What is Digg?164 Comments
- l2scoo, on 03/11/2008, -3/+62This should have been brought up in the debates, especially since Hillary wanted to debate Universal Health Care for 16 minutes
- siszam, on 03/11/2008, -6/+43If you watched the movie Sicko you would have known this. Hillary is a corporate whore.
- NameTry2468, on 03/11/2008, -2/+29It should have, but lets not forget that Barack Obama is not allowed to criticize Clinton's platform without being accused of using "Ken Starr" tactics...
- l2scoo, on 03/11/2008, -2/+24Hillary's plan has a mandate for adults, so that's a big difference. I don't want government garnishing my wages over this. Also, this speaks to integrity, not to policy. There's no legitimate reason why it wasn't brought up.
- GhostyBoy, on 03/11/2008, -3/+24Obama and Clinton are great at having entire debates where not one of them even touches on any of the issues I care about. The debate moderators let them both off the hook as far as I'm concerned.
/prepares for burying by Obama supporters - ScienceDoc, on 03/11/2008, -5/+23Hillary is a fraud. Utterly corrupted by money and power. This is why she cannot be nominated.
- Gabberwok, on 03/11/2008, -0/+12I don't like them either, but the term "repugnican" is stupid.
- theutopian, on 03/11/2008, -2/+13This isn't news. Everyone just chooses to ignore it.
- petebot, on 03/11/2008, -0/+113rd time's the charm: reported.
- BigManOnCampus, on 03/11/2008, -5/+14I don't know who to be more disgusted by...
Hillary is slime for accepting the money and betraying herself (again).
The health care industry is slime for protecting their business model with corruption. For that is what it is, it is a corruption of the process to use campaign-year-financing to get what you want out of a candidate. - martalli, on 03/11/2008, -2/+10The difference will lie in the niggling details that people have not yet dealt with. Look at the Medicare drug plan (part D). Instead of bargaining with the drug companies to secure a very low cost for a certain group of drugs, the government passed a crazy system that virtually locks in high profits, with the profit largely guaranteed by the government. The various parts of the health care industries are fighting to ensure they get similar sweet deals when the inevitable reorganization of the health care industry starts underway.
So what separates Clinton and Obama? Clinton has been bought by the healthcare industry. Obama has not. - obliviousfool, on 03/11/2008, -1/+8Once an enemy?! Let's see the memos from her secret health care task force in the 90's before we make that distinction! She didn't manage any sort of health care reform. I'd say that's pretty friendly from the industry standpoint.
- alex1015, on 03/11/2008, -1/+8Wait I thought she was campaigning on her experience as first lady and how she managed health care. And had foreign policy experience.
But had nothing to do with NAFTA - l2scoo, on 03/11/2008, -2/+9LOL! Yeah, and the media would be accused of being "sexist" and an "Obama lover" if they brought it up. SNL would jump all over that
- AriaStar, on 03/11/2008, -0/+6And if our wages will be garnished if we don't buy, the insurance companies know they can charge whatever the hell they want because we will have NO choice. Who cares about needing to eat or heat homes in winter, right? We can justto be hospitalized with our fancy forced insurance plans and eat in a hospital bed.
- apc3161, on 03/11/2008, -2/+8They aren't trying to sway her from "Universal Health care" they are begging her and Obama to push "universal healthcare." It would be like Medicare on crack. Do you know how many billions of dollars the healthcare industry receives as a result of the pushed up prices that Medicare produces? The government by law isn't allowed to push for lower costs through Medicare. It's the exact opposite of a free market where the buyer has bargaining power.
"Universal Health care" in the case of Obama or Hillary means either forcing people to buy healthcare or using government money to subsidize healthcare. Either way, the health care industry comes out like a bandit.
The last thing our health care industry would want is for the government to become less involved in Health Care. Groups like the AMA, FDA etc, do you realize how high they raise the bar to enter the health care markets? The established players love regulation, it means they don't have to worry about new competition coming along.
It takes on average over a billion dollars and 10 years to get a new drug approved by the FDA. You think a startup pharmaceutical company can just pop up with such conditions present? Of course not.
The government can't fix healthcare by continuing to go down the same path that it has been since the 50's. There is a reason healthcare use to represent 5% of the average workers income and now it represents almost 20% (with projected growths in this number). It is because our government has created the conditions where this exists. Conditions where uou have a few players with government sanctioned monopolies.
The only two people who talked about actually changing health care is this country were Kucinich and Paul. Given, they had completely different ways on how to fix the problem (one wanted free market, the other wanted gonverment socialized non profit), but they were the only ones who talked about the underlying problems and how to fix them. - ad33lshahid, on 03/11/2008, -10/+16you're as naive as the rest of them
- inactive, on 03/11/2008, -2/+8Does his plan guarantee that every American will turn out troll-like, cancered-up, and butt ugly like Fred Thompson?
- Ramble, on 03/11/2008, -4/+9Is that why America's system is more expensive and worse than any other first world country?
- SuperMoses, on 03/11/2008, -3/+8Both candidates are bought out by the health industry: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?I ...
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?c ... - SuperMoses, on 03/11/2008, -4/+9It's not brought up in debates because the health industry also bought out Obama
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?I ... - LloydBentsen, on 03/11/2008, -3/+8Oh please, Obama could and should have brought it up in the debates. You mean they had 20 debates and he wasn't able to bring it up once? The Obama campaign missed the opportunity to close this out long ago.
- czeman, on 03/11/2008, -4/+9Hillary is a bitch.
- neognostic, on 03/11/2008, -4/+9Why should we bury you? You make a complaint about issues that are important to you, then you don't mention those issues or open a valid discussion. So quit whining.
- AriaStar, on 03/11/2008, -2/+7Of course the health care industry likes her now. If she wins and fallows through with FORCING people to buy insurance, whether or not they have the money under threat of wage garnishments, the health care industry can charge whatever the hell it wants because it knows we'll have no choice but to pay.
I foresee people starving to death because they have to spend their food money to buy insurance, maybe freezing to death in the states that freeze in winter, where heating is already a problem due to expense. - kreneskyp, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4except all the insurance companies have poor service. and in many cases you don't have many, or any choices because you only get what your employer offers.
- Cerebron, on 03/11/2008, -2/+6It's extremely naive to think insurance providers are lobbying *against* socialized medicine.
- OsirisO, on 03/11/2008, -14/+18This shows the ultimate difference between Obama and Clinton: While both appear to be championing the same causes, only Obama has the integrity to affect true change.
- kreneskyp, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4hillarys plan is NOT universal healthcare. It is UNIVERSAL INSURANCE. there is a big difference. Universal insurance means everyone is forced to have insurance that may not cover all medical costs. Universal healthcare means you walk into the hospital/doctor and ALL costs are paid for. Universal healthcare also would mean totally removing insurance companies and cutting major costs of care.
Both hillarys and obamas plan are universal insurance. - neognostic, on 03/11/2008, -1/+5Agreed.
- inactive, on 03/11/2008, -1/+5lol @ Fred Thompson supporters. Wasn't he supposed to be your guys' silver bullet against the dems? It didn't take long for the wheels to come off that train. What happened?
Was it the fact that Richard Nixon called him "dumb as hell" on tape? - NCJake, on 03/11/2008, -1/+5This is a dumb article. While the point is well taken (being funded by health insurance companies does suggest a lack of sincerity in making changes) the NY Times fails to distinguish health care providers from the health insurance profiteers. A doctor who wants to help a patient is not the same as an insurance carrier looking to profit from not covering a procedure. Lumping them together is irresponsible reporting.
That said, the money flowing into the campaigns is scary. While Hillary has a boatload of money from the health insurance companies, the disheartening, and quietening, reality is that Obama has even more. - choppanator, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Simply ranting on about how bad the republican party is will not do a single thing to change the bad things in this country. Why don't you get off your computer and go do something good for your community instead of just ranting and raving on how bad things are because of the Republican party?
- vibrokatana, on 03/11/2008, -1/+4Hmm, and who had majority in congress during a lot of this? Democrats are just as bad as republicans. Voting based on sides and not character/morals is what is dooming this country.
- Ramble, on 03/11/2008, -2/+5Unless you're poor, then you die.
- Gabberwok, on 03/11/2008, -4/+7The best things in life are free, but you can save them for the birds and bees, she wants money... that's what she wants.
- inactive, on 03/11/2008, -1/+4Republicans are now relying on the endorsements of fictional characters? I guess that's what happens when you chase the "ain't so bright" vote.
- Waterrat, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3 I agree...And if you can't pay the piper,as far as they are concerned,you don't deserve to live anyway.
- Waterrat, on 03/11/2008, -2/+5In reality,those are not real debates.
And anything the American people want discussed will,of coarse,never be discussed.
And it was reported months ago on Digg that Mrs. C was in the back pocket of the "Health care" industry rolling in $$$...No surprises here.
Will this unethical,immoral industry do whatever it takes to stay in power?
You betcha. - NSResponder, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3Think he could trust her that much? I wouldn't.
-jcr - skinturtle, on 03/11/2008, -1/+4I'm glad I live in Canada. Our healthcare is awesome!!. Stop listening to idiots that say, "Yeah well if you think universal health care is so great..just ask a Canadian!"
Well I'm Canadianb and let me tell you what my trip to the doctors was like last weeK. Went in, have them my health card, they told me to take a seat..I waited for 5 mins, went into the doctors office, he checked me out...order up some blood tests for cholesterol levels, I walked out within 5-10 mins, said see ya later to the secretary. No health insurance, ...not a penny.
Went to the clinic the next day, they took my blood samples, the girl was cute, I walked out and not a dime.
So there ya go...all better - exomni, on 03/11/2008, -2/+4Swiffer® in hand, she could be ready from day one.
- banmaster, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2You just described 98% of all US politicians.
All of their efforts get put towards making sure they get re-elected, not towards representing their constituants. - Waterrat, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2 Why is pointing out the truth bashing?
She will not do what is best for the American people,she will do what is best for big business.
The sad truth is no one can get elected in this country who does not bow down to the will of big business.
Corporations run this country and have for years.
This country is so corrupt it's disgusting. - Waterrat, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2 They don't care about helping people,they just care about making money.
During the Regan years,HMO's were created so they could make higher profits while providing less care. - exomni, on 03/11/2008, -2/+4It's extraordinary that a single-payer, 100% free system isn't on the table anymore. That's the only way universal health care could ever work properly. At least for those making 50k and under, with health care taxes charged to those making more.
- czeman, on 03/11/2008, -7/+9I don't believe that for a second. Although I believe Washington needs a fresh face to politics (and Obama is the freshest one available at the moment), he's not THE answer.
- BedPost, on 03/11/2008, -1/+3...true change will never happen in Washington. Read up on your history.
- ghettoiam, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2I'd just say that their are certain things Digg users go crazy for, in a disproportionate fashion: Mac/Apple computers, Ruby on Rails, used to be Ron Paul, now it's hating on Hillary. Most users of Digg I've personally talked to are very aware of it. For example, when Obama had his bad press about the NAFTA comments and the shady business dealings, it barely got a mention on Digg and it certainly wasn't "dugg" by the users in the way that any anti-Hillary stuff seemed to have been. And in regards to saying that digg is "by the people", well those scandals inspite of having no traction with Digg users lost Obama Texas.
What's relevant on digg isn't always relevant to society at large. In certain matters Digg can be bizarre a microcosom all it's own. Perhaps it's a vocal minortiy? - Spoomeister, on 03/11/2008, -2/+4Please don't use Hillary and whore in the same sentence. Some of us are trying to eat lunch, here. *shudder*
-
Show 51 - 100 of 157 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is