What is Digg?283 Comments
- diggeon, on 10/10/2007, -10/+62The war on poverty continues... "Oh noes! someone who doesn't deserve it might benefit, what is the health of 10 million children, compared to that!" Personally, I would like to see my tax dollars going toward saving a few lives for a change.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -8/+47yeah, I don't have kids so why should I pay for your kids education. I don't drive so why should I pay for your roads. I don't want the war in Iraq, why should my taxes go toward that? Go ***** yourself.
- quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -13/+50you are so right, i would much rather my tax money go to make the CEOs of blackwater, haliburton, KAKI, and who ever else is in bed with bush rich, rather than going to health care and education for kids who cant afford it. I'd much rather have my tax money go to people who build weapons and big american guns rather than those who want to discover new sciences and medicines to help battle every day diseases such as cancer and alzheimer's. Much rather my taxes went to occupied Palistine, Saudi Arabia and any other country batting for our brand of 'bomb em till they submit democracy' rather than countries that have their citizens interests in mind as opposed to corporate interests. yea, ***** you for trying to spend my tax money bettering humanity and this country when it could be spent blowing ***** up and killing thousands of people who werent lucky enough to be born here.
- NeoRicen, on 10/10/2007, -6/+41Newsflash diggers, Ron Paul voted AGAINST it too.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -8/+35oh no..socialized medicine...how will we ever survive.
Get bent. - felman87, on 10/10/2007, -5/+31If Paul voted against it, then it must be wrong. /sarcasm
- StatiK69, on 10/10/2007, -9/+34So much for progress. It's BS that Bush won't even consider a bill; rather instead just instantly say VETO. Oh, we can't afford it but we can afford another $200 billion for a war. What a piece of trash Bush is.
- whataboutdave, on 10/10/2007, -7/+30Of course he would vote against it. This would only be shocking to someone totally ignorant of RP.
- shabumike, on 10/10/2007, -12/+34It seem every industrialized country in the world takes takes better care of the poor than America, this bill will guarantee kids a better chance at getting out of the poverty cycle. Some better funded public schools would help too.
- Trublmakr, on 10/10/2007, -5/+23Because as a society you ought to place value on the welfare of your next generation. The American attitude essentially boils down to individual responsibility as opposed to community building. Despite the fact that police, fire departments, garbage collection etc are also forms of socialism, the medical and pharmaceutical lobbies in the US have all but convinced the population that not everyone needs health care. Do toddlers really have the means to pay their own medical bills if their parents are irresponsible? Blame the parents all you want,.. but why punish kids?
- vault, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21Your argument is that states should provide this, not the federal government? Ok..but states aren't providing it?
- Renton, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Not that this is related, but you say socialized medicine like it's a bad thing. What's wrong with it? Not all forms of socialism are "evil comu-nazi russians trying to nuke us"
- quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17hell even third world countries take better care of their poor than america. look at Venezuela, Chavez wanted to give back the countries resources to everyone (90$ of the country lives in poverty) and we tried to over-throw him and install a US corporate friendly dictator but after two days of installing him the people revolted against the puppet government and re-installed him. the fact of the matter is that Chavez's government is far more democratic than our government ever has been, is or ever will be but we brand him an evil dictator because he turned his back on the oil tycoons and told them to get the ***** out of his country. If only americans had as much care and compassion for what is going on around them and took back their government...
- BowieX, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Is it just a coincidence that the senate seems to pass only the "relatively good" bills that they know will be vetoed?
- mesmeriffic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15I agree with Ron Paul on *many* issues, but healthcare is not one of them.
- reddevil3, on 10/10/2007, -13/+25At the very least, I believe all children (below the age of 18) and all seniors (65+) should be fully covered. Of course I believe everyone should be covered (see HR 676, the plan which Kucinich supports), but I know a lot of Americans oppose that. But children and seniors should be covered...
- eatbeefjerky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I had seriously hoped you were being sarcastic, then I saw your username. I sincerely hope you are currently fighting in Iraq, if not, I deem you a hypocritical piece of elitist American *****.
To those of you not from the US, I humbly apologize for this idiot and all others like him. Please don't hate all of us for what approximately 25% of the country thinks. - wheninva1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Yes, because Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, and every other country in Western Europe are in shambles right now.
/sarcasm - EuphopiaB, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Am I the only one who finds it funny that we just had an article about the national debt being around 8 trillion dollars and there everyone is attacking our government spending, then here we are acting to spend more and more.
OK, insure the children, whatever, but do it when our nation isn't facing complete economic collapse. We need to have the value of the dollar increasing and more that just a pseudo-strong economy based on a completely unstable and weakening system before we spend more. "We need to stop spending to get out of debt" is an argument, "they are already spending a ton of money, so why not spend more for a good thing" is a fallacy.
Similarly, why not leave this up to the states? Where in the Constitution are they given this right and duty? I guess if it's for the children then future implications and its legality are irrelevant. - 68024, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14As a European living in the US I would say that this is one of the problems with America: selfishness. It's all 'mine, mine, mine'.
- ThatGeek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12im so glad that our government is playing political games instead of being productive. It makes me so happy to be an american
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -7/+17I got an idea. Let's solve the national debt before we get into this health care *****. We don't need more ***** to spend money on right now. Our dollar is crashing! A sudden shift to socialized ANYTHING is a very dangerous idea for the future of our country. We need to be finding things to stop spending money on. Like this stupid war. How about congress stops funding the war first then we can worry about health care. priorities people! We can't afford this *****!
- ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Actually, you're confused. The dems want to raise the coverage to FAMILIES that make 80k a year. The high paying tax bracket covers INDIVIDUALS that make 82k a year. Average income in the united states is about 44k.
The vast majority of families are two-income homes, which means the average family roughly makes about 88k a year. Average.
Extending coverage to families with 80k dual-family incomes covers the lower-half of the economic spectrum, i.e., those who make 40k or less, but it does not in fact guarantee coverage to all of these families. It starts coverage at the BOTTOM and works its way up to wealthier families. - kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Thats why like 40% of the repubs support it?
- RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16Yeah, the Constitution also said blacks are 3/5ths of a person and denied women the right to vote.
Welcome to the 21st century. - nick111, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10"backdoor to socialized medicine"?
It's privatized medicine that comes in by the back door - the rest of the developed world has what you would call socialized medicine - and it works much better than privatized medicine.
The ***** happen when private money starts creeping in and corrupting things. PFI in the UK has been a farce - it's like there's this push to make the UK system as bad as the American one. - vault, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9*gasp*
- andrgo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11I'm glad they passed it! And any Neocons that are against it should wake the ***** up and tell me how taxes towards a failing war built on lies are 'better' than going towards sick children in this country. (But of course we'll be paying for both until the war ends.. if ever.) At least the senate finally did something right for a change.
- vault, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12That wasn't what he said...he said that the federal government doesn't have the authority to do this, should not be involved in it, and if they try they cannot do as good of a job as state and local governments.
I'm asking him to clarify what he meant by that, considering state and local governments aren't providing this service.
As far as the private sector, how are uninsured children supposed to get coverage from the private sector if their parents (and/or their employers) aren't providing it? - siszam, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9What if you have cancer and lose your job because you're ill. You can't pay for care then? If you're mentally ill and homeless you can't afford insurance. What if you're like my mother and get Alzheimer's and can't care for yourself at all? Do you think those people should die from neglect? What about when you have insurance but they refuse to pay for treatment? People like you are so out of touch with reality. So maybe you've never been hungry or homeless but couldn't you open your damn eyes and see the suffering around you? We pay taxes. It's about time we got something for it that actually promoted equality, well being and didn't line some rich pigs pockets.
- zanzzz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10True, funded from the same thin air the Iraqi war is, by devaluing the dollar among other parlor tricks.
- lazyfisherman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Funding isn't the problem with the public schools. Corruption, waste, incompetence and school administrators who do nothing but take kickbacks, dole out jobs to their friends and feather their own nests are the problem. There's plenty of money, it just isn't being spent on the kids and teachers who need it.
- SavageBlackCat, on 10/10/2007, -9/+16The funding of course will come from thin air.
How 'bout lowering my taxes to take care of my own kids instead of making me pay for someone elses kids. - HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7It's not democracy. We aren't a democracy. We are a republic, through and through. We like to use the words "representative democracy", because we like the word democracy, but we are a republic. A large, representative republic. Madison's Republic, to be more precise. The country was engineered to be that way because it was Madison's view that democracy was nothing more than the tyranny of the majority.
- EuphopiaB, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8"They are children!"
"They are young adults!"
"They are people, too!"
"They are humans!"
Notice how by the end there it is applicable to all people. Then you end up with socialism. - eatbeefjerky, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8$10 million... are you unaware of the $200 BILLION Bush wants for Iraq? You would willingly spend BILLIONS to kill people, but not millions to save lives? Wow. Pro life indeed.
- jubilee123, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I thought your comment was sarcastic until I read the next line...
you are an idiot.
Let's drill ourself into more debt for this war that is accomplishing NOTHING. Actually it has made one accomplishment: it's given every other country in the world another reason to laugh at us. America is getting scary- I have my passport and I'm getting the hell out of here. It's sad that citizens in the "home of the free" would feel safer and more cared for in another country.
This health plan is finally a breath of fresh air. Too bad our president is more concerned with killing others than taking care of those in our own back yard. - RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Actually, I made a good point about the malleability of the Constitution. which went right over your head - and the best you could come up with is a playground insult, so...who's the clueless one, again?
- kholburn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"Can anyone explain to me why the U.S. Federal government should get involved in the healthcare of anyone, much less children?"
Because diseases of poor people are no respecters of boundaries between rich and poor. If you don't help other people get healthy you will eventually get their diseases, or your servants will, and there will be no-one to work for you.
"Give me some good practical reasons why a centralized bureaucracy can do a better job than the States and local governments who know their people better."
Because it is clear that despite all the economic and political theories to the contrary it simply works better. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The current system of employer provided healthcare is wrong. A middle man (insurers) consume way to much of every healthcare dollar, and the consumer does not feel the real costs which keeps the system inefficient. Also, I hate getting screwed and having to switch policies whenever I change jobs. Worse I have gone without coverage for short periods between jobs, which is silly. The system should revert to private coverage purchased by workers. Healthcare premiums, savings accounts, deductibles, and payments should be tax exempt. When people start spend their own money costs will fall. A low level of federal coverage should be provided for the poor.
Good for the President to stand tough on this one. Middle class entitlements are wrong. - notmark, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and promote domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.
- lodleader, on 10/10/2007, -11/+17have any of you read the bill??? The dems want to raise the coverage to families that make 80K a year! That is what they think poor is! And yet the high paying tax bracket is 82K a year. So when Bush says he wants to veto it, im all for it, because if I made 80K a year, I think I could pay for insurance...
Digg me down all the left wingers on digg, but I am so F'n tired of reading BS stories like this that dont state the truth. - quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8people like you are such idiots and have no understanding of how the world works. you people sit in america your whole lives, never traveling outside your small hick towns, maybe nyc if you feel adventurous one summer, and think you know exactly how the world works because you saw some documentary in highschool and watch fox news religiously. the fact is that many countries are not like america and different things work for different people. would an all out socialist system work for america, definitely not but that does not mean that socialism or communism wouldnt be great forms of government for other countries. third world countries especially need socialism because many are poor and there are no jobs and no food etc.
- yoda17, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Isn't this state responsibility per the U.S. Constitution? Not that I am against this, I just don't understand how it falls within the bound of federal jurisdiction.
- kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Tao: Please tell me how you aren't just a fearmongering neo-con?
- zanzzz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Because the society that most benefits them will cease to exist and the results that ensue will be more than just counter productive to their wallets.
- YZBot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8I believe it even covers "children" up to the age of 25.
- NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7selfish greedy bastard... health care is a simple thing, your money is not wasted, and nothing more will be taken. =P
It will not lead to more socialized things... this is a necessity of life we are talking about... - rnwen2750, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Yeah, no wonder Bush hates him so much - he is threatened by him.
- WebWorker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6That's a good point, but the connection you are not making is that... The rest of Bush's fiscal policy does not match the smaller government mantra. Ron Paul ideally will do this in all areas of his administration, whereas GWB is picking and choosing. And the problem I would guess most of us have with it is that he is picking WAR as the INCREASE and choosing WELL-BEING as the DECREASE.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 273 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