Hillary wants her health care program to be mandatory..so much so that she would be willing to use the strong arm of the government to enforce individuals who don't sign up for it. I spend nearly three hundred a month on insurance and know that something must be done, but I am not in favor of the government choosing my health care coverage. My state was the model for her first health care plan, and it was a complete failure. It started out as a program to help the poor and disabled, but turned into a huge entitlement that had 1/4 of the state's residents as enrollees and cost 1/3 of the state's budget. One problem with any government health care program is equal access. My health care plan has exceptions but the government won't be able to differentiate from a cancer patient or an AIDS patient or even an ED patient. That is what happened here..lawsuits were filed and the plan had to pay for expensive(sometimes experimental) treatments and it eventually had to be dismantled as the expensive meds were too much of a tax burden. So by paying so much for a few people's meds, millions lost their coverage. This is the evolution of all government programs..they never get any smaller.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_31
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Thomas Jefferson
Instead of making our for-profit system mandatory(which helps solve the problem of healthy people not contributing to our healthcare system), we should just institute a government run healthcare plan.
Yeah, its government, but its funded by taxes, and everyone gets access to it. This would be a huge improvement, I'd think, to our current system where the disabled already get free healthcare(paid for by taxes) that turns away healthy people(until their medical problems result in them being disabled).
Or we could just implement a socio-darwinistic approach, stop funding healthcare to the disabled, allow hospitals to refuse treatment of people who cannot pay, and just let people who can't afford healthcare to either rely on private charity, or just die in a gutter someplace.
I think I'd prefer the earlier, but the latter one is good too. Makes for a more honest system in a country where shitheads like to quote founding fathers in response to modern problems.
So everyone would pay equally for their healthcare? or would the 50% of the taxpayers who are paying 97% of the taxes already have to foot the bill for their coverage also..read the Constitution..you do not have a right to free health care
The last time I looked at the Constitution, cradle to grave health care was not mentioned. If we were to implement this plan would everyone pay equal premiums or would the 50% of taxpayers who are already paying over 97% of all taxes get to foot the bill for this one also?..be very careful of the freedoms you wish to give up for a little security..since you like founding fathers quotes so much here is another one.
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
Benjamin Franklin
Blisspath wrote:So everyone would pay equally for their healthcare? or would the 50% of the taxpayers who are paying 97% of the taxes already have to foot the bill for their coverage also..read the Constitution..you do not have a right to free health care
We don't have a right to free healthcare, you are right. But people still get it. People who don't(and most likely can't) pay into it, all on the tax payers dime. As well as people who get into accidents or other medical emergencies, and don't have insurance.
The government is already paying for it right now, and its paying out on the least productive members of society.
Tell me you at least agree that the government shouldn't be compelled to pay for the disabled/elderlys healthcare, nor force hospitals to treat people in emergencies who can't pay. Then you'll at least be intellectually honest.
Relying on the consitution to provide answers, however, to modern problems is still ridiculous in my opinion.
The Constitution is the the law of the land and is a living breathing document, without it we have a lawless society. I do believe in using tax dollars to help the disabled and I am for a limited welfare system. There should be a safety net to help people who have fallen on hard times; however I think that it should be time limited to say five years of a person's life in which they can receive benefits..after all you can get a degree in four years and be self sufficient. The problem with the modern entitlement system is that it has become a way of life for a large percentage of the population. The Jefferson quote was accurate in today's time in that many want more and more from the government..but entitlements destroy ambition and create dependence on the government. When most people are saying that they want universal health care what they are really saying is "I want another taxpayer to pay for their coverage and mine too" Those that are asking for taxpayer funded health care today may be asking for taxpayer funded cars tomorrow..this is the natural procession that Jefferson warned us about. We need to pay attention to history or we may be doomed to repeat other's mistakes. Socialist and communist governments have failed everywhere that they are tried. Can you name one successful socialist country or any country that has taxed itself into prosperity? Hillary talks of "making the rich pay their fair share" but she is being dishonest in this statement because the top 10% already pay more than the bottom 90%. I have been poor and worked two jobs to put myself through college..my reward? I became one of the "winners of life's lottery" and pay 36% of my income to the government. I am for limited government not because I am greedy but because I see them waste so much of our taxes. I donate time in one of our local free clinics and I give to the United Way and the charities that I feel do a good job with my money. Congress, however uses our tax dollars to pay back their political contributers through earmarks. So you don't like the founding fathers? Here are some quotes from the modern law office of Churchill, Sowell, and Bovary.
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
Winston Churchill
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Winston Churchill
"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to �help�."
Thomas Sowell
"One of the consequences of such notions as "entitlements" is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence."
Thomas Sowell
Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
I quoted Jefferson because he along with the other Founding Fathers were students of history and knew about the past failures. History has also proven Jefferson right..government has grown way past what the original creators ever intended Government is government whether it is for 2 or 300 million people. What modern days solutions have you seen from Hillary? She wants to raise taxes and implement a system that has already been tried and failed miserably.
Here is a link to what happened with TNcare.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/10/tenncare_what_happened/
But the solutions talked about now have already been tried in Tennessee.
Hillarycare=TNcare=miserable failure
Here are some of the problems from the ten years of the program
1)lawsuits because of equal access restrictions
2)Tennessee became the number one state for people addicted to narcotics because of easy access.
3)The program grew to over 40% of the total budget of the state despite promises of savings.
4)insurance companies dropped out of the program because of slow reimbursements
5)we have a huge illegal alien population problem because of our free healthcare approach
The only way to make a universal health care plan work and save money would be to set strict guidelines about ER visits and because many DRs and other health care professionals would not want to go to school for eight years if the pay was drastically reduced and the work hours extended, there would have to be waiting times for elective procedures. I believe the current wait time for a MRI is six months in Canada and hip replacement surgeries are up to two years in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TennCare
If people want to play politics with health care, they need to at least restrict it to the state level. Companies in Nevada want nothing to do with New York's antics, and neither do I.
"Using quotations for facts is foolish." -Unknown
"Free health care is bad." - Unknown
"Chocolate is better than vanilla." -Unknown
How do those quotes that I made up on the spot back up anything at all? They don't... so why should somebody else's make any more sense?
Regardless, Daarkseid's first post hit the nail on the head. That's all for now.
OK..so no quotes this time. It doesn't change the fact that her plan has been tried and it failed..Universal health care is failing everywhere. Google some of the problems that Canada and the UK are having right now with their systems..OK just one more quote "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and hoping for different results"
The quotes!!!! (Actually, I like that quote.)
Anyway, I also agree with you. The "Hillarycare" will indeed fail. I just hope she doesn't get elected to president (or Obama, since the rumor is that he'll make Clinton vice president if he wins, and that's too much Clinton power to me). GOP FTW!
Pineconn wrote:GOP FTW!
You just lost all respect from me.
Clinton forever.
Fuck Hillary. The only possible good that could come from her being president would be if she put Bill in charge of foreign affairs.
Glitch wrote:Fuck Hillary. The only possible good that could come from her being president would be if she put Bill in charge of foreign affairs.
Yeah, I'm all for Obama over here. Hopefully he gets the nomination, otherwise this presidential election is going to have almost as much of a bitter outcome as the last.
For the record, I dislike Hillary's plan because of garnishing worker's wages. I don't even know why this is all being brought up here though, our forum last I checked supported Obama.
From reading this thread, I learned that chocolate is better than vanilla.
Also, did you join AGN just to talk about this, Blisspath? Not saying its bad, its just kinda weird to me.
Maybe it's me. I like Paul.
Also, if it comes down to Hillary or Obama, I get a better vibe from Obama.
ctrl-alt-delete wrote:Clinton forever.
You just permanently lost all respect from me. In this thread. 😛
I can't possibly fathom how one can believe Clinton will be a good president. She's just self-important and na�ve.
Our health care system is broken. I'll be damned if I know how to fix it, but when insurance is so fucking expensive and so many people go without adequate medical care, you know something is wrong.
Also, about the Ron Paul invasion, he seems to have a large presence on the internet, mainly because he has a small group of ridiculously fanatical supporters who bring him up at every opportunity and try to get him top-rated on social networking sites. The problem is that he has no grasp of economics (evidenced by his support of the gold standard), and his former support base (before the whole internet thing) used to be crazy white supremacist militia groups, due to his views on conspiracies, minorities and homosexuals. Basically, he's an unelectable kook and his supporters are suckers. This article sums it up pretty nicely. Pay special attention to the comments section which basically consists of a thousand people sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "La La La, I can't hear you!"
Pineconn wrote:You just permanently lost all respect from me. In this thread. 😛I can't possibly fathom how one can believe Clinton will be a good president. She's just self-important and na�ve.
I can't possibly fathom how one can believe that self characteristics define who will be a good President...especially self characteristics that are no more than an opinion.
There are much more important issues when we are debating who would be a good President.
Besides, if anyone is naive, it is Obama. He has zero experience, and thinks he can just change the world "on day one!"
GOP? No more.
Obama? No experience...no trust.
Hillary ftw.
The government ignored the constitution in the first place, that is why we have a health care problem.
Socialist security and medicare are unconstitutional, which is exactly what has driven health care costs up.
They couldn't get social security passed as written, so how did they get it in?
They called it a TAX.
What did they do then?
They took all the money that was rung from taxpayers and put it in the general fund, and blew it on BS instead of investing it and getting a return on it.
Nobody in their right mind would have ever thought such a system would work in the first place.
SO... how are they dealing with it now?
They are importing workers from other countries to pay into it hoping they will return to their prospective countries without ever drawing anything back out, which is till just a bandaid for a failed system.
Between Clinton and Obama, the latter is less frightening. Hillary's politics are well known, and I say "Do not want!" Obama, on the other hand, is really unknown. He's stated his position on various issues, but with such a short career, it's hard to tell how much of it is coming straight out of his ass. There's this texture to him, in his statements and in his overall presentation, that makes me think of him as an amalgam of ideas, rather than a real person. I mean, who exactly the hell is this guy?
[SIZE="1"]There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there.[/SIZE]
mikeron wrote:Between Clinton and Obama, the latter is less frightening. Hillary's politics are well known, and I say "Do not want!" Obama, on the other hand, is really unknown. He's stated his position on various issues, but with such a short career, it's hard to tell how much of it is coming straight out of his ass. There's this texture to him, in his statements and in his overall presentation, that makes me think of him as an amalgam of ideas, rather than a real person. I mean, who exactly the hell is this guy?There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there.
I swear...he is the Anti-Christ. At least the closest thing I have ever seen that could be the Anti-Christ.
ctrl-alt-delete wrote:I swear...he is the Anti-Christ. At least the closest thing I have ever seen that could be the Anti-Christ.
We're at the 8th year, the tail end of the W. Bush presidency, and Obama's unexpected upset in the democratic primary, fueled almost entirely by grass-root support(that is, not machine politics), makes him the closest thing to the anti-christ?
Really..?
ctrl-alt-delete wrote:I swear...he is the Anti-Christ. At least the closest thing I have ever seen that could be the Anti-Christ.
this has to be a fakepost, because if not hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooly shit lol