What is Digg?962 Comments
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -37/+300The Bill will go back to Congress where the Republicans will not vote for it in the house, proving again that the Democrats do not control Congress, the Republicans do!
A quick civics/poly sci lesson: The Democrats do NOT control congress, the Republicans do & here's why.
The Dems pass legislation, it then goes to Bush who vetoes it, & then it goes back to Congress who can't overturn the veto without a 2/3rd vote for it, meaning the Republicans have to vote for it, which they never do! Its call obstructionism. Clear enough? So stop blaming the Democrats, when its the Republicans who are blocking change! - wynja, on 10/10/2007, -22/+166Ummm, before anyone complains about this bill raising the ceiling to include children in families above the poverty line. Stop and reread the bill. It includes families up to 300% of the poverty line. I'd like to point out that the official poverty line in the US is for a four-person family unit with two children is $20,444 as of the 2006. Employers pay, on average, $3,695 a year for single-person coverage and $9,950 for family coverage (http://finance.comcast.net/personalfinance/view.ht ... That rises to $10,217 for the more popular PPO coverage. They pass 28% of it to families. That is if you can even get insurance through your employer. Individual insurance plans usually have steeper premiums than is charged to companies.
Think about this for a minute before you praise how great our health care system is and that these people make too much money for state to help. A family bringing in 40K, even if they get all their taxes back each year, is paying a 25% of their income to the insurance companies. That is sick. It's ridiculous. Our health care system is in desperate need of repair, but at least this bill would have given some less well to do families some much needed help until we can really address the main problem. - chronically420, on 10/10/2007, -40/+174duh. bush doesnt care about the next generation. look at what he is doing to us with this war. he's putting us in so much debt we wont know wtf to do. he doesnt care, he'll be financially secure the rest of his life, have body guards the rest of his life and his family wont suffer at all. he doesnt give a flying ***** about the next generation, why would he give money from his unjustified war to the future of america? down with bush i say
- razishaban, on 10/10/2007, -22/+143Well the kids can't impeach him, why should he care?
- airwalkery2k, on 10/10/2007, -25/+133At least our childrens are learning.
- ChristPissed, on 10/10/2007, -79/+170Bush ***** the little children.
- ScoobyG, on 10/10/2007, -16/+103I'm sure those $35 billion can be put to better use: it ought to fund at least a few days of the Iraq war.
- quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -26/+104You guys who oppose this are so correct man! i would much rather my tax money go to make the CEOs of blackwater, haliburton, CACI, 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. I mean i know we could have free healthcare while paying the same amount of taxes we do now but if that means we have to stop funding war and bailing out the multinational corporations we love so much when they go bankrupt, I stand against it!
- in2deep, on 10/10/2007, -13/+86Seriously, is it 2008 yet?
- Eldorian, on 10/10/2007, -12/+85Ron Paul voted no for this too. Where are the Ron Paul supporters on this?
- mydigglogin, on 10/10/2007, -16/+85Was he surrounded by children, like during the stem cell veto? No???
- Xanadude, on 10/10/2007, -14/+82Sorry, kids. We have to send $38 billion more to Israel and spend $5 billion a month in Iraq. You'll just have to grow a new lung and brew up your own antibiotics. It'll be fun!
- The0cho, on 10/10/2007, -19/+86http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
The world health organization ranks the US at 37th in the world and by looking at the list, a lot of the countries beating us have universal health care....Learn to check your facts - izzybr, on 10/10/2007, -24/+87That scumbag piece of ***** actually had the balls to say that Democrats were "putting poor children at risk" because they wanted to hold out for a bill that would spend 25 billion dollars more than he had proposed. Yeah, that's right, he said they're putting children at risk by increasing spending six-fold.
***** you George W. Bush. I look forward to your post-presidency years and your future designation as the worst president in the history of the United States - rhabd0mancer, on 10/10/2007, -16/+69Bush is a godly man of christ, isn't he.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -36/+89George Bush doesn't care about children(or black people).
- Deputy_Doodah, on 10/10/2007, -18/+69Health care isn't free in Canada.
Canadians have a significant amount of money taken from them each time they get paid in order to pay for their health care.
It has to be that way or the doctors & nurses couldn't get paid, and hospitals would have to be built by slaves and use no electricity or water. They would have to steal medicine or make it out of tree bark. It stuns me that some folks can be so stupid to call any nation's health care free when it's painfully obvious that it's not.
Let me guess, you think your tax refund is free money from the government don't you? - mynickel, on 10/10/2007, -25/+74Bush vetoes No Sick Child Left Behind
- hansk, on 10/10/2007, -10/+55that'll teach those kids not to be old enough to vote
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -14/+57Please explain how it would be "free".
- djSyndrome, on 10/10/2007, -8/+48George Bush doesn't care about sick people.
[/Kanye] - ScoobyG, on 10/10/2007, -4/+42That's what makes me soooo mad in the end. On some level, I do understand libertarians/conservatives who oppose universale healthcare, or anything in that direction... But if you look at the money the government is spending on corporate subsidies, wars, useless/unfair programs and projects... The money spent on healthcare would be a fraction of that. Sigh.
- Jeffler, on 10/10/2007, -10/+48[FoxNews] NOOO! NOT TRUE! He's teaching them responsibility! [/FoxNews]
- Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+38Ron Paul is against federal government interfering in healthcare. He believes it is an issuie for the state.
- earthceltic, on 10/10/2007, -14/+50it all comes down to the fact that americans don't want to pay for other peoples kids.
- Acewrap, on 10/10/2007, -8/+39I wish I could digg you up more than once for that.
- hipnerd, on 10/10/2007, -11/+41The Canadian system does cost far less per capita than our system, though. And they insure all their citizens, live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate.
Their system has problems -- all systems do -- but in virtually every measurable statistic, they are paying less and getting more than we are. - EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -10/+38Our childrens are learning that Americans evidently don't care about our childrens. At least those of us in charge.
- dmyajd, on 10/10/2007, -6/+34[BillO] It is UNAMERICAN to want to save someone's life without making a profit [/BillO]
- OralCavity, on 10/10/2007, -10/+38far as i can tell, the government is already taking a significant chunk of my income (~30%) and spending it on huge wasteful projects, which i see zero benefit from. might as well spend that money on something that i will see benefit from.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -27/+54If you support Bush:
You're a bigger ***** moron than he is. Someday people will look at you, the people with W stickers on their rear windows, and say wow: what the ***** were they thinking...
It's not him, it's you. - Gir9000, on 10/10/2007, -27/+54Bush Nazi: No health care for you!
- PATSCRU, on 10/10/2007, -3/+30With relative healthcare costs rising waaaay above the rate of inflation, this is a problem that needed to be addressed. Many families that used to be able to afford basic healthcare for their family or were provided healthcare by there employers are being left out in the cold now as employee benefits disappear and healthcare costs continue to climb. It's a problem that needed to be addressed, and unfortunately, it wasn't.
- tenrec, on 10/10/2007, -6/+31The headline should have been: Bush didn't lie. He said that he would veto and he did.
- DrDolittle, on 10/10/2007, -15/+39talk about a rant. read a book, man. health insurance costs are 1000 $ per american on average. Average cost of free health care in countries where such a thing exists: 1000$. Health insurance does not work because the insurance market cannot function properly due to inside information - read the undercover economist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Undercover_Econom ...
- DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -9/+32what would he care about children. if they die then they will go to heaven and they have free health care up there.
- razishaban, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25i think you mean minutes.
- Scottamus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+26If those infants want insurance they should go get a ***** job.
- Staceyrr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22I just got a kick in the teeth last week about my insurance. It went up 65-80%. If I was covering my wife and soon to be born child under this plan, it will now cost me $1926 a month. If I cover only my wife or child, it will cost $1000 a month. Thankfully, my wife's insurance is much better than this for now.
- boxybrzown, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23Is the collapsing dollar good for the economy? Is spending money on your own oil interests instead of the future of your nation good for the economy?
- numlok, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23The only issue I have with congressional Democrats right now is this increasingly "defeatist" attitude in the face of the obstruction.
Throwing up their collective hands with a, "We presented it and it was shot down, that's all we can do" is not only lazy, but directly serves this administration by letting them know that they can continue their destructive behavior with little to no real fight.
The growing level of public contempt for this administration and its actions simply isn't reflected in the actions of our representatives.
I expect more from those I empower to be my voice in this democracy.
Keep hammering him with legislation and LET him veto all of it if he likes... at the very least it'll be a small, nagging thorn in his side, reminding him daily that we disagree with his actions, are paying attention, serious, and will remain as active as possible in our fight against him and his cohorts.
It is a crappy situation, but the fight is so important to the history of our country (and thus by influence, the world) that we and those who represent us cannot afford to role-over so easily. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -15/+36LOVE the ignorance on Digg where this issue is as simple as "Bush vetoed the bill" with no other issues, like the DETAILS of the bill
- f0rr3st, on 10/10/2007, -6/+26we also don't want to pay for other people's wars.
- betterth, on 10/10/2007, -8/+28300% of the poverty line is what this bill covers, which means around $60,000. 60,000 for a family of four is no-*****-where near "above middle class". It's "lower middle class" at best.
As explained in comments above, a family unit of four will pay over 10,000$/yr for company-based insurance and more for privately attained insurance. At 300% of the poverty line that's still 1/6 of all pretax income.
If you think helping a family in that situation is wrong, than you're either rich, delusional or an *****. - brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22Wow...just wow. People are questioning the validity of the World Health Organization ranking. That's fine. But in this case it definitely is on you to discredit their ranking. They have no political motivation to rank the US lower. In fact there's probably a lot more motivation to find it higher to encourage additional US support. The WHO ranked health care systems and the US came in 37th. Not second, not fifth, but 37th. No matter how you slice that you'll see that the US does NOT have the best health care in the world. Far from it. The parent poster, LukasSmith, is full of it and I can only assume they are still mooching off their parents for health coverage.
- RonBurgundy76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18A little debt is not a big deal and is actually healthy... but I would imagine that 9 TRILLION might be a little over the top, wouldn't you?
- nihilite, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22Not exactly the same study, but same results.
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystor ...
I think this is hard to dispute. Health Care in the US is very good - but also very very expensive. - menichols, on 10/10/2007, -13/+30While I agree with your thoughts on taxing cigarettes (personally, I always thought that smoking and children's health insurance were mutually exclusive), it's not rational to say that governments cannot afford universal medical care. You even concede yourself that other countries "make it" - but it doesn't swallow government funds like you are implying. Rather than watching our tax dollars go down the hold into, you know, wars and stuff, a program like this might be a solid investment - for the children. The More You Know.
- Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -9/+26 He only cares about big corporations, fundy christians, and the wealthy..
- natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -7/+23"I wanna make luv to ya chilluns... gonna lay ya down by the fi-re..."
-
Show 51 - 100 of 943 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is