Why does the government want "control", exactly?
1. Social engineering--wealth distribution
2. Tax more--to service the debt
3. Keep our large military--gives us leverage globally
4. Self-indulgence--Powerful govt makes politicians more powerful
5. Give the two-party system a shot of penicillin--more power means more is at stake, so more voters will be fanatical about their side winning - gizram84, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2Better > Sooner
- edstate, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1No, if you're an individual those taxes makes it more expensive. And this is all about lowering the price of healthcare. Isn't it? Isn't it?
- MrErr, on 11/04/2009, -4/+4.... from the insurance companies and other crazies.
- edstate, on 11/04/2009, -3/+3Also, let individuals have the same tax breaks businesses do for buying insurance.
- Bagos1, on 11/04/2009, -18/+18Let's hope this draconian money grab slips into oblivion.
- MrErr, on 11/04/2009, -1/+1Group insurances are cheaper than individual insurances. So tax breaks to businesses made sense when it was implemented, that way most people would be on some kind of group insurance. Only if you have a myopic view will you think that a piecemeal approach is actually going to help.
- gizram84, on 11/04/2009, -2/+2it is on digg.. if it's not a compliment or praise, it's demonizing. you're not allowed to get dugg up unless you end your post talking about how great the democrats are.
I LOVE OBAMA!!! - Katana, on 11/04/2009, -4/+4How about simply passing a law that stops private insurance denying coverage and refusing to pay for health care based on prior health conditions.
- inactive, on 11/05/2009, -1/+1Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
- Ferretman, on 11/04/2009, -8/+7The more we can delay this nonsensical farce of a bill the better.
- drmangrum, on 11/04/2009, -4/+3How is that fair to the insurance company?
Devil's advocate:
A person is has a history of fraud, but there have been no charges filed against the person for 10 years. If you were responsible for new accounts, would you give such a person a policy? What if you're job hinged on it?
A person has a long history of substance abuse, hepatitis, and AIDS. Would you insure that person? Should you be forced to insure that person?
A 55-yr old whose sex and race are predisposed to heart conditions is applying for a policy. This person is 100 pounds overweight, has hyper tension, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. This person has an upper-middle class income. Should you be forced to insure a person who has obviously lived an unhealthy lifestyle. If you do insure this person, are you justified in charge an exorbitant monthly fee?
If your answer to any of these questions is yes, then I would ask why it's OK for the insurance company to absorb these costs while the health care industry treating the actual illness are exempt from such a burden? -
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is