What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
60 Comments
- inactive, on 11/08/2009, -2/+26There's been a lot of bitching about people being forced to buy healthcare, but lets be honest.
Everyone that gets in an emergency that does not have insurance is still going to go to the emergency room.
By not buying insurance, you are passing the costs onto those who have insurance. - AWBoy666, on 11/08/2009, -5/+22Live? This all happened yesterday.......
- debtman7, on 11/08/2009, -3/+19I've made this point hundreds of times and the opponents never seem to get it...
Them: "I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's healthcare."
Me: "Do you have insurance?"
Them: "Damn right I do, and I worked hard and earned it."
Me: "You're already paying for someone else's healthcare. In fact, that's how insurance works. They take your money, pool it with other's, and dole it out to other people for their healthcare. And don't forget the cut that goes to cover the costs of all those uninsured people who show up at the ER."
Them: "Uh, the government has no right to force me to do this at the barrel of a gun."
Me: "whatever." - debtman7, on 11/08/2009, -2/+14Ah you know me so well.
1) Elective? Sure it's elective. Uh, assuming you are either really wealthy, or just plan to crawl in a hole and die if you get sick.
2) People that don't pay don't receive benefits? Really? REALLY? When is the last time you saw an ER turn away a person because they didn't pay into the system?
That's my whole point. EVERYONE gets benefits currently. Those who aren't insured or can't afford to pay out of pocket get the most expensive and inefficient care possible (i.e. emergency care). These people also clog up the ER and make those folks who have actual emergencies have to wait. Not to mention, most of those people would be much better served (i.e. cheaper and with less burden to the system) by seeing a doctor before it becomes an emergency.
In my view, if we already have a system where everyone gets benefits, then it's much better to ensure that everyone pays into it and that those benefits are served out in a more efficient way. And yes, granted, not everyone will pay into the system and those who can't afford to will be covered by those who can. As I see it, this isn't any different than what happens now, with the exception of those who can't afford it will have alternatives other than showing up at the local ER, which I think benefits everyone.
In my view the other alternative is just to tell people if they are sick and can't afford care, tough luck, and stop allowing ER access for all.
As for your second quote, uh, got me there. Indeed, you break the law you'll probably eventually be arrested. And? - linkesslover, on 11/08/2009, -2/+12As usual, reactionaries resort to lying:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements ... - whatthefu, on 11/08/2009, -0/+7It was submitted yesterday.
- KaervekToo, on 11/08/2009, -0/+5o b n o x i o u s | headline
- uberduger, on 11/08/2009, -1/+6Reply button. It wasn't just a glitch in the Digg matrix, it was put there for a reason.
(Sorry, I'm feeling pretty buzzkill today.) - linkesslover, on 11/08/2009, -1/+5Nice, edit "will go to prison" to "will be considered a felony."
- N01SE, on 11/08/2009, -0/+4You can see 30-40 years into the future, that is amazing.
- inactive, on 11/08/2009, -3/+7The bill wasn't put online 72 hours in advance, Pelosi and Obama are LIARS, there is no transparency in this administration.
- tresbizarre, on 11/08/2009, -0/+4That's right, because tax rates are never adjusted.
- nmessick, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4yea, seems pretty certian that this bill is going to be found unconstitutional...
- carlosos, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3But you expect to get help from the emergency room without paying into the system?
I hate being forced to pay for your coverage WHILE YOU PAY NOTHING! - WasabiBomb, on 11/08/2009, -3/+6Nobody has a right to firefighting services. Nobody has a right to law enforcement. Nobody seems to mind that those are taken care of by the government.
But for some reason, healthcare is OMG SOCIALISMS. - debtman7, on 11/08/2009, -1/+4The logic to it is that with our current healthcare system if you don't have insurance you cost other people money. You may complain about being FORCED to buy insurance, but if you forgo it then other people are FORCED to cover the cost of your care should something happen. How is that fair? I fall on the libertarian side of the fence. I don't thing the government should force people to do things that affect only themselves. However, I do feel that the government should prevent people from doing things that affect everyone else. With our current healthcare system, an individual who refuses to have insurance (and does not have deep pockets) is a burden on the rest of society. Given that, I have no problem with you being forced to pay for insurance as it means you are no longer a burden to others because of your decisions.
- piieerrrree, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a2 ...
hurr - mwrl, on 11/08/2009, -1/+3In Soviet Rus..... wait this is the US. WTF!!!
- CapnSlam, on 11/09/2009, -0/+2If people are as divided as they are about politics to begin with, wait until "free" medical procedures upstage the true functions of our federal government... as outlined by our Constitution
- Barackalypse, on 11/08/2009, -4/+6The Federal Government doesn't respond to 911 Fire or Police calls.
- AMD64MM, on 11/08/2009, -1/+3It's only a major tax on people who make over 500,000 a year, so you will be spared.
- SONYDVDR, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2lets get ready for Monday Night Debate!
- stuffradio, on 11/08/2009, -1/+3You know what? Here in Canada where we actually have Universal Health Care, my University has a Student Union Health plan. I have the option to opt out of the Student Union Health Care. There is no being forced into it.
So here you have USA where you don't have Health Insurance and have to pay, and you have Canada where you have universal health insurance and don't have to pay. - Barackalypse, on 11/08/2009, -2/+3And I just realized you meant this sarcastically, comment adjusted appropriately, although I did have to read to your second sentence to figure that out.
- budboomer, on 11/08/2009, -2/+3Did you even bother to read that?
- nullcodes, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1They had to either require health insurance or make it a a fine-able ofense to not seek treatment for infectious diseases and knowingly be a vector.
- Barackalypse, on 11/08/2009, -4/+5They were just barely able to ram it through, but it won't be so easy in the Senate, because now we can look at what it says and see all the insidious little abrogations of freedom in it.
- xtremesparx, on 11/08/2009, -1/+2I'd go as far as saying I AM sure he was being sarcastic.
- CapnSlam, on 11/09/2009, -1/+2forcing everyone into the failing Medicare program (that's what this bill is all about) would be massive government tyranny
thank God for people like me who will NEVER let that happen - Spindig, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1That politifact statement was in September.
In the bill that just was voted on (H.R. 3962), it "provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax."
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…”
“Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” - afewbravemen, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1The regulation was needed to make the insurance companies comply and bring uniformity too the system. The public option has a nice twist as if it is fully private or government controlled costs escalate and will run out of control. One for profit the other lets just say incompetence.
On students maybe a public option is needed on that. - nullcodes, on 11/08/2009, -1/+1That's just so they can make failure to take reasonable steps to prevent yourself from spreading infectious disease a misdemeanor.
- strangewill, on 11/08/2009, -1/+1And those who don't have insurance can't afford the cheaper upkeep health care, and end up going to expensive ER when the problem gets beyond simple management needs.
But you know, same group that math, finances, science, etc. have never been a strong point with. So I don't know why I'm trying to point out basic math again as if they'd learn it this time. - CapnSlam, on 11/08/2009, -2/+2Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. - PrestonLeigh, on 11/11/2009, -0/+0The President has pledged not to increase taxes for the middle class to fund reformed health care. His solution rests in taxing those earning over $250,000 and companies. This will only result in increased fees and reduced tax breaks for the middle class. In other words "what is your definition of a tax?"
- JackieIrish, on 11/09/2009, -2/+2Absolutely. Just like Medicare was found unconstitutional. Thank god we don't have that massive government tyranny anymore!
- WasabiBomb, on 11/08/2009, -2/+2So you'd be fine with government-provided insurance, as long as it was as the state level? Sure, I could live with that. Sadly, that's not what's being offered here, so we'll have to make do.
- nmessick, on 11/09/2009, -1/+1um... wrong. Its also a major tax on busineses, and will cause existing healthcare rates to go sky high once insurance companies can't turn people away, and are forced to cover all kinds of things they do not now. NOTHING thats being done lowers the cost of care... which is what we really should be focusing on.
- Latentk, on 11/08/2009, -3/+2So so true...
- airwalke, on 11/08/2009, -4/+3I'm almost sure he was being sarcastic.
- rgemmell, on 11/08/2009, -4/+3I welcome regulation on insurance companies for denying coverage
I can accept a public option
As much as I hate it, I can deal with insurance companies being forced to cover everything under the sun instead of letting me get a simple plan that just covers accidents and cancer and such
What I refuse to accept is being FORCED to buy health insurance. I go to college and the school has a policy that says if you dont own health insurance you have to pay for it though the school. There is no logic to this other then to drain more money from the poor to give to the insurance companies.
Hmmmm... You know who dosent have enough money for healthcare...STUDENTS, they are are future, we need to do something about this.
Durrr....I got idea!!! Lets jack up there tuition even higher if they dont have enough money for health insurance....eye R Smart!!! - heavyj1970, on 11/08/2009, -2/+1I guess I did miss it, nice ANALogy genitalben
- rgemmell, on 11/08/2009, -2/+1Well I would trust state level a hell of alot more then federal.
The original blueprints for America were to concentrate power away from the federal level, basically let them deal with war and money.
(10th amendment, and Article one of the constitution outlines a basic list of powers for congress,) - nullcodes, on 11/08/2009, -4/+3Why did they pass this bill knowing that it would get killed in the Senate .. Lieberman is gonna filibuster maybe eveb Evan Bayh.. and Snowe prolly will too. So unless Obama knows for sure that Evan Bayh won't filibuster and that Snowe won;t either.. this whole thing was a waste of time exercise. On your dime.
- energyx, on 11/08/2009, -6/+5I think it's good that everyone gets health care but the govt is still going to ***** it up somehow
- inactive, on 11/08/2009, -2/+0I make it a point to bury (as spam) every website that starts offhte title of a submission with their site name.
- inactive, on 11/08/2009, -3/+1I don't think I'd trust a federally operated fire dept either.
The fed is supposed to do the military and the courts. Nothing more. - Bearasaurass, on 11/08/2009, -6/+4That's an issue with your school, not the insurance companies. Why should I have to pay for your eye surgery when I have 20/20 vision? Why not treat health insurance like car insurance. You choose what kind of coverage you need. I am a student and I don't have health insurance. However, that, in no way, makes this bill any more lucrative to me. Government intervention is going to do much more harm then good. When the government intervened in Canada drug research dropped by 50%. The drug companies were forced to drop their prices which no longer made that business profitable, so they quit. If that were to happen in the U.S. the entire world would feel the aftermath. The United States produces more drugs then any other country. Could you imagine if that decreased by 50%?
-
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is