What is Digg?504 Comments
- copywriteink, on 11/08/2009, -13/+455Regardless of political parties, it would be a disaster if all representatives voted along party lines. That would mean they are no longer representing the interests of the people who elect them but rather the interests of their party.
- HeDiggMe, on 11/08/2009, -4/+256Hadn't been following closely but was surprised to see Kucinich on there. Guess he thought the bill was too weak?
- reelskamachine, on 11/08/2009, -51/+246I don't see why we have to point out who voted against it. This list is basically saying "These people don't think the way we do, lets out them for it." Go ahead and bury me, but you know I'm right.
- Berkana, on 11/08/2009, -61/+233It is disingenuous and dishonest to call it a takeover. And if you're not being disingenous nor dishonest, you're being mislead. I suggest you actually read the bill, and look at the facts that led to this effort. I read the bill to fact-check a scare-letter e-mail a conservative friend of mine sent me. The bill is not the horrible thing Republicans claim it to be. You have to be willfully blind to conclude such a thing.
There are 700,000 bankruptcies per year due to medical expenses--half of personal bankruptcies in the US.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_is_the_ ...
Tens of thousands Americans die unnecessary deaths due to the lack of access to affordable health care.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/dying-from-lack-o ...
(Harvard estimates 45,000 preventable deaths due to lack of insurance *per year*.)
Thousands upon thousands of insurance premium paying clients have had their legitimate claims denied or their plans dropped for unconscionable reasons, while health insurance corporation executives take home multi-million dollar sallaries, a fraction of which could have saved many lives:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKI9be55N00
This bill brings long overdue consumer protections against abusive corporations who take advantage of sick people who have absolutely no leverage against them. The "free market" has been subverted by an oligopoly which hardly competes and only cares about the profit it brings its shareholders and administrators. Competition is what makes the market work for consumers. If public universities do not constitute a "take over" of the higher education system, don't you dare call this bill a take over. Just as public universities and colleges offer an affordable alternative to those who can't afford private universities, uninsured Americans ought to have access to affordable health care. If private enterprises don't rise to the task, it is unconscionable to fight tooth-and-nail to keep the government from meeting their needs. It is nonsensical for the Republicans to fight those who try to meet this need and claim to be "pro-life" or patriotic. Perhaps you'll understand if you're made to walk a mile in their shoes. - temujin1234, on 11/08/2009, -43/+212There are legitimate reasons to vote no. The section forcing people to buy insurance seems like one.
- rm249, on 11/08/2009, -1/+139Before I get buried here I just want to say that I am for reform and I am sick of all the ***** from the insurance companies, but Kucinich brings up some good points.
http://digg.com/health/Congressman_Dennis_Kucinich ...
“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system." - krahzee, on 11/08/2009, -18/+132The thing that does crack me up about Digg is the sense that those who disagree with the ideals of the Democratic Party are "bad people" who should be exposed, while those who stood against the Conservatives of the last regime were Patriots doing what they thought was right.
Why can't someone vote against a Democratic ideal and simply be a decent person with a difference in philosophy?
Why are they "evil" or "traitors to their constituents"?
People assume they must be voting on some sort of personal agenda. Maybe they saw details in this draft of the legislation that disturbed them enough to vote no ( forcing everyone to purchase healthcare, for example) , even if they agreed with the basic principle.
There are pro-choice, moderate, Republicans out there, why can't there be honest, decent Democrats who simply hold a fundamental belief that no person should be forced to purchase healthcare?
It's not always black and white, good and evil. Sometimes people just disagree...... - akhomestead, on 11/08/2009, -2/+111He votes no on a lot of things becaue they get hijacked by corporations. Dennis is very liberal, but he's one of the few honest politicians we have on both sides.
- novenator, on 11/08/2009, -31/+128From the uber annoying advertisement popup before the article:
" Hi, I'm Michelle Malkin.
I read Spectator.org.
It’s a GREAT resource for conservatives.
Spectator.org needs our support.
CLICK HERE and Donate "
That said, I will not support any candidate that works against health care reform. If they voted against it because it was too watered down of a compromise with the GOP goons who all voted against it anyways (save 1), then that's fine.
What is more curious is how many Republicans are going to lose their seats from their negative tactics and fighting against basic health care reform. I have a feeling many. - kolop1, on 11/08/2009, -38/+124Forcing people to pay for health care is not a win for the people. It's a win for the insurance companies. If you don't believe that, you are an idiot.
- jasoninoakland, on 11/08/2009, -13/+80With *very* few exceptions, that's already the case for the Republicans. They close ranks VERY quickly.
- ZenFountain, on 11/08/2009, -17/+81Kucinich waited until the bill had passed to vote no, as to not tarnish his holier than thou image. The majority of no votes were political, not ideological no votes to give congressmen in conservative districts cover next year. It would have been nice to see more unity on this historic vote but the reality is many of the no Democrats would have been crucified next year had they voted yes. I don't know whether that's selfish or pragmatic.
- HotLeper, on 11/08/2009, -22/+83buried for linking to a hate site
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/08/2009, -26/+86"health care takeover"
HAHA! I only WISH that's what it was.
Buried for suggesting our politicians are doing something more than half-assing the issue. - 08soso, on 11/08/2009, -16/+71So you don't have to click on the American Spectator --
1. Rep. John Adler (NJ)
2. Rep. Jason Altmire (PA)
3. Rep. Brian Baird (WA)
4. Rep. John Barrow (GA)
5. Rep. John Boccieri (OH)
6. Rep. Dan Boren (OK)
7. Rep. Rick Boucher (VA)
8. Rep. Allen Boyd (FL)
9. Rep. Bobby Bright (AL)
10. Rep. Ben Chandler (KT)
11. Rep. Travis Childers (MS)
12. Rep. Artur Davis (AL)
13. Rep. Lincoln Davis (TN)
14. Rep. Chet Edwards (TX)
15. Rep. Bart Gordon (TN)
16. Rep. Parker Griffith (AL)
17. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)
18. Rep. Tim Holden (PA)
19. Rep. Larry Kissell (NC)
20. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (FL)
21. Rep. Frank Kratovil (MD)
22. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH)
23. Rep. Jim Marshall (GA)
24. Rep. Betsy Markey (CO)
25. Rep. Eric Massa (NY)
26. Rep. Jim Matheson(UT)
27. Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC)
28. Rep. Michael McMahon (NY)
29. Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA)
30. Rep. Walt Minnick (ID)
31. Rep. Scott Murphy (NY)
32. Rep. Glenn Nye (VA)
33. Rep. Collin Peterson (MN)
34. Rep. Mike Ross (AR)
35. Rep. Heath Shuler (NC)
36. Rep. Ike Skelton (MO)
37. Rep. John Tanner (TN)
38. Rep. Gene Taylor (MS)
39. Rep. Harry Teague (NM) - ErrorLoading, on 11/08/2009, -8/+60Right because who cares what the people elected into office think? It's not like we elect them into office to represent OUR views or anything.
- AZRoboto, on 11/08/2009, -4/+50Is that really a bad thing though? You want a representative to, you know, represent the wishes of the constituents. If they were clamoring en masse "No no no" on this bill, of course he wouldn't vote for it, and he shouldn't.
- Grandpohbah, on 11/08/2009, -6/+51Some of those congressmen didn't vote against the health care reform, some of them voted against it because the bill was just watered down health care reform. I know that Dennis Kucinich believes so much in a single payer system that he couldn't vote for what was presented to him.
By no stretch of the imagination can you call Kucinich a foe of health care reform. - novenator, on 11/08/2009, -12/+51Have you read the bill Gondring?
The fact is this is NOT a take-over. It is regulation to stop such free-market practices as denying health insurance to victims of domestic abuse, women who take anti-HIV meds following a rape, and cops. The greedy health care corporations are unethical and unscrupulous in attaining their precious profit at the expense of peoples health. Shouldn't a nations health care systems focus on...ya know.. health?
The fact remains a few regulations and a very weak, watered down public option do not amount to any type of 'take over'. Now a fully socialized system, you just might have a point, although even that works far better than the failed system we use now. Just look at every other Western nation for ample examples of this. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaround ... - BREZZZ, on 11/08/2009, -5/+42... are running for re-election in a heavily contested district.
- VonBargenJL, on 11/08/2009, -4/+41exactly right bagelmaster! because poor people arent really people.
/s - gigi52, on 11/08/2009, -12/+49it is a choice to buy a car. it is a choice to buy house. this is not a choice.
- jstohler, on 11/08/2009, -24/+60Explain how the Constitution has been "betrayed."
- mpsnerdley, on 11/08/2009, -4/+38Good for Dennis! Kucinich for President 2012!
- kooredaan, on 11/08/2009, -8/+42I'm fine with Dems voting no, if that is how they felt, however I don't believe for one second that only 1 GOP member's constituents wanted this bill to pass.
- AgeofMastery, on 11/08/2009, -4/+36No bias on that site...
- Janinco, on 11/08/2009, -18/+49BB,
Strategic?
You are exactly right. THAT's the problem.
These representatives work for US! They are suppose to vote the way that the people elected them want them to, not the way Pelosi TELLS them to!
>>>We all know what they really would have done if they didn't have to worry about reelection.<<<
That is the problem with our representatives. It's about power, not about doing the will of the people. - rayray14, on 11/08/2009, -12/+42I've been forced to pay for health my whole adult life. I wouldn't do it any other way.
Rob,
Ontario, Canada - neognostic, on 11/08/2009, -30/+59If you drive a car, you must buy car insurance.
If you own a house with a mortgage, you must buy house insurance.
If you work, you must pay Social Security Insurance.
If you own a business you must pay Social Security Insurance.
If you won a business you must pay disability insurance.
I guess you just sit in your parents basement, no job, no car. - Dalisca, on 11/08/2009, -1/+28I love how the American Spectator thinks that the state abbreviation for Kentucky is "KT", not "KY". They made a mistake by hiring Ralph Wiggum as their editor.
- snowrail, on 11/08/2009, -0/+26Kucinich wants to eliminate the insurance companies, since they're the reason that American health care is the over-priced mess that it is... The current Democrat plan still empowers the insurance companies to continue siphoning off a high percentage of the money that should be going to doctors and medical care itself.
Edit: Sorry, just follow rm249's link below:
http://digg.com/health/Congressman_Dennis_Kucinich ... - MWeather, on 11/08/2009, -19/+45"They claim they are going to fund much of this by "eliminating fraud"...so why not do that NOW? "
Because it requires a bill to be passed, and the Republicans are being babies and blocking it. - rayray14, on 11/08/2009, -1/+27That's one thing I never understood about this new reform system. Why are you paying insurance companies anyways? Why not pay additional taxes and have the government take care of it?
- notsam7, on 11/08/2009, -2/+27@neognostic: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
- kartman2001, on 11/08/2009, -8/+33Yeah I get it, if you choose to buy a car/boat/yada yada you have to get insurance. So are you saying that if I choose to live i should have to buy insurance?
- CoreyRader, on 11/08/2009, -6/+29we don't want a hand that feeds us. we do not need a hand that feeds us.
- brainboy7777, on 11/08/2009, -1/+24There's a 1990 page pdf on it online. Go check CNN.
- Lleu, on 11/08/2009, -4/+26@Gongdring
You have no problem with the requirement to have car insurance to drive, right? Because it protects us against loss do to uninsured motorist. Well eventually everyone needs medical attention. If you go to the hospital without insurance and skip out on the bill, the cost of MY care goes up. So in essence this requirement will help drive costs down.
Sure, with car insurance you can just not drive. But with medical, you WILL get sick or injured and you WILL go to the hospital. We either tax the willingly uninsured to off set the costs of them using the facilities or we can deny access to the facilities, which would you prefer? - Apex3, on 11/08/2009, -2/+23Existing laws is not an argument for new laws.
- bbear, on 11/08/2009, -4/+25Something everyone can agree on?
http://www.indecisionforever.com/2009/10/15/jon-st ... - IrvineKinneas50, on 11/08/2009, -0/+211990 pages + PDF = disaster waiting to happen.
- niradg, on 11/08/2009, -19/+40no. more likely, you will qualify for fully subsidized healthcare.
now stop being a little bitch and biting the hand that feeds you. - kartman2001, on 11/08/2009, -12/+33Would people please stop using the analogy of having to buy health insurance, to car, home owners insurance, etc. You choose to buy a car which requires at least liability, many people in big cities choose not too own a vehicle. You choose to buy a house which requires homeowners, once again plenty of people rent. I should not have to buy anything, just by choosing to live.
- Akairenn, on 11/08/2009, -22/+41"If you drive a car, you must buy car insurance."
In most states.
"If you own a house with a mortgage, you must buy house insurance."
Because the bank, which owns your house, demands it. Banks are not the government, and more importantly, no one is forcing you to mortgage a home.
"If you work, you must pay Social Security Insurance.
If you own a business you must pay Social Security Insurance."
If your average citizen tries to do what social security is doing, they're put in jail faster than you can say 'Madoff'. Social security is a legalized scam, nothing more.
I am strongly of the opinion that social insecurity should be entirely opt in. I can manage my money better than the government, thanks. Still, you know what I see when I look at this country? I see nearly half the country is made up of retards screaming about Obama's birth certificate and socialism.
In the interest of not having to listen to the right piss and moan when I'm of retirement age, I'm willing to suffer the disaster of social security for as long as it manages to last. :P
"If you won a business you must pay disability insurance."
You also get hit up for insurance and social security, to boot. But taxing business is another matter than taxing citizens. - freshgrease, on 11/08/2009, -3/+22Dugg for objectivism.
- TheMu, on 11/08/2009, -6/+25@ChefGroovy
You sound like those internet/radio tough guys who think that "waterboarding" means "we gave them a bath." Riddle me this, dumbass: How many lives are saved when torture suspects give false information? - sulthernao, on 11/08/2009, -2/+20The vote was meant to be earlier (9:30), but Republicans kept delaying the vote. I was watching the entire thing.
- MWeather, on 11/08/2009, -17/+35"Name the location within the constitution that our federal government is given permission to force the entire population to buy its products."
Nobody is forcing anyone to buy anything from the government. You can buy it from whoever you want to buy it from. And the reason for that is that as of right now if you get sick and have no insurance, the hospital MUST treat you. Guess who foots the bill when you can't pay? The taxpayers, that's who.
Why should you get to gamble that you'll not get sick and cost the taxpayers money? Do you have a problem with personal responsibility and paying your own way? - pinchduck, on 11/08/2009, -5/+23Government is the hand that feeds you? Then you are a subsistence leach. I work for my money. I already buy my own health insurance. I am just alarmed that we were promised health care reform and part of that is punitive measures for someone who (like I did, in my 20's) decided I was health enough that I didn't want to spend the money on health insurance. This bill is a breath tax: If you are breathing, either you enrich the corrupt insurance companies or you get punished. ***** that.
- AgeofMastery, on 11/08/2009, -4/+21They had been debating it all day, should they have stopped short of the vote and come back on Monday?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 515 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is