What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
198 Comments
- jrm125, on 11/09/2009, -11/+32Pro-tip: If your ***** is so long you have to do two posts...it's TOO ***** LONG!
- Jareth86, on 11/09/2009, -10/+30Looks like the teabaggers are out in full swing on digg once again. Now I remember why I've all but stopped coming here.
- DickyT83, on 11/09/2009, -7/+25It still has to go through Senate, kind of a misleading description.
- PlasticHotDog, on 11/09/2009, -4/+20I fail to see how this section of the constitution is relevant to the health care bill in any way.
- spritom, on 11/09/2009, -3/+17FTA: After a daylong clash with Republicans over what has been a Democratic goal for decades...
This was the House of Representatives, not the Senate. It wasn't not a clash with the Repubs...they could do little more than make noise. Any vote/power clashes were within the Democratic party. Any party-line votes would have easily passed the bill at any time this year. - captininsanity, on 11/09/2009, -1/+12That's why it says "Passes House". The last article about this did have a pretty misleading title though...
- JoeNaguib, on 11/09/2009, -25/+36ONE republican voted yes?
Good to see at least one of them has a brain. - govsucks, on 11/08/2009, -25/+35Ask not "for whom the bell tolls". It tolls for thee.
- PlasticHotDog, on 11/09/2009, -3/+13I read everything he posted. If that's the part of the constitution that's supposed to specify this bill as being illegal, then his argument is pretty weak.
- pintomp3, on 11/09/2009, -5/+14PAVE YOUR OWN ***** ROADS
- RatatRatR, on 11/09/2009, -4/+12PUT OUT YOUR OWN ***** FIRES
- Dregganaut, on 11/09/2009, -4/+12Like you ever paid for anything yourself you overpriveliged schlub.
- mac888, on 11/09/2009, -15/+23good for us.
- scythefwd, on 11/09/2009, -1/+9Bush did mess up the economy... but wall street crashing just coincided with Bush's watch, not because of it. Hell, most of the deregulation of the mortgage industry that lead to the crash was put into motion during Clinton's watch. Bush did not help the economy, and he did drive us into debt but lets be honest with ourselves here and blame both parties... not just our favorite scapegoat. And how does the President have any control over wall street? He can't sign into law that which never appears before him. Blame Congress, as they are the ones flushing this country down the drain.
- NasserInASaucer, on 11/09/2009, -7/+15I am against this bill because it does too little. They sold out to the insurance companies and forced people to buy insurance or risk penalties. So the evil, death mongering, insurance companies just got a bill that guarantees them more customers?
Call it socialism if you want, but the only answer in my book is to completely eliminate the insurance industry. Single payer system. No middle man. No one profiting off death.
Look at how the stocks of insurance companies are doing after this announcement. They are laughing their asses off at our expense.
Read Dennis Kucinich's (Dem) statement on why he voted No. - sulthernao, on 11/09/2009, -5/+13Bayh won't filibuster if he want to get reelected. Lieberman is a ***** who knows that his political career is over so electoral rationality does not work on him. He's trying to suck up to the insurance company as much as he can so get a cushy job once his term is over.
The senate version is different, something will pass from the Senate even if we have to add a opt-out compromise and remove the anti-trust provision. Then it is going to conference where it will be merged with the house bill. So even if the senate bill is ***** we can make it better in conference.
As long as we manage to get Lieberman not to filibuster we should be able to move forward. - novenator, on 11/09/2009, -7/+15Let them filibuster, and don't back down, prepare for a 36 hour session. Yes, the Dems do not have the votes to end a filibuster, but at least make them do it and don't adjourn. Let the American people know in no uncertain terms that the Republicans and some conservative Democrats are standing against reforming our nations failed health care system. Then when their premiums go up next year 10%, they will know who to blame.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 11/09/2009, -4/+12Congress does have this authority as granted by the general welfare clause.
This authority was granted in 1937 when conservatives challenged the constitutionality of the social security act in Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937).
Please inform yourself. Being a constitutional expert involves a lot more than reading a 6 page document.
There are 27 amendments and 200 years worth of supreme court rulings that have molded the constitution to apply to modern times. And as stated above the Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937) ruling makes a nationwide healthcare plan 100% constitutional. In order for it to be unconstitutional the supreme court would have to repeal that ruling. And since doing so would end social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid and all other social programs I wouldn't hold my breath. - NoLibertarians, on 11/09/2009, -4/+11A good start. Something in writing with some support that can be debated, improved upon and put into law.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/09/2009, -1/+8You do realize that's $1.1 over TEN YEARS and that GDP is annual, right?
Over the next ten years, I'll probably spend close to my entire yearly income on food, but that doesn't say much about my spending habits, now does it? - joculator, on 11/09/2009, -5/+12So....you pay cash for health care services now?
- deathandtaverns, on 11/09/2009, -3/+10The full quote is
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."
It's from John Donne's "Devotions upon Emergent Occasions." So given your post history, I don't think that quote means what you think it means. - TheTaoOfBill, on 11/09/2009, -7/+13Libertarians don't understand what the constitution is. They think just because they read a 6 page document they are experts on the constitution when in reality they couldn't be more ignorant on the matter. That's why they are getting buried. Pure ignorance.
- NoLibertarians, on 11/09/2009, -2/+8I don't see that causing a dip. For starters this is not law. And as in all cases it will hurt some companies and it will benefit other companies. Providing health care coverage for employees will make these companies more attractive to people seeking employment. Most everyone I know wouldn't touch a job without great benefits. Only exception would be if their spouse had a a job with great benefits. Even then it's great to know you have that option in case you spouse wants to change jobs or take quit working for a period of time for anyone of a million reasons
- Mercedes383, on 11/09/2009, -3/+9I fear you have no idea what commie means, my retarded little friend.
- praderwilli, on 11/09/2009, -1/+6Never make it pass the senate.
- AgeofMastery, on 11/09/2009, -12/+17Butthurt^^
- scythefwd, on 11/09/2009, -3/+8Why should anyone be treated preferentially based on status? Ohh... I was born this color... I get preferential treatment!!! If you really want to get rid of racism..., you have to stop acknowledging race all together. To give preferential treatment to someone based soley on race is the exact same thing that gets protested as racism when it is done for the majority. To say that one group can do this because they don't have as many people in the area but the other can't do the exact same thing because they have a lot of people in the area is nothing short of hypocrisy.
- askantik, on 11/09/2009, -0/+5I do, that's why I opposed this bill. 90 co-sponsors and HR 676 wasn't even discussed on the House Floor. Not even for a second. ***** despicable.
- zoomer123, on 11/09/2009, -6/+11Oh great. Now you get to SAVE SOMEONE'S LIFE. No, you're not going to have to pay for someones house or car because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH LIFE.
This woman's life was in a toilet. Not yours.
http://digg.com/politics/Florida_Woman_s_Rape_Call ... - TheTaoOfBill, on 11/09/2009, -0/+5The general welfare clause applies to congress and it is you who is ignoring it.
The general welfare clause isn't meaningless. It gives congress the power to address any financial crisis that affects the nation as a whole. - NoLibertarians, on 11/09/2009, -3/+8Just curious, why are you expecting a dip?
- zoomer123, on 11/09/2009, -5/+10Democrats don't always agree with their own party. But republicans all follow each other like mindless zombies.
You make me sick. - pagno, on 11/09/2009, -6/+11God I hate siding with conservatives on this, but ***** this bill. How, exactly, is it a good thing that I am required to have insurance, mandated to buy into a broken system? Im a smoker, and in college, so there is no ***** way I can afford insurance. This is nothing but a handout to the insurance and pharma industries. Maybe Alex Jones is right...
http://www.infowars.com - gadgetlust, on 11/09/2009, -2/+6Well Donne.
- askantik, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4You don't have to side with conservatives. Most of the Dems that voted for this aren't "liberal" any way, they are moderates or center-right by world standards.
Dennis Kucinich gave a good but lengthy response for not supporting it. I find that this one works better though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system#Cr ... - askantik, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4Amen Nasser.
SpeedSteamBoat, it's not about totally eliminating the choice of private insurance... but the Congressional Budget Office says that under the newly passed HR, a government-sponsored option will be available and it's expected to be "roughly 10% less expensive than a comparable private plan." Oh, wow! Because 10% off way too much is still... way too much.
Some people say that the recently passed bill is a "step in the right direction" towards single-payer, but I just don't know if I feel that way. It's ***** retarded that single-payer isn't an issue being discussed front and center in this push for healthcare reform. The House didn't even discuss it, despite HR 676 having 90 co-sponsors. Meh. Save money, provide better care, and cover more people... :/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system#Cr ... - SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/09/2009, -1/+5Define "broke" in terms of the a federal government program.
People talk about it a lot, but last I checked we've never had a government service actually cease being able to provide services due to lack of funds and running massive deficits is essentially standard operating procedure in Washington.
When is it, exactly, that a program like Social Security or Medicare is officially considered "broke" and ceases to function? - SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/09/2009, -3/+7@lackyB: I like the part where you honestly seem believe you have any clue what you are talking about when actually you don't.
This is no more "socialist" than your fire department, interstate highway system, municipal power company, public utilities, post office, or any of the other government run agencies you likely take advantage of every day without even thinking twice about "communism." In fact, it's a lot LESS socialist than all of those things, since it's largely just a regulation overhaul. We're (unfortunately) not even getting a single payer system!
Your criticism is misplaced, and your projection concerning the fate of this bill in the senate is largely wishful thinking. You see, this bill will change in the senate, and then it will pass. Afterward, that altered bill will be merged with this one, at which point many concessions, whatever they are, can by added back in.
Make no mistake, this bill is VERY similar to what will soon be law. - noctu, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4the diggland democrats don't want a single payer system?
- Phy6, on 11/09/2009, -1/+5improved upon? kinda like that patriot act right?
- nullcodes, on 11/09/2009, -14/+18But was this was an exercise in wasting time? If Obama didn't know for sure that he can get the 60 votes (or at least "I won't filibusters") in Senate .. why bother with this?
This is looking like a waste of time .. i don't get the point of it!! Lieberman has said he will filibuster this. Evan Bayh might do so also ... So that means he needs two Republicans. Where the hell is he gonna get that ? Olympia Snowe said she's going to join in a filibuster and I assume her colleague Collins would too .. so then how the hell is Obama gonna get 60 people who won't filibuster this?
Obama .. or rather you folks who wnat reform.. need to make sure Evan Bayh doesn't join with repubs and filibuster. While at the same time convinve Collins and maybe Snowe that they need to support it.
If health care reform fizzles and fails .. the democrats will get ***** in 2010 ..and then that'll increase the chance of Obama losing in 2012. It's a bad idea to introduce legislature destined for failure. - Kaegro, on 11/09/2009, -3/+7And what have the Repugs done that's so awesome?
- zsavior, on 11/09/2009, -1/+5After seeing what it is in the Bill I don't hate it. My biggest problem is this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V4r37peiuw&fea ...
Health Insurance has no competition now, everybody knows this EVERYBODY. As it is these people are turning in record profits in a recession. Listen to what Graham says, "It will Destroy Private choice" Sen Graham doesn't give a good damn about a good health care bill he cares about getting the insurance companies as much money as they want. This is why not one republican ever complains about the fact that the bill forces people to take insurance from the private sector, they don't care that it is a win in the billions for Health Insurance companies.
But if that win comes at the cost of the Health Insurance companies actually having to give service they don't want that. Basically what I am seeing is republicans saying either gives health Insurances companies all the power OR keep things the way they are now. That scares the hell out of me, the fact that a Senate bill may pass that gives Pharmaceutical and Health Insurance companies MORE money with no way to make sure they do their job. - sugarhigh4242, on 11/09/2009, -13/+16This is a bad bill.
The few good things it accomplishes (medicare can negotiate drugs again!), are offset by major concessions to the insurance industry.
It was already doing more bad than good, and then that bastard Stupak tacked on an amendment requiring that abortion isn't covered on low-income "Exchange" plans, including the private ones.
I would encourage my left-thinking brothers and sisters to oppose this "reform". - scythefwd, on 11/09/2009, -1/+4Did Clinton have the right to desk veto? Did the bills that passed pass with a veto proof majority? Oops.
- pagno, on 11/09/2009, -0/+3All it takes is an act of Congress...........
- Moralogic, on 11/09/2009, -0/+3Most of which is being paid by funding rearrangement, including putting projects up for bid that Bush just gave to friends with insanely high bids.
- RatatRatR, on 11/09/2009, -0/+3Yes, how dare you not support my attempts to just end the conversation by randomly quoting parts of the constitution!
- Samueul, on 11/09/2009, -1/+4The legislation is already dead in the Senate... This bill is going nowhere.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 200 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is