HillaryCare is back!

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster
Clinton AP Interview

This is interesting...

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview ? like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

My college required me to show proof of insurance or buy their insurance in order to attend.
It's nothing new, nor is it a bad idea. But of course just because she could envision it happening, doesn't mean she herself is proposing it.

your college isn't the Federal government.

She isn't just proposing it, she will work to make it happen. Get more people dependant on the Federal government. Use class warfare or race warfare to make it happen is the left's motto.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Do you really like the idea of John Edwards telling you when you must get that colonoscopy?

I like the idea that it would be provided when the doc recommends it. There's a history of colon cancer in my family. I already had one, and I'll get another one as part of my next physical. It beats the hell out of dying.

Originally posted by: Shivetya
What a silly question to ask of a liberal!

You should try it. It may even help you find your head. :laugh:

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am really in shock at what I am reading on here.

The same people who claim that the government listening in on phone calls between suspected terrorists is a violation of our civil liberties have no problem at all with the government FORCING us to have healthcare insurance against our wills.

You can easily argue it's like auto insurance; it's a privilege to drive much like it's a privilege to be a U.S. citizen. Pretty simple argument that escapes you.

Nonetheless, national healthcare will come in our lifetimes. You'll also continue to be wrong about things, everything, year after year. And it'll be sad to watch, especially when you justify the failure of the surge a year from now.

Ha comparing driving which is a voluntary action with being a citizens where most of us were born into it. I think the simple analogy you bring up has nothing to do with the situation.

So when national healthcare arrives and fails like every govt program under the sun. Will you be back here admitting what a naive baffoon you were to believe the politicians?

Every gov't program under the sun fails? They why are you not calling for the dissolution of the EPA, FBI, CIA, NSA, SEC, FTC, etc.? :roll:

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: dmcowen674That does not mean 43 million without health care while the rich have it.

I'm glad that you guys are burning yourselves at the stake using my questions.

This is awesome :thumbsup: :laugh:

Actually many of the rich are counted among this 43 million.

Many HEALTHY people who don't want to spend money on something they don't need now are part of that 43 million.


so you would force taking money from people for something they do not want or need? So UHC is going to be like Social Security, taking money under the promise of some future benefit?


Can't wait to see that trust box.

LMAO!! You're retarded. I can't believe someone just posted that.

 

[ProfJohn]

Leave it to Harvey to bring Bush into a thread about Hillary's healthcare plan.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Leave it to Harvey to bring Bush into a thread about Hillary's healthcare plan.

Naturally. BDS is a terrible disease.

 

[randym431]

People were fooled the first time around. Since then many have lost the wonderful American health care system. No job = no healthcare. And more so now a days, job not = healthcare.
AND dont be fooled by the term "socialized medicine". Medicare is "socialized medicine", VA is "socialized medicine", congress enjoys their own type of "socialized medicine".
Old GW has his anal probed via "socialized medicine".

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I've reviewed the plan on her website. There are a lot of questions to be answered obviously, the devil is in the details. Overall I give it a C. It will come at the expense of higher taxes which I'm fundamentally against, I believe it should be funded by budget cuts somewhere else. We need some kind of first step to offer coverage to everyone and get people out of the ER. It's no "cure" but it will help with the symptoms of so many uninsured.

As far as the "forcing" folks to buy health insurance, it's simply a fee or tax the government is levying for the privilege of using public facilities. No different than mandating auto insurance to operate a car. I'm interested to see what the penalties would be for not carrying it. Obviously turning someone away from an ER to die is not an option...perhaps you just sock them with the bill, much like what is done today.

The bolded is an excellent thing to consider when looking at Hillary's plan, and one I didn't draw a comparison to when looking at it.

Along with the fact that medicare hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, its another huge argument against anyone claiming that what Hillary wants to do would be unconstitutional.

 

[Pabster]

Dick Morris mentioned today that Hillary's "plan" to provide insurance to the 47 million uninsured includes between 12 and 15 million illegals.

He also says that Hillary was the one who informed him in 1993 that government-run health insurance would require price controls. Price controls require rationing and being told no. She knew it then, and she knows it now.

Hillary says the sick should not have their health insurance premiums increase. Guess what, then? The "well" get to pay it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Dick Morris mentioned today that Hillary's "plan" to provide insurance to the 47 million uninsured includes between 12 and 15 million illegals.

He also says that Hillary was the one who informed him in 1993 that government-run health insurance would require price controls. Price controls require rationing and being told no. She knew it then, and she knows it now.

Hillary says the sick should not have their health insurance premiums increase. Guess what, then? The "well" get to pay it.

I guess if the Dems get the White House in 08 it will be a carryon of GWB's lack of security for this country. I honestly think I would vote for Jessie Jackson if he could get two things done: recind the Patriot Act and close our fugging borders.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am really in shock at what I am reading on here.

The same people who claim that the government listening in on phone calls between suspected terrorists is a violation of our civil liberties have no problem at all with the government FORCING us to have healthcare insurance against our wills.

You can easily argue it's like auto insurance; it's a privilege to drive much like it's a privilege to be a U.S. citizen. Pretty simple argument that escapes you.

Nonetheless, national healthcare will come in our lifetimes. You'll also continue to be wrong about things, everything, year after year. And it'll be sad to watch, especially when you justify the failure of the surge a year from now.

Ha comparing driving which is a voluntary action with being a citizens where most of us were born into it. I think the simple analogy you bring up has nothing to do with the situation.

So when national healthcare arrives and fails like every govt program under the sun. Will you be back here admitting what a naive baffoon you were to believe the politicians?

Every gov't program under the sun fails? They why are you not calling for the dissolution of the EPA, FBI, CIA, NSA, SEC, FTC, etc.? :roll:

EPA-Regulatory body
FBI-Enforcement agency
NSA-Domestic Spy Agency - Failed us 9-11
SEC- Regulatory body
FTC- Regulatory body

I think you failed to grasp what I meant by "program".

But dont let that stop you from answering the question. When this program fails will you come back and admit what a naive baffoon you are?

 

[michaels]

Dick Morris was claiming today that what Hillary isn't telling is 10-12 million of these "American's" who will get health care are illegal crimmigrants, and millions more are American's who qualify for medicad but have not applied.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: michaels
Dick Morris was claiming today that what Hillary isn't telling is 10-12 million of these "American's" who will get health care are illegal crimmigrants, and millions more are American's who qualify for medicad but have not applied.

If true, so what? We are paying for these folks via ER visits already. An easy to use national health insurance program would allow folks to seek cheaper forms of care.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Genx87

But dont let that stop you from answering the question. When this program fails will you come back and admit what a naive baffoon you are?

If this program fails it will likely be because ideologically driven politicians will want it to fail. The standard tactics are to slap ridiculous regulations on a program or underfund a program and then scream "Look, see, it doesn't work!"

 

[michaels]

So what? It doesn't matter if we are, the point is we shouldn't be.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am really in shock at what I am reading on here.

The same people who claim that the government listening in on phone calls between suspected terrorists is a violation of our civil liberties have no problem at all with the government FORCING us to have healthcare insurance against our wills.

You can easily argue it's like auto insurance; it's a privilege to drive much like it's a privilege to be a U.S. citizen. Pretty simple argument that escapes you.

Nonetheless, national healthcare will come in our lifetimes. You'll also continue to be wrong about things, everything, year after year. And it'll be sad to watch, especially when you justify the failure of the surge a year from now.

Ha comparing driving which is a voluntary action with being a citizens where most of us were born into it. I think the simple analogy you bring up has nothing to do with the situation.

So when national healthcare arrives and fails like every govt program under the sun. Will you be back here admitting what a naive baffoon you were to believe the politicians?

Every gov't program under the sun fails? They why are you not calling for the dissolution of the EPA, FBI, CIA, NSA, SEC, FTC, etc.? :roll:

EPA-Regulatory body
FBI-Enforcement agency
NSA-Domestic Spy Agency - Failed us 9-11
SEC- Regulatory body
FTC- Regulatory body

I think you failed to grasp what I meant by "program".

But dont let that stop you from answering the question. When this program fails will you come back and admit what a naive baffoon you are?

You didn't say social programs, you just said programs. Be more clear next time.

Though, please enlighten us as to what fundamental differences makes regulatory/intelligence gov't agencies so vastly more successful than social programs run by gov't agencies? Because frankly, to suggest the U.S. can't provide for their own citizens adequately, yet they can defend the country against dozens of enemies and terrorists organization is, well, a little loony. And I'm someone who believes very strongly in a scaled back federal gov't, and am strongly in favor of local and state municipalities being given more control.

Btw, the NSA did not "fail on 9/11", mostly because that agency isn't even tasked with the most important priorities when it comes to counterintelligence operations. The NSA is primarily a cutting edge cryptological and IT intelligence agency that picks up foreign chatter; it does NOT analyze or synthesize the validity of intel for the president and his advisers to look at, that's the CIA's job. Besides, neither agency "failed us" on 9/11; the CIA came out with an intelligence report entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.", among others, well in advance of 9/11. It was more a failure on the administration's part in not taking it seriously enough; though they only share a part (and not all) of the blame.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: michaels
So what? It doesn't matter if we are, the point is we shouldn't be.

Exactly.

Don't worry, I'm quite sure this isn't the only thing Billary has forgotten to mention.