What is Digg?361 Comments
- kward711, on 11/09/2009, -13/+55where in the constitution is government health care not allowed?
- Jordan117, on 11/09/2009, -27/+64"The healthcare bill that was hailed as such a success seems to be DOA in the Senate."
If "independent" Joe Lieberman, Republican Lindsey Graham, and Rupert Murdoch's New York Post say so, it must be true! It's not like any of them have a vested interest in seeing this bill fail, right? They're simply neutrally reporting on the political realities of the day, oh yes. - Jordan117, on 11/09/2009, -22/+54A brief list of things that are not mentioned by the Constitution:
- The Air Force
- Congressional districts
- The Electoral College
- Executive orders
- Executive privilege
- Freedom of expression
- God
- Immigration
- Impeachment resulting in removal from office
- "Innocent until proven guilty"
- Judicial review
- Right to a trial by a jury of one's peers
- Marriage
- "No taxation without representation"
- Paper money
- Political parties
- Primary elections
- The right to privacy
- The right to travel
- The right to vote
- The separation of church and state
Source:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
So, fxmulder, I look forward to you forswearing any current or future marital benefits and protections you may receive, considering how marriage is a "special right" not specifically enshrined in the Constitution. Same thing for the USAF... shouldn't you be harassing your legislators for wasting billions of dollars on any military program apart from the Army and Navy that's mandated by the Constitution? And don't even get me started on the unconstitutional boondoggle that is paper money. Coins now, coins forever! - BasalCellBossk, on 11/10/2009, -25/+56Cry more, !right wing hysterics. Your extremism helped the bill get passed thus far, so keep it up.
- cshard, on 11/10/2009, -8/+37We have "socialized healthcare" in Israel, operating smoothly along side private healthcare since the early 90's. So far, I haven't seen a single one of these private healthcare companies fold, collapse, or vanish away.
What the government provided healthcare end up doing was to provide competition to these private organizations and improve the overall cost and services to the end consumer. It also assured that all Israeli citizens are entited to healthcare regardless of the path they choose for their health insurance.
This competition enabled the private healthcare companies to offer better service at lower prices, creating the situation where the government healthcare is now the "base line" everyone strive to go beyond. If you can afford it, and want better healthcare than the "default" - you go private. Otherwise, you get government healthcare - and a pretty darn good one, too.
The result? Israel ranks as having one best healthcare systems in the world. How can a distressed, war inflicted country rank better than the USA in health matters? It simply doesnt make sense.
This is why us foreigners sit and and stare all amazed at the American's reaction to introducing government healthcare into their system: all this talk about destroying the private options... for us who already had this option for decades and seen it work, your reaction seems just outright bizarre. - Quisquis, on 11/10/2009, -1/+25That's not in the constitution idiot. It's in the declaration of independence.
for ***** sake you people that dugg him are unbelievable too. - smacksaw, on 11/10/2009, -9/+29#1. Read the bill, or at least the controversial parts.
#2. The US Constitution is something you should actually read yourself. There were things the Founding Fathers didn't want us to have, like a monarchy or unfair trials. That's why they didn't allow them. If they didn't want us to have health care, they would have made sure it was forbidden. Since they neither allowed it nor disallowed it, but left us provisions to figure it out for ourselves between the general welfare clause and the 10th Amendment, your entire argument is moot. - Quisquis, on 11/10/2009, -6/+23HEY YOU STUPID *****...
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" isn't in the constitution. I've read that twice in these comments and it's pathetic. - Expl0siv0, on 11/10/2009, -15/+31How dare the government provide a competitive choice to private insurers.
/s - BerateBirthers, on 11/10/2009, -3/+19Dugg down for not even bothering to look up how the congressmen voted. It's simple enough to do.
- akaz, on 11/10/2009, -2/+18Because everything is about red vs. blue. They can't both be wrong.
- unhg, on 11/10/2009, -2/+17@dashbrewer
Same way private universities compete against state universities.
Or how Barnes and Noble compete against public libraries..
Provide excellent services that the public option don't have.
Don't forget that government run programs have a set budget too...
And you are delusional if you think multi-billion dollar insurance companies are hurting in anyway because of insurance reform. - Propethic, on 11/10/2009, -6/+20Threads like these are where the "people who dugg this also dugg" section comes in handy
- kaaBOOM, on 11/10/2009, -8/+22Haha it's always funny to hear Republicans worrying about destroying the constitution. From the people who brought you the USA PATRIOT Act and all their other anti-constitutional fascism. Thats all OK for the constitution, but universal heath care will destroy it. Whatever.
- Propethic, on 11/10/2009, -3/+17Define "freedom" and "true liberty", without mentioning taxes
- mouthbreether, on 11/09/2009, -9/+22It may be DOA but that doesn't mean they can't make a Frankenstein out of it. I don't expect this high profile legislation to remain dead.
- DavidNiven, on 11/10/2009, -8/+21The bottom line is that health care is NOT a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. That it isn't outright forbidden and given the inclusion of the 10th Amendment means that IT IS A STATES' RIGHTS ISSUE. If people want the government to regulate the health care industry and/or the insurance industry, it must be done at the state level, no higher.
Doing this at the federal level is stupid also because one size does NOT fit all in this country. Let the states do things their own way. - simongiln, on 11/10/2009, -6/+17How many times is the conservative media going to declare the healthcare bill DOA? They've said that at just about every stage of progress. My own congressman had a youtube video up on his website talking about how the house bill was never going to come to a vote...even up till the day *after* the bill past.
The house bill and the senate bill are not the same bill. Of course the house bill isn't going to pass the senate; it was never meant to. There will be a merged version *after* the senate votes for it's own bill, but the merged version doesn't exist yet. - dave122, on 11/10/2009, -2/+13I am a conservative, this bill is *****. I oppose nationalized healthcare, but if we are going to have it, at least do it right. This is an insurance reform bill (which is clearly co-written by insurance companies) at best. I would much rather have true universal healthcare than this bill. Hopefully it gets shot down and dropped entirely, or at the very least re-worked considerably.
I can't understand why people are so fervent about this bill, are you so blindly in favor of healthcare reform that you will support anything they label as such? There are even quite a few democractic reps that don't support this, not because they don't want national healthcare, but because this bill is just plain bad. - BearKill, on 11/10/2009, -5/+14The fact that the bill needed to be passed on a Saturday night with the slimmest of margins despite an overwhelming majority in the House immediately tells you that legislation is of dubious value. After all, the majority of Americans are against this bill and the politicians know it. This won't sail through the Senate, that's for sure. I am not a constitutional scholar, but my guess is this fine/jail threat for not opting in will be ruled unconstitutional. The thuggery of government has to have some limits.
- dpknc84, on 11/10/2009, -8/+17People who call this health care reform "obamacare" sound like idiots. I can't take you seriously when you use made up bs terminology.
- Dutchview, on 11/10/2009, -7/+16I don't understand all the fuss.
First:
This bill is only about the insurance and not the healthcare itself.
Second:
This bill is not a mandate, if you like your insurance (apparently many of you like so much) you can keep it. Even stronger you are not even allowed to get the public option, because you already have coverage.
Third:
Medicare and the VA health care are already government run health care insurance systems.
If you all are so afraid for the government running these systems why don't you ask as loud as possible for these systems to stop.
Otherwise I think you guys are just hypocritical. - Cowicide, on 11/10/2009, -8/+17quick folks! digg down Jordan117... he's making sense!!!
- lutafin, on 11/10/2009, -12/+21If i remember correctly Bush said "The constitution is just a piece of paper"
So yeah dude stfu with your ***** conspiracy - swissfizz, on 11/10/2009, -9/+18By not getting yourself insured you are infringing on your fellow Americans lives actually. By failing to undergo preventative care and taking the emergency room path every time you get ill you are jeopardizing the health of others as well as taking their tax money.
The Public OPTION is a self-funded insurance scheme. Switch off FOX and get a clue. - Deveak, on 11/10/2009, -9/+17I'm burying you, for politicizing their deaths, their deaths have nothing to do with the health care debate, you sound like bush when you say that, or at least you do it in a manner similar to how they did it.
- m3dos, on 11/10/2009, -18/+26New York Post, Fox News... same thing right?
- yocouchdigga, on 11/10/2009, -14/+22This bill ***** sucks. Let Kucinich have at it and come back when it isn't a ***** HANDOUT to insurance companies. It's enough to drive a sane man crazy.
- CapnSlam, on 11/10/2009, -2/+10this bill sucks ass
come back some day when you've actually gone through what's wrong with the system instead of trying to force ***** on us that we don't all want
for you democrat chumpizoids- that means 10 years from now because you're all getting thrown out on your asses for a long time - Mercedes383, on 11/10/2009, -0/+8@cshard
Sounds very similar to the Australian system. Here if you take private health insurance then you get a rebate from the public health levies from the Govt. if you stay public then the more you earn then the higher your medicare levies are (About 2% is the max).
Do you have a similar setup there? - rignopolis, on 11/10/2009, -1/+9If you want to use the "general welfare" clause - which is in the constitution - to justify government health care, I would think food would come before health care on the list of things needed for life.
- cshard, on 11/10/2009, -3/+10@dasbrewer - by offering better facilities, faster service, friendlier doctors, and an overall vastly improved experience. Private healthcare also tends to offer certain services and medical treatments that the state medicare does not cover by default.
There's also the thing about image and marketing. The government does not try to sell itself: It doesnt have any need to. This leaves the entire advertising and marketing arena open for the private healthcare companies who advertise themselves very aggressively:
They have successfully created and maintained the image that private healthcare will always be superior to government healthcare, even tho in reality the government option is also quite professional and well equipped to deal with nearly all cases. This causes nearly anyone who can afford it to prefer investing in private healthcare over the government option.
The overall perception is that if you can afford it, you're always better off with a private solution. Its called perception of value. And this is the main reason why private healthcare will never go away. - Stingwolf, on 11/10/2009, -2/+9Because no one has read it. It simply sounds like the healthcare reform that everyone wants, so they blindly support it.
- sh0em0nkey, on 11/10/2009, -0/+7"This bill is not a mandate, if you like your insurance (apparently many of you like so much) you can keep it. Even stronger you are not even allowed to get the public option, because you already have coverage."
I like my insurance. I pay for it. How much more do I have to pay in taxes because you don't like yours?
I don't really mind helping someone in need, but there is a line. I don't want to pitch in to help someone simply because they didn't like their coverage. - Quisquis, on 11/10/2009, -4/+11nope, I don't have car insurance.
And secondly, car insurance in most states is only mandated to cover liability. That makes it a ***** example for any point you want to make regarding health insurance. - Quisquis, on 11/10/2009, -0/+7neocon? BerateBirthers guy's on your side of the debate. lol
- Propethic, on 11/10/2009, -9/+15Use the reply button, why do you late night/early morning conservatives insist on making seperate posts for your replies and every singular thought that crosses your mind
- dmbftp, on 11/10/2009, -0/+6@getter1:
The Declaration of Independence is not the same thing as the Constitution. - akaz, on 11/10/2009, -1/+7Obama himself refuses to call it a tax.
- drmangrum, on 11/10/2009, -1/+7Wrong.
Over 60% of Americans are for REFORM. *NOT* this bill. - fxmulder, on 11/10/2009, -4/+10An unfunded mandate of Healthcare to the states that will bankrupt them, is not in the Constitution. States rights.
- methdwman3, on 11/10/2009, -3/+9If anyone has actually read parts of this bill, as it was passed, it is a heaping pile of ***** that could only be supported by Obama kool aid drinkers. I suggest people take a glance, and they may see why even a big group of Dems voted against it.
- Mejari, on 11/10/2009, -4/+10That's what I'm most pissed off about. For the first time in a long time the Democrats actually have a chance to do something important and instead of following the republican's lead on the one thing they do well, getting ***** done (even though most of the ***** the republicans get done sucks, at least they get the laws passed), they are ***** around trying to get bi-partisan support, when it's obvious that no one on the other side of the aisle gives a crap about the actual merits of the bill and only what letter is next to it. Republicans need to stop being obstructionist *****, and Democrats need to suck it up and ***** do this thing.
- drakkoss, on 11/10/2009, -8/+14Then you would love Somalia. No functioning central government; no taxes. You could own your very own RPG and Kalashnikov without the interference of a pesky government. And best of all, no Medicaid nor Medicare and no talk of universal health insurance.
- LeekMibles, on 11/10/2009, -5/+11Do you really believe the ***** you say 7papa7 or do you just say that because that's what you hear from other idiots?
- zsavior, on 11/10/2009, -2/+8Sad but true, people keep saying its better than nothing. So if your children ask for breakfast in the morning is that better than nothing? If you hail a cab to get to work and it drives you one block takes your money and tells you to get out is that better than nothing? If a burglar comes to your apartment and begins to rob you and you call the cops but they don't apprehend them instead just watch the thief, is that better than nothing?
Simple fact is saying "it better than nothing" Means jack squat if it really isn't better. - akaz, on 11/10/2009, -4/+10Why the average Digg user does not understand this, who knows. Why are they defending this bill as if it's a religion, no matter what it says?
- mah2cent, on 11/10/2009, -6/+11The whole idea of employers providing health insurance was a result of WWII when employers were faced with a shortage of workers because a lot of men/women were in the armed forces. It was a lure to get them for other employers. Since then, it seems to have become a "right". What if your employer did not provide insurance, perhaps your pay would be higher and you could shop for your own policy or not as you saw fit. Perhaps not. But the fact is, the government is not happy with any system that is not totally controlled by them. Result, more power and more dependence of the voters on them.
What most people seem to want, is not health coverage, but complete coverage at someone else's expense. A totally unsustainable position, except for the government's intervention in the system. But, it still is not free, it is a tax burden. And it is still unconstitutional, although no one in government cares about that, including the supreme court who don't seem to understand the law. - methdwman3, on 11/10/2009, -0/+5Simple - it doesn't make things cheaper.
- kinerry, on 11/10/2009, -7/+12Simple solution:
GROW A ***** PAIR AND FACE THE FILIBUSTER!
They can't talk forever, and when they do, you win. -
Show 51 - 100 of 366 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is